really don't have time to go into those but i'm sure the court will have some questions what we you know we're pretty familiar with the facts and just having trouble understanding why if the police show up and you've got somebody there who says she's the landlady tenant leave and be there are two individuals who appear to be subletting the resident and has a perfectly reasonable story as to why they are there now in this instance i would posit and we would posit door opener to get into the resident and there was a phone call the proceeded the series of events with an amber evans who in fact made a representation that there was an arrangement in there to just investigating by in fact completing the search but that doesn't appear to be the case he entered the residence noted items of packing material which through his training experience where to  mentioned it had moved out yes there was this this period of two months where she had not been painting on the ranch and she was moving out over a slow period of time on the night before hand the the fact that somebody said mr rowe and mr vasquez to ask yes could be them there was no imminent danger there was no reason that corporal rivera couldn't have simply detained the parties and privacy you have you know this isn't your average bed and breakfast he should and you go you know basically have them dropping in the day before and that thing drug well first i would make the assertion that the district court never made any specific findings of fact as to whether they were there for commercial purposes or for for joint commercial land social purposes i would assert this case is vasquez were initially located at the residence mr rove boat was asleep inside of the residence he was there overnight but they left very very early in the morning from essentially the safety of the hotel room to stay where think it certainly can be asserted that they were there for a joint purpose but i don't think this is simply a case where the individuals were unloading drugs over a two and a half hour period planned on splitting immediately i would i start off by talking about the expectation of privacy which is the last question the court had mr t v things i'm wondering whether we could even really consider that if the district court did nine and we didn't have anything finding arrive first she went into the house and scuppered both defendants than mrs rivera his wife showed up she called police and then called her husband ruben who was on his also point out that the officers were acting on more than just the mere presence of of business yamamoto not only was she there she had been inside the house she was there to show it to the on one of the officers and she was interviewed both the fence and and both neither defended gave them a good answer as to why they were there they even tried to turn the garage floor over to the officer and said just forget it we just want to leave at that point time that's when i threw a vera let into the house to see if they had any property there that's an excerpt record one sixty one he testified that the reason he went in the house was to see if they had any property there which they did and there was nothing in the house ed left a note basically supply and her new address she had left the keys in the garage door opener even if she had some sort of intrinsic expectation of privacy still in the residence for example and anybody from like before the earth or at the time they got to the motel and the time they got to the house i'm wondering why they would spend money and spend the night of motels they have the right to steal but here it  evidence didn't show any joy thing about that and written for couldn't identify them they couldn't identify who they're who they had received permission from and so you know the district court was trying to make a decision they didn't have a person that thank you for your arguments thank you for coming from idaho