repair service see if i could fix it now if i was being a little careless i could have very accidentally filed nine one one and this whole transaction between the government police officers and my client all of all around a nine one one call the police officer gets to my client's home and my client gives a rare e resume what's with the nation well i don't call nine one one i've been it might be a mistake well some think it consistent with that when they get their seat the government tries to characterize this is an emergency situation and when it really wasn't i think the officers conduct consistent from the very time he got the call through the entire proceeding shows he was on a fix a fishing expedition you don't really believe that there was an emergency you know this is seem right to me because i think the procedure went on nine one one call know is that if there's a nine one one call and a hang up but it's from a landline so they can trace it to an address it's routine that american jurisdictions and their police respond well if they get out of the house and a person comes to the is doing his or her job by just walking away also thanks thanks for clearing it up well that's a that's an interesting question and i was very obvious one your honor and a very reasonable one but i don't think the officers conduct was consistent with that what i would have liked to have seen at the trial would have been some expert testimony is how often do these not hang up calls occur and when they do occur how often does it turn out there really is an emergency well there was no testimony of that but the officer did testify something gave the inference that there was no real belief that there was somebody in need of assistance because he testified well this is a low priority call that's why it took us forty five minutes to get out here so i believe that shows that the consent was obtained really as a result of subterfuge you precluded by the factual findings of the district court on that i mean that that's was contested the district court evidently believed the officer as to not that that that consent whether it was legally valid and legally obtained i think is is not this court is not valid by that and if you look at the officers conduct all along the way it shows he had no real belief that somebody was the need of assistance or a fairly reasonable explanation is given for the reason for that hang up call then what happens when he gets inside well ok he sees a pipe which in any case maybe my client is smoking some sort of drugs so on the one hand you've got you know a person who maybe does a little bit of drugs on the other hand is there somebody here who is in dire need of emergency assistance and  no no they're not your honor but the question is especially since it's a low when you combine this with the low priority of the call and the delay in getting out there forty five minutes if you really believe somebody is in need of assistance what do you do first you go inquire about a little pike for you to go do you go look for on to see if there's somebody in need of assistance if you really think there's somebody in need of assistance go ok this guy's got paraphernalia i'm going to go see if there's somebody in need of assistance he doesn't do that he he concerns and so rat rather with a little pipe and then what happens after that after this whole thing about finding the marijuana ok does he then go look to see if there's somebody in need of assistance no  he could have secured my client at the appellate he could have put him in the back of the police car and then gone search the house to see if there's somebody in the systems but does he do that no he calls back up to wait for other police officers if  really believes somebody is a need of assistance there could be somebody if that's true why ng bleeding to death having some sort of injury which needs immediate attention but he doesn't do that he doesn't act consistently at all with wants to go on a fishing expedition on that and why is a fishing and why would you if you're right get what he is sort of from the get go he is interested in a fishing expedition why does that invalidate  consent to go look for somebody in need of aid and that's not what the officers were all purpose is the officers purpose is well i'm i'm here maybe i don't look like the way this guy looks maybe i you know i figure people what's the legal authority stated by the officer and it is i want to i want to look for i want to look for people in the house and but in other words i'm just thinking of the of the racial profiling cases where there are stops made for  supreme court has ruled that as long as there is a an independently valid basis for the stop you don't you don't invalidate the stop so you can you maybe stop because you're you're of a certain race or something like that but if your license plate light actually is out it's still a valid stuff how is that how is that any different in the case of the consent well because here you are i think this case is the same as the hypothetical you just gave because here while the officer states that he wants to search for somebody in need of assistance that's not really as true purpose but that's the point i guess you know it's a formalistic trying to make yes there actually was a nine one one hang up call whatever whatever caused it it actually happened facts that the officer did not see it as a priority there was a forty five minute delay this was a low priority call and therefore when you combine those facts with the other facts that the officer never acted consistent leave with somebody who's looking for somebody who may be in need of emergency aid i think if you look at all of those facts in the officers conduct from the very beginning that this case the issue i think first of all it's important to note that i think the defining implicitly concedes that consent was given in this case because the only challenge you raise in his reply brief is as the scope of the consent so i think point one is that safety concerns developed as a result of the defendant's mcalister brigade here inside the premises does not alter the fact that he had changed he requested in ten consent to search the premises for those who might be any of this distance it would make little sense to say that if an officer received consent to search for weapons that but if you subjectively believe that he might also find drugs and he happened to find drugs and of course that sorts therefore the scope of the search was somehow exceeded now there's no question that the defendant could have limited the scope of the search in terms of geographical space and said no you can't go in that particular area but that was never done in this case and i think it's questionable whether the defendant could have validly qualified his consent in the way that mr stern is proposing i think   intrusion into that person's liberty interest by the fact that there were one or more officers involved similarly here that the guest knows is going to look in the exact same places whether he's looking for somebody in need of assistance whether he's looking for somebody who might be lying in am the scope of that consent and therefore the consent with valid in this case it was proper and it justified the initial search and i think that in of itself as an independent basis the second point that i would just briefly like to address and take issue with this mr sharon's characterization that  officer was somehow behaving inappropriately from the get go i think this case demonstrates a quintessential example of an officer carrying out his caretaking function which is what the emergency doctrine provides for there's no question that he received a nine one one call now it is true that there was one hour last from the time that the nine one one hang up call came in for the time t emergency which in that case was the report of a dead body with lots of blood in various things inside an apartment but they took reasonable measures to call for backup talk to their supervisors before they made this entry into the location and we want to was asked what was the purpose of the delay and he did hypothesize generally that because nine one one receives various calls they have to prioritize their calls and he said that this would have been a lower priority call because it was a nine one one call with not a a direct request for assistance and i think that makes eminent sense that there's a spectrum of emergencies the nine one one will receive and from a recent resource allocation question i guess what you're saying i think that's certainly one reason that can explain now the officer was not saying that that was kind of concern would have been somebody in immediate assistance and the officer he may not have been known exactly when the call came in but he knew it was low priority therefore he wasn't  y from the time of the call and again what did he do when he got into the house he didn't go to look for somebody in need of assistance he went and concern himself over a little smoking  and then i don't believe that the search was based on officer safety in terms of needing to protect against somebody else who might have been in the house to harm the officer that was really there wasn't any evidence that there would be