based on some experiences he had in the past the fourth amendment must require more or less the right to be free from a reasonable sieges of its searches and seizures has long been recognized as one of the most important right s held by civilized people under the state's reading the right becomes and only i'd like to focus most of my time on the first issue of my brief because essentially the only i go ahead i'm sorry and frank it's had spoken to the officer about action things such as sorcery witchcraft and also this quote of the day that i mentioned that again you mention several times to the h necessarily even know that it's an officer will be identified himself as a police officer i know she said the point was dark and she could be right at some point when he was when he was inside half way in the door at that point he hadn't really gained entry but he saw the man with the full uniform well for purposes of the fourth amendment his entrance into the home and the fact that point but if you look at what happened prior to that he was entering the home hospital if if that's enough to enter the home then there really isn't anything preventing officers from entering the home i mean it could have been for purely harassing reasons that prank call and if it's enough to say that the children were were possibly in danger when frankie committed a friend frank was just as responsible for these children as karen was widely spread good to get drunk and go outside and do all these other things and than investigating a crime for an appropriate to exception in the community care now he was trying to do something other than investigate a crime was he not by checking on the children if you look at the the federal case law center and it's pretty clear based on the cases that we  that investigating allegations of child neglect abuse and neglect is ensured quickly intertwined with criminal activity criminal investigation so the federal courts are clear that you cannot enter the home to investigate these sort of things because under community care taking action if frankincense something like the children being held by the children in or imminent danger be you know hurt or maimed or you know the to whether the police were there whether they had entered law so they can't create exigencies is what it boils down to and she had yes she had a back there for protection but if it wasn't a police officer i don't think we would have this question as to whether she could swing at the door if someone else was trying to break in and i guess you know the state assumes that she knew it was a police officer we don't know the exact state of mind if she testified that she didn't know he was a police officer and what frank said to the police officer based on the fact that frank has been had been drinking and further on the fact that cameron refused to cooperate the officer should have just abandon his while macdonald doesn't exclude consideration of the police our state of mind but it says what the objective facts and i think under in this situation was our statement that he wanted to investigate is he cannot create these exigencies it's clear that the police cannot force his way into a home and then justify his entrance into the home based on the reaction of the home and to get back to your concern what could've asked other officers to obtain a warrant if you believed he had enough information based on frank's statement and her refusal to speak with you can see the earlier you said that based on that you think he had enough intertwined with investigating criminal behavior on the federal courts yeah i mean that's obviously for you you're just says the decide but the let me give you an example let's say you've got a senior citizen who it's a function completely divorced from investigation if some if a neighbor cause and they're worried that their elderly neighbor is hurt and that the police are not going to door and someone says go away then why would the police be concerned if someone hasn't been in and out of their home and you're saying i mean the fourth amendment becomes completely irrelevant the entrance into the home is is i mean it's what the fourth amendment has most historically protected we're saying that yes he has concerns and yes maybe you should ask follow up questions but he cannot enter the home against her consent i think what you're saying is that there is no community care taking exception to the warm arm i think that you're saying that's not true at all well you're living in this very restrictive and to do while being check on the defending yourself i once on the scene the officer was told that the kids i were being cared for weren't being fed and that the defendant was mentally unstable that she she claimed to talk to that that she was claiming to be a sorceress and that she was practicing some sort of witchcraft based on these statements i'm talking to frank hand the husband the officer could tell that he was intoxicated however the officer also testified that he was quote absolutely coherent and frankly it's not a crime for someone to drink and it's also not an impediment to to brazen a concern about the safety of your children the safety mention thank you very much so that it isn't one point because what this officer did was not simply based on these statements and you really see a deliberative in the thought of core pro choice what the officer did in this case because he talked to the husband and then he want to talk to a neighbor a double checked everything he could with the neighbor then he went and knocked on the door he knocked on the dory identified himself as a riverdale police officer after the defendant said who's there but once he said he was a video police officer she never spoke to him again he not twice more she didn't respond well then he went back to the neighbor then he went back to though the husband and got the key and then he came back to the door but he still didn't go in at that point he knocked on the door again and said i'm a riverdale police officer and you can look at the defendant's own testimony she