may please the court my name is quinn denver federal defender from sacramento represent mr russell the district court gave two reasons for denying the motion to suppress evidence and we believe that neither one of them has merit the first was was that mr the theory was that mr russell had consented to the entry of the police officers and we think that that's just a misreading of what mr russell consented to he had on the telephone he had told the dispatchers he's shot himself in the foot he had asked for medical aid he said ultimately that he had crawled down to the front door and that he had opened the door carefully i think that the transcripts that you supplied of the nine one one tapes to the sacramento sheriff's and fire dispatchers indicated that there was some confusion as to exactly what had transpired at the scene of this incident is that right first your client gave a false name he was very very good about how he was shot who was present i mean it looked to me like there was a good deal of confusion on the part of the responding officers as to exactly what kind of trouble they were responding there may have been confusion by the particular  officers who were who were coming there and made the entry your honor but i think you have to look at the collective knowledge of all the officers including dispatchers and when you look at that tape there is no doubt that there's only one and the dispatchers knew it one first cause we weren't looking at the tape they were listening to a radio and looking at a mobile data terminal trying to make sense out of what was happening and the district court found as a factual matter that the officers at the time they arrived at the scene had a legitimate concern not only for their safety but for the safety of the paramedics who were going to treat whoever was injured and at that location but but you're out of which is what you have to have to look at under under both supreme court law and this course is the collective knowledge of everyone involved in this including the police dispatchers that's with our collective knowledge has never gone so far as to say that an officer has to basically take his life into his hands because he doesn't know at the time he hits the front door w dispatcher knows i don't think i read our case is to say that he's not entitled to make a person very protective sweep of the premises to see whether or not there's something there maybe an armed person lurking within will you out of your cases have said in the community care if they had made it into one of their own own dispatcher they would realize there was only one man who had called in to tell they arrived on the scene and saw that there were females present who had not even been indicated to the dispatchers that even being there that's what the female sheriff's deputy testified well there is an indication on the cab report that there was a woman's voice heard and it was the woman's voice heard by the dispatcher they could have made inquiry of the women what is going on here and they would have found out that one of the women who was the owner of the house  guessing the decisions of officers responding to an emergency but the supreme court has told us time and again that reasonable ness is the linchpin under the fourth amendment and don't we have to look at these facts from the standpoint of a reasonable police officer faced with a rapidly evolving and confusing situation and the district court's factual finding that this entry was justified by the emergency doctor and by the fact that there might be armed subjects inside and also like to talk about the reason this is they get a call about a person who's been shot one officer wage they don't even go in there they finally go up to the point and they make no questioning the right of the officer to wait for other officers to arrive before they enter i practice i'm questioning how great an emergency there is if she does not even go in to see who these people are coming out of the house are you familiar with police procedures and a holding quad you know what that is more officers basically wait and tell sufficient help arrives before they enter a dangerous situation where there may be armed people inside you don't send individual sheriff's deputies in on a on a known trouble with a man injured by a gunshot wound alone a man who's reported twice that he shot himself in the foot that there's no one else own one else there and there's no reason to think that hitting anything to one person now there are three when the female officer he said did it when his girlfriend got back she was going to be really mad at him they do hear a woman on the tape and they could ask the woman what's going on here they they can make some inquiry when they come in they immediately go in they see the man who's clearly the man who shot he's got a bloody towel on his foot they see two women there they see a car there and they make no inquiry at all they don't say they don't even say what's up what happened did someone else in there is the gun there they make no inquiry at all they had an ample opportunity but you want to call them that you want to through mr number as a matter of law it was unreasonable under the fourth amendment for the officers to go in and determine whether or not there might be danger lurking inside without making any attempt to determine whether there was or was not based on what they knew it that's why and what's your best case to say that it was unreasonable for the officers to do that under these every one of your cases that's upheld the community caretaker doctrine search has they've always made some other attempts to make me go so what it was and it's of is supposed to be a very limited thing there has to be an emergency and there has to be a need for immediate police job why can't why can't they determine what is the immediacy of it and what is emergency when there is an obvious viable way of determining that now if there is no one there and there's no way of doing any further determination that would be one thing but they did have a very simple way of finding out was there and merge and see was there a need for me to use defense and if they had asked that question they would have found there was no emergency there was no need for media assistance and it would have been no entry so i  ran right in i guess what you're asking us to do is you're asking us to hypothetically conclude that had they conducted questioning of mr russell he would have for the first time told the truth and that was that he shot himself and that there was nobody else and so he had he had said that he shot himself he made  very clear that he shot himself first and then when he called the sheriff's dispatcher he wasn't quite that clear was that he had