breaking doors but he admitted even mclendon did the door craning closed trying to close the door trying to lock the door when he forced his way in and he then testified that there were several doors leading to this living room and dining room even testif later when the prosecutor elicited that he did not recover anything on the planet the next question was but you lost sight of right he said that yes one of the doors closed before he could make it through that perhaps as an attempt to explain why there was nothing on it but there was officer and this argument it is also flawed st because my client was in his home he was on his porch at the time the clinton initiated tried to initiate supposedly tried to initiate a terry stop he never testified about  block where he thought he might have heard shots and my client reasonably is trying to run from a civilian car racing down the wrong way on a one way street you don't have to gunshots so any reasonable person would go inside that doesn't create any sort of additional suspicion that he was going house arresting illegally detaining her police grandson and adopted son right in front of her while she is inside later tonight eleven fifteen pm there's the circumstances are similar and even actually more as would have been necessary as well as exigent circumstances to enter the home were indeed present at the time that the sergeant claimed him entered and attempted to or did rather search defendant however the legality of the initial search of defendant within his home is actually irrelevant to the  missibility of the evidence of tape from his room the consent given by pearly crane at the moment that the officers entered they started talking they realised something's not quite right here we didn't have a full grasp of the situation and usually how one of the officers on right i think the rapid movement away from the bottom of the porch where defendant's friend testified that he was at the moment the car came around the corner to the top of the porch and into the door is fairly consistent with consummate flight i think that is very evident especially from the officers perspective which is the critical perspective for understanding probable cause in this instance they believe that somebody has fired a gun in a residential area they go to the area where they believe that gun was fired and they say to see two individuals standing on a porch at night they a crime involving a gun indeed potentially a violent crime involving a gun could be committed the alternative to what the officers had done this night perhaps they say oh that's odd let's go get a warrant if indeed they suspected reasonably that a violent crime with a gun could be in progress at this moment and that they just saw the individual who appears to be holding a weapon fleeing into this house he could be going to do some serious damage there could be something terribly wrong here the officer reasonably acted upon the circumstances and identified the need to ensure that premises without the warrants to ensure that nobody got hurt to ensure that nobody died it is not an ideal th amendment circumstance to be sure but given the severity of the situation and given what the officers is very  visual cue of a firearm itself and we have the headlong flight as to as defendant's counsel correctly states none of those instances are in and of themselves sufficient to establish probable cause however taken together under the talladega of the circumstances a reasonable officer would states that it is not sufficient or it is not ideal the law is not designed to put the officers in a worse position than they would have been after a potentially illegal stop or search the idea is to put them in a neutral position we want to ensure that the fruits of illicit action do not come in against the defendant but we also want to ensure that the officers are not handcuffed in their policing duties in this case the functional difference between entering realizing that probably crane was present and asking her consent versus going up knocking on the door realizing that this was not defend it defend his house but he did not own it that there was a different master a resident of the establishment and saying oh wait a minute hey can we come in the functional difference of evidence obtained after that point is nil under people vs list of people versus for new can the sufficiently serves as an independent separating circumstance that severs the causal chain and allows evidence obtained thereafter to be legitimately considered because there are a number of factors that one considers in looking at the severing of that causal chain there is the temporal proximity and admittedly this was almost immediately after the potentially illegal entry so it was very quick and that's true that that goes against the state however the presence of intervening circumstances are clear the police did not know that proby crane was present in this house they had no idea what the circumstances were when they entered they were entering to search to find it and indeed they patted down defendant and upon doing so they secretly pain they begin to have a conversation with pearly crane they realize that really crane owns this house that defendant lives there is her son slash grandson and they say hey can we look around can we see defendants who and she says yes the police do not need probable cause to ask for consent to search an establishment they don't need reasonable suspicion police can ask for  whatsoever even if the initial entry in search of defendant which is to be clear his pal down to search for a firearm that they believed he had even if that was illegal under the th amendment after they obtained the consent from pearlie crane the  broken and it was just the same as if they had knocked on the front door and asked her to come in from that point on what about the issue about the number of officers that were in the house at the time your honor the determination of the voluntariness of the consent is a matter that i deference for the trial court's determination and it is true that the standard would be only if it was objective we are reasonable only if it was against the manifest weight of the evidence and we have here a number of circumstances upon which consent could have been voluntarily given and the evidence suggests that it was according to the testimony that the trial court found credible they had a pleasant conversation about the master masons organization they were led directly to defendant's room upon asking in fact they were allowed paid hey can you sign this we have this form we are getting your consent your informed consent and despite testimony to the contrary which the trial court found incredible manifestly incredible they found that the form had been signed under no to rests under no deception everything was done according to reasonable actions of a police officer it's true that there are a number of officers present it is true that that is something that can go towards a course of atmosphere over that alone especially when the standard is subjective on reasonable this does not in  consent was involuntary or coerced so given that the trial court's ruling was indeed it a voluntary that the consent was voluntary the evidence obtained thereafter was properly considered because early claimed by the right to the room they established construct possession where they saw not just the on bullets on the table saying his address what they saw his presence they had defendant's statements saying that he lived there and that those were his we have a mountain of evidence to establish constructive possession and from there on we establish that the consent allowed those evidence pieces to be properly considered the police conduct moving into the house may not have been the ideal th amendment circumstance and indeed the initial pat down of defendant may have been illegal however the people maintained that it was not regardless no evidence was obtained from that search this is not a matter of the suppression of evidence obtained from the potentially illegal search of defendant this is a separate incident grew it with people versus the united states versus lissac scuse me in which they discovered new circumstances upon even lisc illegally entering a location they said oh something is hot here we didn't know this woman was here we didn't know that there might be other things here let's ask if we can keep looking the officer should not be placed in a worse situation than they would have been otherwise simply because their initial entry in search of defendant may have been illegal the th amendment discourse is very clear on that and for that reason we ask that you maintain the trial court's decision thank you bursting into her house late at night that should have never been in the st place to have a discussion with her she was in her bedroom according to clinton of the fifteen and seventy five year old grandmother there's no no way they would have had this consent without the illegal entry it's directly tied to the search they don't have to coerce or for it to be the fruit of this illegal entry and they don't have to intend a course or for it to be inherently course of like a graph where again the parents signed a consent form to get officers coffee and still found this that would support