legitimate reason for being on the campus ordered him to leave and then they are informed by the detectives that she sees him back that same afternoon and in direct violation the command to leave with the magistrate judge found establish probable cause to arrest him for trespass under the alaska statute and then arrest was affected the next morning so it doesn't really matter what the he was there to see correct they also knew that he had returned within a couple of hours to the campus after they'd ordered him off what more under the alaska statute do we need to officers assumed that he had made any efforts to come back on the campus legitimately the question is on the basis of just those two three facts that the officers had the authority to order him off that he was more not to come back that he had lied to them about who he was there to see the question i guess those were a reasonable person conclude that there was that mister dorsey was engaged in the crime decisions that are discussed in the briefs you can i permanently banned someone from public property this clearly was public property in our view but a permanent ban does not permit as i understand it the alaska or just trespass life generally if you you do just like any other citizen we're for require to remember this is this facility if you're going to drop off a student or to pick up a student or use the swimming pool you don't have to go to the office what you have to do is if you are you intend to go into the high school proper you have to go go park in the parking lot it's for the faculty there's an area designated for visitors you walk into the office and you say my name is kevin mccoy and i want to give a crisp criminal justice speech to soldiers history class or i mean  know cross examination if you take a look at the record of the superintendent of school she'd detail what was required and that's that is so the officer was right when he says you have to have proper business to come here you have to have proper business to come history to do that if this court were to seal it for any reason it wouldn't be allowed and you're not allowed back in chambers unless you have permission but it's commensurate with its public function and that's what i'm sure that's the concept i'm trying to convey with regard to bombard with high school it's a community facility  that it is the only fifty meter pool in the state of alaska and the the championships are there my children have been there i've been there i don't go into the office and my children who were not students there didn't go into the office and ask to use the pool there are reasons that people don't want to it's that the officers were correct when they said that this mcquaid even if we accept all of that that neither you nor your children are trespassing when you come on bartlett high school campus to use the swimming pool the fact that the officers had contacted mr dorsey earlier that day and ascertained that he had no legitimate reason to be on campus there's no suggestion in the record that he was there to use the swimming pool or and in fact he lied to the officers as to the reason for being there and gave them a fictitious student's name and so they ordered him to leave and he left so why is that doesn't that distinguish mr dorsey situation from the mccoy family coming to think if you look at the briefing at one of the officers are behaving inconsistently with the memorandum of understanding that was with which created the video of the police officers in the school program and what happened  by answering i just told those questions i don't want to concede that i think that they did i mean i don't think that they did and i think it was troubling here is that the written record the memorandums of understanding are inconsistent with the way the officers behaved and even if you accept the latter of the amended information they're very cautious about giving police officers or forward to make these kinds of orders because the preference is to have a school student resource but not a campus security somebody from the school district to make th appropriate my view of the record for the officers had they seen him on the second in the september third so we want to go talk to him and see what he's doing here but that is not what happened they turned on their overhead lights and they arrested him immediately and told them he was under a conclusion that he was there without permission and you're arguing the weight and in terms of how of informing the officers probable cause this is and that's a different question a question here and i think that can be just put his finger on it is the officers might very well have been able to rely upon it in establishing probable cause to arrest him but you might or might not have been able to exclude the evidence at the trial on the merits in proving the crime by pro here this is just a hunch that's all the c s i some another offshoot claims to have seen him there before and therefore he's back therefore he must be back without permission therefore there's probable cause to arrest him for trespassing and i think seeing the supreme court case that's that is the it's not a cross of argument i mean we're not talking about cross jamming the option right right yeah but you know and then in terms of assessing the reliability when you look at in that case to make the suppression ruling was a declaration against interest and it was corroborated by other evidence we have no information about this officer or whatsoever and other than the fact that there's a police officer and if you want to have a blanket exception for police see somebody if you have that you have that reason you need to call the school and make arrangements ahead of time and that's just got to go through the officers and so it's several points and i i'm sorry i don't have a precise but if you read the testimony of schmidt  distinction between the property line of the building versus the property line at the entrance to the parking lot for and why can't the school administration responding to concerns about drug dealing involving students which occur both inside the school buildings and particularly in and around vehicles in the student parking lot order a person off of the boundaries of the property of the school district in order to address that problem and isn't that exactly what happened know that's not exactly what happened here what exactly happened here well sir you have no business on the campus right now if you intend to come back you better contact us and make those arrangements i don't just agree with you that i think that a school administrator could say look we're concerned about drugs and broadest reach of congress power you cannot turn something like this which is really not economic conduct into economic kind of this thing with short cases where we have upheld as against constitutional challenges the felon in cases where the jurisdictional hook is exactly the same proof that the firearm at some point in the past as travel interstate commerce and it's now in the possession of well it is difficult i recognize that but i mean you know this is the twentieth or twenty first that it was there for a reason for them to believe that if he had contacted the school the school office and sought received permission but then would have been informed that there would have been it's the community of of of individuals responsible for keeping us safe and secure environment within the high school would have been in communication had there been any further contact or discussion with mr dorsey at the very least it was entirely reasonable for the officers to has it and my fingertips i'm sorry it's pretty much irrelevant whether it's cited in reports or whether there are at least charged with that or whether he's told that that's what he's being arrested for doesn't court makes it clear that as long as they had in their possession facts supporting know no no that's not my question to this very thing and it's not just legal in alaska to smoke marijuana it is illegal to drive a vehicle under the influence but as judge of holland sin just questioned you the fact that you've been smoking marijuana was fifteen miles an hour and they perceived that he was driving ten miles or twenty five miles an hour and he was slowing and he passed two cars on the right and then when the officers finally stopped and they thought he might be trying to pass on the left  right he has interest in that motorist was because he thought he was imitating or impersonating a police officer and that was his focus and then when he made the charge made the charge based on the take the entire focus on this case was the trespass and quite frankly the reckless driving doesn't preclude us from looking at those records to see that it all has not at all and it's just like the marijuana well he smelled like marijuana but how do you should have how can you look at that record can conclude that he was driving under the influence o