shot himself of the forty four in the foot he yells at me told him in the foot he didn't give me details he was in pain he was calling for medical it was command he had found it he didn't want to be found with a gun and they well that may have been true but there were two women there who could have answered the question as to was there an emergency and was there a need for me as distance they made no attempt to talk to those women and those women would it cleared up the dispatcher says to the five yes that you're he didn't really confirm that he shot himself he just said a gun went off so you know you have two different if two different individuals being shot now what happened hypothetically they said this shot and cells or someone was shot in the chest there's the the fact that it was the foot somehow create the conclusion that it had to be only one person one victim in this particular case when the officers arrived a and oncoming paramedics are coming on to the scene they have to be you have a right to be safe in their duties there is a gun that has been unaccounted for that gun is inside the house mr russell in the second cause that he does not know where it is i think the difficulty i have and maybe you can help me with that is that i don't think we have a single case in which we have an empty house basically and this has happened there's something that's happened inside for example martinez which is probably the far reach of our case on that's there was somebody inside yelling and there was some suspicion that the person might have had a knife in his chest and even in those circumstances the officers go on i ask somebody outside who's and what's going on so forth here we don't have that circumstance what we have is and i grant you all of the things that you've said which are which are good arguments but at the scene once it's secure and mr russell is  gone what we have to say as an empty house and then no attempt to find out what's going on it seems to me that the natural inference is it became a kerman investigation and not an attempt to secure the matter of seconds the officer was under these extreme circumstances they're driving at high speeds to reach this hole they're trying to avoid getting hit or hitting other people on the road they're not able to watch the cabbie against show up on the monitor their hearing or all transmissions as to what occurred here that there's two victims and their potential two victims they need to reach that second victim the first person out there never going to fison self he refused to identify himself he refused to tell the officer what had happened inside these officers have a right to determine whether or not there are dangerous danger lurking inside to do that they have to make the entry they're looking for and i think the key question is if there is an opportunity to make an inquiry to sane and there was aren't they obligated to do that do something more than just burst into a house and start looking around i mean you're got a situation where he goes to the door and there are there's this obviously there's nobody there they're calling out and somebody angry yelling inside the house they knew there was trouble potentially either a weapon or somebody injured that's the best case we have in our circuit right but you know you asked the court for question i'm just i'm just asking if you got if you got  a better case no i don't think this would be the first case where there's no indication except for the nine one one call that may be enough for you but except for that that there is we have no indication that there's anything else going on in the house you know search this was not a criminal investigation they made entry to look for a second victim and to make sure there was not a dangerous subject inside working with a gun and they went inside and within a minute and eleven seconds they cleared it and  called the paramedics is now out there for you to come on so this is not a criminal destination at the time also is there any evidence that mr russell denied or tried to stop the entry by someone not identifying himself well what's your best case on that well you come to the door and say who are you and you say i'm not going to tell you the second day after the rights come in your house but this is the inference is that he's at the door so the office of making to look for this person right that we have to rely on in france and circumstances to tune in for a consent to a criminal search i think you're in fairly fairly serious fourth amendment trouble aren't you in terms of the validity of the consent i just agree with what because when a person tells the officer he's open the door for them that he's quality the door the office you can only infer the person still inside the house about consent nonemergency here the two analyses are completely different in this context you say that he gave consent for the police to search his house what he said was i'm at the front door in coming to get me right to make sure i understand your answer to judge thomas question are you saying that the officers did not necessarily know that the person outside the house was the person who had consent to the entry and that the entry was not criminal it was under the emergency doctrine for purposes of looking for a victim who had called the dispatcher to say he'd crawled to the door and then locked the door and was women they went immediately and there was no there was no time where he would have done that and it seems the other thing that been well you do you agree that so far as the officers knowledge was concerned they were expecting two people one was  mr or heinz and the other one would be who are the other guests with you i don't believe that's correct your honor i think they did they did not know exactly what was true there but if you look at the tape it's pretty clear a either whether there were two people what the situation was that they just but one of the officers testified at the time they thought that there could be two people best guess that's what i was furring to ok but but they made no inquiry of although he had said on the tape and that there was nobody else in the house the person who called in and it was clear somebody called and said i've been shot in the foot i want medical aid and then it's cut off and calls right back and says i mean shot in the foot and i need medical aid the idea that there's two people that shot and the foot calling at the same time back to back to the scene very very logical but i think the key point here is that there was plenty of opportunity if there was any and certainly there was plenty of opportunity to clear up the uncertainty officers made zero attempt so they didn't make any the case just argued will be submitted for decision