i think the issues and it's chase could be summarized in the war of arcane whether or not it was reasonable for the officers to enter mr arts house on the night in question without knocking rule and the lower court made a finding that the door was open which they believed was a determining factor into whether or not the office of entry without not going to announce was a reasonable  statements in regards to his entry in regards to his view of the bar arms that he claims or in plain view and if we're going to challenge all the sutras testimony or look at the contradicting evidence in addition to his own statements you have statements while the officers there were other officers there two of them testified that number one for example officer lays in this testimony that he also in and right behind said that he never heard of us or drove say anything about a gun but all of that impeaches later later later advance i guess and i'm really looking at the door because we have this case law that suggests you don't have to knock and announce when the door's already opened so i'm just trying to figure out if that case law binds us here yes or whether we were going to you in your view we can overcome that finding that the door was open yes you're on it so so in addition to other state to state tried to close the door and officer stopped him now the other statements that officer trosa made it is own testimony is that he stopped that he stopped the door from being closed which was heard also an audio statements that he made to a i believe it was detective robot he called detective robot after the search had taken place and was having a phone conversation with him in the car in which he also  his microphone due in a conversation but you can hear him say i stopped the door from being close now part of the r n r that was not addressed was that before officers arrived at this location  they they are honestly went to the room house before and when they went to the wrong house the resident at that house opened the door and had no clue what they were talking about and off the troll post stopped that individual from closing his door while he was trying to find i was going on he said no you're not closing the door while we're here the door stays open so we find it that in and of itself would support the allegations in this case and these allegations were made before that discovery was ever even turned over to us  so he did stop the door from being close which in our opinion is not an open door that is a issue where whether it's forced entry in regards to kick in a door open are stopping an individual from clos and or i would i would say that there is no distinction between the two when you mention the remedy and i want to make sure you have time to talk about that it seems to me that the knock on now is from the search warrant contacts the court has already said the remedy is not exclusion of any advocates and so my question for you is when you have an a rast warrant why should the rule be any different well your honor and thank you for raising that point there are no cases in regards to this circuit that has raised this issue since the hudson supreme court decision in two thousand and seven however there is a nd circuit i'm sorry a d c circuit case where in weaver the court used the appeals court use the hudson analysis and they show that  the results are different that in a search warrant the hudson court found that the exclusionary rule was never intended to protect the seizure of the of evidence in which a search warrant is actually coming in to locate it that makes it so therefore in the rest warrant context it does not give all the servers a blanket entry into a house and there are other case law that if you allow in tree this blanket on an arrest warrant then officers could use that as a pretext to enter into a home when they don't have probable cause to get a search warrant but you know i trace back to sort person you know put on clothes prepare themselves to submit to authorities it's more of a convenience thing and that's sort of what the court relied on in the hudson case to some extent as well and so it seems to me that the interests are sort of the same at least  that's just not something that would be a smart decision so we would you know that in and of itself the court is already hill that the reason why i'm not going to announce is very important as you state it is for the reasons other than the s one than the just as a fax amount or instead of knocking to the officers announce officers here you know or anything like that when they entered the home he did not what he did was call out the defense say he called out   some of the inconsistency is between the testimony of the recording that really when you listen to it you really can't say that that was impeaching because you just don't know if he got it if things got picked up or not well let me ask you this and this is this is a way to distinguish some of our prior cases perhaps and maybe i'm wrong about that but you don't need to knock because the doors open it's kind of silly to knock frankly when the doors open but what about the announce right i mean should they have comments and done what this context i don't think you need to graft on you know pure announce requirement for open doors because open doors come in all sorts of different situations in this context the officers testimony the courts finding was that he was very he was very casual he was acting very calm his gun was not pulled he thought the sun was leading him to his father so he kind of thought he had consent to come in and as he's you know kind of pushing through the threshold he calls out fathers and i think it's just more a matter of nd guessing whether he should have said police gabriel are you in there as opposed to just that you're calling out his name but i don't see any constitutional i don't see any reasonable mr we need to create that as a bright line rule because in this context i think the officers acted entirely factual ruling of the district court to destroy it ruled on is the factual part and found it was reasonable i think that is right but government's position as we grieved is that we don't even get there because hudson controls and there is no  that interest doesn't exist and there's no really room for the we report to say because it's an arrest warrant this interest has now expanded and not expanded to basically saying well what they really have is because arrest warrant because they could come to the door they actually have the ability some interest to be able to hide evidence that's just not i think that's just wrong i think that's just contradicts hudson and i don't really see the distinction that's made there and your point i think would be also to sort of leverage you know what i was talking about earlier it's wrong as a matter of history as well right because historically the knock and announce rule was about something entirely different than than than that hiding abbott and so on are moving around you know furtively around the residence trying to trying to get away or something but it's never been the case that the law has recognised that a criminal defendant has sort of a right to destroy evidence or right to hide evidence and what is the case and this is very clear in the pa thank you may please the court or like to just respond to a few of the governments of mr casey's point that he made on behalf of the government in regards to the not going to announce rule and the fact that it's never been a house and they do a protective sweep on adjoining rooms not to search the entire home now in the history of this country there's probably been you know who knows how many times that officers ha to apprehend the suspect in their home were there's evidence of some other crime that they didn't know about because the individual complied and they took him into custody without incident m brought this up about the destruction of an evidence are you familiar with the case of kentucky versus king it and i'll describe it briefly it's a situation in which somebody ran into a residence the police then didn't knock and announce and they heard toilet flushing and they heard all kinds of movements with then and the supreme court said at that point they could rush right in and or exigent circumstances and sort of freeze the scene collect evidence things like backups of exigency that would seem to undermine your argument to some degree correct you're on and you're absolutely burglary and in that particular case they walk in and ever no knowledge of him ever being violent and they see these guns not power the guns five minutes in total that's completely different th knocking on a house not going on a door and hearing commotion inside so that would be the distinction honor my time has run out i just wanted to also in closing note that a court acts about mention whether or not it was silly to mock if the door was open