video records the interior of a home because that sees the license implied by the invitation to enter facts in this case are straight forward agent two ninety two entered the home with an intent to serve and a license that permitted only this visual inspection the accident with a permanent digital record that could be magnified pantsuits minute really examined so here's the problem i have you know policeman can use a radio transmitter they can record conversations with a defendant when an informant those and in the defendant's home at other locations that doesn't violate the fourth amendment i don't see what the doesn't provide the consent to conduct a search of my love but what i'm saying is if the supreme court has said that it agent of the police can go in and have a body recorder in record what's going on the cat's formulation which focuses on the privacy expectations of the individual as opposed to the conduct of the government i think that the audio recording is much closer to the tres pass tast i really don't have an opinion on that but they can video it's it's clear that that exceeds the scope of any implied license based on custom to enter a home when he c i didn't notice let's try and the problem is not entirely with the recording the equipment is with the images which can be studied everything's protected and your camera takes everything where you know this is a home you leased from the outside world once he gets in he's let in for a certain purpose to the contraband exception that you know that if if it's not a search it only reveals the presence of illegal substances and i think that  underscored by jarred dean's have indicated that just because it's illegal to piss in the home it's protected well i guess it's the definition of a home run in with the activities going on in what they do there no that looks like a house i guess it's the house though it's undeniable that it was a residence in the description of the i'm not sure this is in the record but there's that is it was it was obvious from reviewing the discovery materials that people lived in this home and there were the typical appurtenances of everyday life in th intent to conduct a search but but it's very clear that the government can use informants and that informant doesn't have to disclose their identity that that doesn't renew the consent recording equipment in the persons and there was permission i don't see that as being a trust pass that but it is still he is the video recording exceeds the scope of any invitation if you look at the scope of don't you ok let me put it this way if he had all video equipment he goes in and he sees things he testifies a trial exactly what he saw in the apartment what was on the walls what was on the floor what was on the sofa all of that he could justify all that right i believe so yes yes so all the video does is record what he sees with his eyes the some other room he doesn't have permission and so he kind of does that he says i'm going to help the police out you know i have i just have a feeling that maybe the dope is in the basement and he's left alone and he runs down the and there's no basis for well clearly that there wouldn't be i mean that's different than he's in the place where he's going to pick up the drama that's and that's i can't i can't dispute that but the differences between audion video are are just it's it's a little difficult to describe like that i can say that of abraham zapruder had been holding a tape recorder back in november nine hundred sixty three no one would have ever heard thank you what the defendant is proposing is basically a rule that would undercut the undercover work it just simply won't be half happening it also goes against the great weight for what his complaint really is about the fact that the police gained serp tish's entry into the house by an a misrepresentation we know from lewis and hoffa and share that the police don't need to li simultaneous recording of the audio doesn't violate the fourth man because the defendant misplaced that trust into a confidential informant and there's really no distinction here is the court has has no it there's there's really two factors that are critical here first the dispatcher or the magistrate's findings in its report and recommendation found one that the audio recorded nothing more than what the defendant could see and hear and that the defendant knew or rather choosing that ultimate form excuse me never went anywhere other than where he was allowed to go to conducted the transaction and again this is not a houses that as the magistrate found it wasn't leave it to beaver with with the cloris leachman or whoever was there with girls on in the kitchen this was a vertically integrated operation in which they had compartmentalize people into the bathroom to provide the drugs outside of the bathroom which then the defendant then delivered to the informant was he under observation when he entered with yes he was he was in because that's the normal right then that video would actually prove we weren't watching it is he actually went in and out of that house so there were there rooting would be whose verbal recollection i don't really didn't even need to use that word that troops are there and then i don't see what the you would do to enhance anything well it does it doesn't it didn't enhanced sort of like it didn't enhanced special things that he  that that the it is a tool that used so that when they come back and say gosh with all the technology that the government has why should we believe this informant well the answer is years of video i'm practicing long enough that i can remember we didn't even do anything like that and i can remember that argument being made many times at the at the trial court level and i always thought it was humorous because i thought why would you ever do that because i was imagining these giant cameras but me there are no there the point is is that is that what you have is a situation where he didn't exceed his license he went in there did to get drugs he got drugs the video simply recorded that and not that great wasn't as high resolution as a as a as a person's vision according to the magistrate court and didn't exceed even the boundaries of perception it was less than one hundred eighty degrees so you're really dealing with a camera that was less effective than the foreman and didn't capture the information on the microwave kind of blurry or something well yes exactly so as a practical matter you know even though the defendant may wish to match in the parade of horrors in terms of awful things that could happen with allowing this that that's not the case here the case here is is is video equipment that didn't exceed what a norden normal ordinary guest would it would perceive with their own censored perception as we stated in the brief the defendant's attack is on the manner that the informant recorded what was voluntarily revealed to him but he surrendered any expectation of privacy and in the activities and even his consent was obtained by ruse and the trespass simply doesn't exist here when he was invited in the mere fact that a video recorder provides better documentation doesn't invalidate that license tops a ga questions thank you and like in cairo the rule the court dobson should consider the other more sophisticated technology already in use or under development and you know a person doesn't have to spend too much time on the internet where you're finding things like the when everything that certainly would be within the skull it's true you know that the court can set a baseline bright line rule at video that court can guide courts in the future as emerging technology comes into play i still go on and then perhaps you can explain to me what's the difference between testifying what i see in this courtroom and what a video recording of the courtroom is  try to exactly the same thing get that shows on that recording again of a person like myself who listens to football on the radio and watches on t v and  state that you can never possibly describe as the court said a picture is worth a thousand words or more and those words are not always forthcoming finally just a quick just a word about the questioning  appropriateness of intrusting to the executive branch a tool so i mean a board to misuse the police discretion to use this is it's almost unlimited and the permissible ruses are thank you the case will be taken under advisement