consent that there had been a consensual untruth and your client has who are from rights because he does have a key he has an expectation of privacy he is allowed to come and go to the park as he pleases  even if the police saw him hide the drugs in college when they still need a warrant honestly you know because we're not well because then you have direct observation of potential criminal he didn't have a key but it was a key that was given to him with no that there was no evidence that he had ever used it in any manner that as my whim blare the owner who gave him the key said i gave it to him and he can use it any time he's ready in terms of how he scintilla that here consul may have a cite to the record which i did not see but i didn't see any testimony that said it was recent acquaintances and often times even family members will be given a key to use the home when you're not there or to come in maybe trek around the halls so if i  as he plays and he could come go if he wanted to but in this case since we don't know you know obviously vienna going back to vernon here but since we don't know how recent he's ever stayed here overnight it's only been a couple of times  expectation of privacy in this particular area he had to drive out where they were seen by other people so if this isn't something where they were closeted their way was there anything else in the house that would indicate he he is there with some regularity now i believe there was in fact some testimony and it would be by my own blair that effect he didn't have any possessions and this in the house is that whole there are several factors w show that he may not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy and given that it is the defendant's burden we would ask here at least to consider that if you determine that there is no consent consent of course is the ground on which this court extreme the trial court  determined that the search and that did not violate his fourth amendment rights and here we have a case where there you have to look at what occurred and what was known to the officers they didn't know there was a party going on they had been told that there is traffic coming in and out and that there might be drug traffic going on that's what they came in and read and reliance on that they came to the door and then i asked one of the officers i think it was the first off said come on in with his back to them as he then answered and they followed along that that that he's going to use you're surprised by this means it's not your typical reaction obviously most people who go into work and answer to a knock that there are reasonable belief that he was given consent to her and the reason is he doesn't know what's going on in this person's mind if there are other circumstances and what the officers do not what they said if you have nothing to hide you might invite officers and there's nothing to say that they had to even know that they were officers he just opened his door and was obviously being very lax the days go are very you know easy going on this he didn't have anything to hide as what would be that reasonable inference from that behavior well then of course the issue or is the issue not what mr blair thought that it was the returning guests who had gone out to get the kool aid that he was already back it's not necessarily what he thought but what the officers expectation or reasonable belief was when this right is elevated to the officers so anything that to their point in terms of you know what anybody suggest could be the reason that care enough to even be there in the presence of the officers while they were that temple ordering gas to you know stand still on that type of thing human check done is spread out so this is what the officers also so from their perspective  exactly so what we have is him and that's a pretty good indication that you know officers aren't expected to be my greeters they're not expected to know one person who is that open and easy going and you know the thought is of course probably that there is no criminal activity going on but on the other hand they don't have to know any more than it is giving their consent to search luggage or something it's the same idea it's the idea that once it got a veil of consent they don't have to go behind and say well now we  no criminal activity and that there were drugs in the bag once the officer officers have gotten past the entryway and i don't exactly with this apartment looks like but there was an entryway they followed for the living room now consensus in the officer's mind not misplaced because they've already got here at the consent and there are already in there in a position to then see what they see were just in the bag on the table so it's it's at that point it's really kind of moved just to what looking to what his intent was in terms of these officers were looking to what the officers knew at the time and that very briefly i just wanted to address that their issue which is the chance to nature turning to the defen and whether that means that he didn't have exclusive and immediate control of course he did have media control he had the drugs he actually had actual concern actual possession as well as constructive possession i have time and the actual possession he had he picked they were only allowing him to sort of touch the merchandise and in two seconds or something they then arrested him so of course he had made any sort of action to show that he was you know intending to even take control of those much less that he had control of it at that point