edwards the district court in this case aired in two primary ways the st is that it used its discretion in that in the weighing the habitants it applied an incorrect legal standard and was an underage drinking party where at least one person had vomited outside of the apartment and then got back inside and it's about there was no actual evidence the the  people there were actually of the the plaintiff's witnesses testified that they were between twenty one and twenty three so movie correct but all of these officers testify certainly nearly every officer who testified in the case and certainly the three named defendants when they approached this house they could see through the windows that they thought that these folks  only allowed party that they could discern was coming from the apartment and when they looked through the windows they saw individuals who they believed were underage were drinking and detective jeanne's saw at least one person again vomit outside the unit and go back inside suggesting that this wasn't just potentially under a tribute party it was an underage drinking party where it had risen to an unreasonable level where one person has become ill and so under these circumstances it was not reasonable these officers would have known because it wasn't clearly established that they couldn't enter the apartment to check on the well being of these underage drinkers at that time ok so let's tease this out the district court thought that it was perfectly plain and should have been plain to these officers that stepping inside to open doorway under it's not a th amendment violation then we have the exigent circumstances and then we have community policing the way i read your briefs you're raising all three of those arguments it's not correct yes though i think primarily we are suggesting that it was acceptable under exigent circumstances specifically the emergency doctor who was who was the person they needed to aid the underage drinkers and potentially drinkers so we're the one kid i think it's any of them the district court and it's your argument don't say i think it's any of them i apologize your honor it's any of these traitors these officers could have gone in to assess i think the district court in determining that it was crystal clear that these officers could have entered was focusing entirely on the fact that the district court thought that the evidence weighed in favor of these officers believe that it was just a loud party and they were there to quell a noise complaint and i would agree that the officers cannot clearly established that officers couldn't go into question always complain who just you know i would concede that for ages and circumstances i think it's a bit more on clear with community care taking so you think of the six  case your answer is different i don't think it matters here whether they could go in under to call a noise complaint because i still think that that's ignoring the evidence in this case just suggests that this well you may say you have a stronger case room unity but why you would walk away from a case which helps you is beyond me i would walk away from it your honor i'm just not familiar with it so you want us to say that any time police think that design underage drinking going on in a building in a home they have a right to go into the home without a war i'm saying it wasn't clearly established that they could qualified immunity for this if there is an underage drinking party and at least one person is ill i don't think there's any authority to suggest that these officers it was clearly established that they could go when i thought that  officers own testimony establish that the reason they went in had searched out and went to the bedroom was because of the noise but they also testified that they were concerned about the underage street i thought he just cited officers were given qualified immunity for entering allowed party call and even in that case there wasn't any testimony that someone was ill or that someone was vomiting but the court did know that if that had bene testimony the case would basis for the police officer wanting to investigate and wanting to go with not put recall the building and it seems that it's rather all of that if he was entering because of the noise that he could somehow then get off the hook by saying well he could've gone in for the drink while there one case says that had that level of subjective weren't true while there was evidence that they were concerned about harming there were there was also substantial evidence that they were concerned about the underage drinking they can exist at the same time so in they they didn't check a single person's they didn't ask anybody the rage correct once they got into the unit for reasons that unfolded once they were inside but the entry itself is judged by what a reasonable officer for the owner and order to get him to shut down the harley and stop among other things stop the under age drinking exactly right immunity you do not need to get to the new trial issues fair enough your honor i like judge chaos i am a bit concerned about  the principle that because you see a kid outside vomiting and you have complaints about a party and underage drinking you can just go into the house no what are the other factors here that would end up being if you will learn the different principles to sort out sure i appreciate the court's concern this wasn't just your average drinking party a saturday night the testimony here was that this was the same patrick's day in south boston where public drunkenness underage drinking these are major problems on that particular day so much so that these officers who entered the apartment were not even in the business of working in south boston they were drug control officers not generally tasked with responding to large parties but because drunkenness and underage drinking in particular is such a problem are assigned an essentially mandatory overtime to work south boston himself what i'm concerned by is that when they got there what they saw was different from the complaint which brought there in  person and who st work hard with an open door that's the show that they were confronted with a totally different set of facts from what the so why  so they can go in without a warrant find the owner arrest the deputy prove them all back to the station if they have probable cause i suppose but here it was entering under the emergency  yes what these officers confronted when they arrived on scene from the nine hundred and eleven call being at the correct intersection seeing a young man vomit outside the house and go back in and seeing what they perceived to be as underage drinkers through the window as it was a reasonable assumption for them to assume that this was the underage drinking party that was of concern thank you thank you is distinguishable here it was not that sense of an on going wrong in this case as opposed to in rory but i'm sorry are you saying the officers showed up and suddenly the house was quiet and not said that they could not go into a house because of a large party call and she distinguishes or even the basis that it was an ongoing situation like in this case yes there was ok and tell me again why this wasn't ongoing it was ongoing in the when does a music get turned down after they're in the bedroom and they have to talk to the owner mean other people turn down the music the music gets turned down once they're in once the officers go into the house that  that the homeowners will cooperate with the people in the house work on the net but not the owner they keep trying to find a home owner and nobody can tell them where the owner of the house is on business somebody finally says gee i think he's in the back bedroom the issue though is that getting into the house in the st place and what big what they had said early on was that it was because of the loud music that's what caused them to go it then it was they went in because of some accident circu this is materially indistinguishable as far as getting him into the house and your point is that after they were in the house in this case the guest turned down the music was in rory that they didn't turn down is what happened inside indicative of whether or not he should have gotten inside that home at all are that's hindsight but well put him in bubbles or for instance the officer once he's inside he later claims that he was there for to take care of the children but reality that wasn't the case he was there to try to form further investigation now granted that's a unit here taking exception case but it does apply here the the fact is that there are two ways to even try to get in this this teenager in the underage drinking is never check any ideas i believe one of you mentioned and then as to the teenage this alleged teenager there's no looking for the teenager which is not indicative of what you would expect well their argument the owner and he pointed to the back but sir so well i just stepped back a little bit would you say that it was also been proper for them simply to enter the oath or was it the entering of the most a step or two in but there are cases that say there were inches and an unlawful intrusion but just gotten the attention of the people in that kitchen is a video of the show that clearly looked over twenty one but it told them to turn down the music and then none of this would have happened whatever fall but instead we have a situation where eight officers go into the house and picking up what your honor said there is no evidence in the record that says that any of those officers said were there is this alleged teenager where is deal with the responsible person to let them know the lucian's been creating yes i think they can do that the way they handle it here though is in progress they you this is testimony of the fact that kaplan was case where it is you can't get into that house because just because of loud music you can't and you can't get into the house we've shown because of be an alleged underage drinkers or because of this alleged teenager and so there is no basis whatsoever to go into that