says i heard him knock multiple times and go away i heard him come back and i heard him identifying hersel that actually that statute says on earth that in order to use the rebel force sheaves which was force likely to cause great bodily harm or swing a bat at someone's head now you have to have two things one you have to have a violent but there's also a second factor that needs to be present in order to use force likely to cause great bodily harm and that is a reasonable doubt leap that the person coming in the force necessary to prevent that person from attacking someone inside and now this goes back to well her subjective belief doesn't really matter as far as those prior incidents because the objective facts are that she heard this guy identify himself multiple times as a police officer she when he's in there with his arm in the door in full uniform she can certainly see that he's a police officer and there's no reasonable belief that this police officer is coming in to attack is that it is an objective standard under mcdonough and the officer subjective statements really do not apply and you see in mcdonough it says in making this determination a court views the officers if officers actions object of late and then it has apparent that a call that says see ren and ren it quotes a saying rejecting any argument the constitutional reasonableness depends on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved so that that citation right there's completely removes the officer's personal subjective motivations from this case it's a means to question yet that's the case that recall was the time frame when the o and he said i'm a riverdale police officer i need to come in she didn't respond so he knocked twice more he left she talked to the the neighbor and the husband and i don't mean it was a couple minutes and her testimony as well concurred on that said make you know he can either walk away and leave the possibility that these children are ins or in some trouble and just leave it and not do anything about it or he can do something about it and considering that the person responding the second he said as a police officer the only reasonable thing you could do at that point was to use the key that you can given by the other resident and for when and check on the children and the thing to see in this case is that mcdon to do well being checked and you need to limit your actual reasonable acts to protect the safety and well the entrance in this case it's important to see how limited it is because all he did was turn the key and get his hand and head in the door that's all he did  in having their lives be free from interference of police and the public interest in having officers do these additional functions on investigating crimes and it's obviously the peoples  position that looking after the health safety and welfare of children is a very strong public interest in this case especially where children are really the most helpless members of our society and children often can get caught in the middle of disputes between i that a county couldn't get a search warrant so how else could he do it if he's not answering her the door she's not likely to answer a phone call you know frank had been kicked out the husband had been kicked out and within fifteen to twenty minutes of frank being kicked out she's at the door with a chair wedged under the door a knife in her back and a baseball bat you know it's pretty clear that she wasn't wedding anyone in this house really the only response that this officer to negotiate some sort of compromise with her i guess but at that point if someone stops talking to the minute you say you're a police officer what do you expect to happen when you try to talk to the person trying to reason with the person the person is not responding to you you didn't disputing parents and one of them brings up some reason to do something for a police officer other than investigating a crime and that under the community care taking exception would to do very limited amount simply to protect the safety but i mean that it's a very limited exception it only allows a limited amount of action but it's a at this point it's a well established itself now the other thing that people would like to note is that it's pretty clear here that once the officer had entered the apartment with his head and his shoulder and she swung it at him that's very clear that he had probable cause that a crime had been committed and there exigent circumstances to enter the apartment at that point if you look at the seven factors for exit and circumstances it was a recent crime it was a violent crime she was armed there was no tried to keep the officer out but she tried to avoid contact with the officer but those five strongly favor the exigent circumstances i have one other thing that people want to point out here and it's  misconduct done to police when they're entering even when they're entering based on a fourth member violation and it's part of a clinic ruling that says ok we agree with the trial court that this was a fourth amendment people also side of the case of people versus the liberal al as illinois supreme court case which dealt with the same thing in both cases the railcar mack cite to the case of people versus abrams it's an illinois supreme court case which decided that the seclusion or role would not apply because of the policy reason that hey you're just going to incite war lessons if you say that that everything should be excluded that even if someone's coming the police are coming in under circumstances where all he's going on is that the husband says i'm concerned the children are not eating based on experiences i've had in the past and he that is an exception the question is do the facts of this case wall within the parameters of that except in that's all we're we're talking about here your argument if taken to its logical extrem inquiry so it's always going to be that situation where the police officer has to make some initial inquiry find out is there a situation here that requires further community care taking