really boils down to one question do people forget their th amendment privacy interests in their homes merely by opening their doors in response or not if the supreme court's ruling in any meaning the answer must   no so as santana recognized the threshold of the home there is already a definition for it it's not one step or one step backward from the from the doorway so it's a straight line  supreme court and also clarified that it's bounded by the unambiguous dimensions of the home now that language you would think would be clear enough offer guidance to police officers in the field view sort of things keep happening and you know we kept this court really needs to put its foot down and let police officers know that the threshold doesn't extend as far as they can see into the home it doesn't it's not you know you know within the swing of the doorway the threshold is the doorway and that's why this court really should address that constitutional question as to the validity of banning i mean let me ask you that and not i'm i mean decide that the issue hinges on banning and that and that it must confront the issue of any man that means no longer good law i would concede that that law would not be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity now that's not to say that distinguishable for example because a parent was actually inside his house and there's some precedent for that in the circuit equips case that person he also was he also opened the door in response to a knock he was with been within reaching distance of the door yet this court found that the that the appellant in that case was within he was inside his home and that's the that's the same issue here so you don't need to necessarily if if you you could plausibly decide that you don't need to reach the issue of whether venting is good or bad because my client was inside this home i understand that however you do if you decide that you must reach it and that that danny does dictate this result then yes i would i would concede that we would probably be at a situation there with the law wouldn't because the established at least for purposes of this case going forward i would hope it would be clearly a staff but but asking about if you can if you look at the facts of both cases and you decide that they're not materially indistinguishable and there are some facts that i could argue that are distinguishable you might disagree with me and if you  do if you do if you believe that all the material facts of the same and that banding dictates a different result than hardiness would you know as using the reasoning that they this court briefs used in london if you have that situation that would be a situation where it's irreconcilable so if all of them would if the material facts are not distinguished that would be  g what about the johnson case but what or how has that been there well johnson we have this issue of whether the person voluntarily opened the door now it's been suggested to bring it within johnson so for example it's late at night when they're knocking on the door they're not just knocking they are pounding on the door are my client knows that they are armed and we have an admission from belize that they were going to knew they were armed but there were just two people and so how do you assert that he knew they were he was not based on based on his prior experience with with law enforcement and knowing that generally all officers are armed to some degree that is an assumption to a certain extent but i would submit that the general public is that officers by and large are armed when they're in the field well but is that with that case and for them that just because they have a weapon in it for example oh no no i would not i would not make that argument i would not argue that just because all officers are armed or somebody makes that assumption that if there's opening the door and voluntary but that fact in conjunction with others so for example big because it was late it was an unreasonable hour and hour where most people would be sleeping and the fact that when they're knocking they're knocking aggressively and loudly and the fact that he also is wife and child there those are facts that in conjunction with the back of the police or army that you can you can infer that he doesn't have a choice at least there's a there's at least a tribal issue a fact as to whether this alleged consents to open the doors voluntary and it was not voluntary that brings that way that brings this case within it starts to decide cases on that basis and this court has ruled on a number of occasions number of published cases excessively handcuffing can be the basis for an excessive force claim and to that extent that  because the gist of court did not fully evaluate your excessive force claim because you as he mentioned the two aspects to it there's an coughing claim and there's the point dunn claims now that because the district did not fully explain for analyzed the entirety of your claim you reach it i would i would appreciate if the court would reach the arguments that we make but unfortunately sometimes they don't it is my understand that we did make that argument and that's why we're bringing it here and while what i want to  want to clarify is that your argument is that there are it's an excessive force claim when there are two aspects to the excessive force claim and that the just the court did not analyze both aspects of it that was error by the just the court and that to under to fully appreciate your client's excessive force plane you can't ignore the gun point you have to look at everything that happened yes i would i would yes yes and i know you want to save some time or remodel i do  and you know that's within those chords wisdom the fact remains that it is been a while and because it's good law because the officers comply with vanny when they arrested the appellant in this case the arrest should be considered  he did see officers say he did not see their weapons drawn the notion that he thought they were armed is merely his assumption that well their officers there were in uniforms and they must be armed if you take that assumption as evidence that he saw that they were armed that's if we believe that's an unreasonable assumption every person knows it isn't officers wearing uniforms he  it was his choice to open the door a crack not because he was deceived into doing so right that's correct that's correct and i think it's also significant that this gun case where there was a persistence that there is a pattern and practice and for for the appellants to to try to use subsequently discovered evidence to relate back to  they allegation not to believe that there is a legal support for that moreover in this particular case but they're relying on is deposition testimony relating to the events that took place prior to the officers professionally i don't i don't disagree with that at all but i think what counsel is arguing is that point of the guns at him and then the handcuffs being too tight that those are inherently factual questions and that  those should be resolved by a jury and also there are some state law claims that may have some similar issues there so it's part of the consensus side as just folks form on the excessive force which is the gun at just the facts that have come out at this point it clearly was not impossible to fix that claim assuming it was even deficient and so therefore it would be fair to dismiss that thing and this is a man who knows your body counsel says if i understood it correctly that mean there is no i didn't write the leatherman case makes that clear it's been suggested at various times that plagues us must you know alleged more specific facts when you're going against a municipality supreme court has rejected that and so it's the same thing a standard applies to mono games i'd like to just quickly point out that with regard to the cordon argument that council made under jones johnson more coercive than officers showing up late at night with pounding under door and trying to open the door you know jiggling walk and things like that it would nobody would argue that