stephen l walker arguing for the i believe david friedman good morning counsel and we do apologize for being a bit late but we had another argument that extended beyond our time and we will give you your time even if it extends beyond the clock time so mr walker when you are ready you may proceed thank you good morning your honor is in counsel may it please the court my name is about eight am officers berryhill boy received a dispatch regarding nine hundred and eleven call placed by him and six girlfriend indicating that the man at and tended had told her that he intended to commit suicide when the officers arrived they knew that the man threatening to commit suicide was mr kolesnikov and they approached the door mr kolesnikov wearing a bathrobe answered and identified and the officers identified him based on the driver's as he did not give them a lot of information however he was also calm and courteous to the officers kolesnikov told the officers that they could not enter his home and asked him why they were there the officers told him that they wanted to ask him a few things and he came out of house and stood on the porch with them question calls told the officers that the nine hundred and eleven caller was in fact his ex girlfriend but he c  in the house and kolesnikov told them no based on cause and cause previously so called invasive responses when asked about the photo of the man in the tub for him berryhill nevertheless went back opening brief the community care taking exception does not allow police to warrant lease warrant mostly search an individual's home based on bald abstract concern officers must be able to point to some objective basis for believing that the assistance is required and both people below max and people who you hand police were told by a rd party that there were children within the home they needed assistance in this case kolesnikov stands in place or as analogous to the child or officers clearly saw kolesnikov wearing a bathrobe which would have indicated that he was more than likely the man in the bath tub and he had the cut marks on his arms this court's holding in people v mick were clearly applies to these facts and the offices improperly expanded their intrusion beyond the strictly circumscribed exigencies just find the initial intrusion on appeal the state also tends to argue that the officers entered kolesnik calls home in order to search for the intoxicating substance you consume apparently in order to conduct some form of detox but alcohol intoxication or run of the mill hangover does not require the police discover exactly what type of alcohol the individual consumed in order to treat in fact such a standard would be absurd as a particular brand or type of alcohol consumed is patently immaterial to treatment but another way the over consumption of beer hard liquor is known to be treated the same way consequently this argument also fails finally the state argues that the exigent sir that exigent circumstances existed at the time police searched plus nichol's home based on the apprehension that some other person in the home may have needed assistance for emergency assistance however the state built a point to any objective facts supporting instead like the officers the state imagines that there might have been an individual within the home based on kolesnikov inability to identify himself as the man who sent the picture to his ex girlfriend home and also is very real for never asked a rd party to verify kolesnikov claim that no one else was inside the house therefore the totality of the circumstances known to the officers at the time they entered cannot support a finding that the objective really believed that someone else was in clear and immediate danger which officer for even admitted at the suppression hearing the trial for further erred when it held that the improper search was saved by the plainview d evidence instead the officers evidence that they acted in bad faith when they scuttle back and applied for a war clearly they understood that they were not lawfully within class and called home needed a warrant to conduct a further search  argument is also buttressed by the fact that binding precedent existed at the time was sick strictly circumscribed and invalidated officers actions and they were shocked and they're charged with knowing the law at that time appeal the still argues that the subsequent search and seizure based on the war the off other officers later obtained based on the information received from officers vary hill for you can say this case but it cannot of adam boyd applied for the warrant in question using only the information he obtained from office from the officers who illegally entered mr clawson calls home that's held by both the united states supreme court and the illinois supreme court a warrant is void and subsequent execution is conducted in bad faith when the basis for the warrant issuance of permits entirely applying information obtained from an illegal search moreover to hold otherwise would serve to enable police to sidestep the law by having one group of officers conducting a legal search and then allowing another group of court and and intentionally ignorant officers execute a search warrant based on that illegally obtained information and short the result would be abolishing the th amendment with a few extra steps because such a result is untenable the state's argument again necessarily fails thus in conclusion this court reversed the trial court's order deny his motion to suppress and vacate his conviction thank you jorgensen do you have any questions if you can the defendant go to the m p momentarily yes the defendant did go to the ambulance voluntarily all right so basically walk throughout someone's home to check on the stove or to check on what they believe to be running water or what have you is enabling them to act on mere suspicion they don't know that the stove is on they don't know they're let me let me ask you this so you would say in the absence of some objective thing like the guy comes to the time and had just woken up have left his back door open that's his business that's his home that's his property and the th amendment clearly indicates that police do not have carte blanche to do whatever they want with in someone's home even if it is to that maybe to the person the benefit was there any follow up with the ex girlfriend to find out how she knew this or any verification of her story no i believe that dispatch was or was the only body to receive any information from its ex girlfriend i would argue that officers for him berryhill kind of abdicated their duty by not attempting to contact her to verify whether anybody else was in the home or if there may have been some need to go inside the house i mean there were ways that the officers could have obtained information before illegally entering  i've spoken to his neighbors they could have reached out to his ex girlfriend there were any number of ways they could have formed a basis to enter his home but they did not also artist community cared  initially presents itself as in people the mc group the police did need to go into the defendant's bedroom to help the young woman collect her belongings there was no clear and apparent danger so just like in the grid in this case there was no evidence the police didn't say they smelled gas for instance going to  the stove example they didn't hear running water there was nothing to evidence that there was some other emergency situation going on maybe ask us now if the police have  the police be responsible for having not fulfill their caretaking up legation no because the police in this case would have had no idea that somebody else is in the home the police can't be charged with being present in our mission they can act based only on the objective evidence before them again they can also investigate to get the code of call collect a call that's girlfriend they could have spoken to neighbors justice hudson do you have any questions yes i do morning mr walker mr walker the trial court relied on the community caretaking function to find that the warrantless entry was justified that has not go there to conduct an investigation would you agree with that yes and they initially arrived they did not go there to conduct an investigation the nd element of the community caretaking doctrine has to be that where the search or seizure is reasonable that the police have some reasonable articulable basis for conducting the search and in this case as you alluded to that any of the person who was in the e mail was not certain when they got there the defendant was somewhat of a sieve the individual in the photograph as i recall was wearing jeans and was wet here the defendant was dry he's wearing a bathrobe and so the police then having a basis for believing perhaps somebody else was still in the house who was not the person in the e mail went into the house to conduct the search so don't they have a reason to believe that perhaps someone may still be in there other than the defendant i believe that the officers did their best to explain their illegal entry but if you look at the evidence of the hole st of all  was either drunk or hung over which would explain why he was apparently a basis maybe he wasn't even a basic i mean it's probably quite likely that he was just in a stupor and didn't quite recall what he did the night before nd regarding the bath tub in the bath water i mean this or kolesnikov answered the door in a bathrobe and it's apparent that he was asleep which means probably dr himself often went to bed  there is no objective basis to indicate that in fact the evidence objective lee indicates that the person in the tub was mr cause of the cough because the because his ex girlfriend distress or in need of help and if we look to the reasonableness of the scope of the search i think the evidence disclosed that when the police went into the house stunts of lee to look for someone else to see if anyone else was in there in distress the evidence of stablish they did not go through drawers and cabinets look under you know beds and things like that they only want room to room looking for someone is that correct that would be partially correct your honor what they did which to me smacks of an investigation and go to his kitchen and then down to a basement now while some people may to me that would indicate that the officers were back conducting some sort of search because as later found out  kolesnikov codefendant was found of stairs though it's likely that if they had called out he may have responded or they would have heard him moving around upstairs well but if they called out in the person was injured or i can just we're in distress they wouldn't have responded and if you a person could have staggered out of the upstairs bath tub and then gone down started stairs and fallen so i mean you've pointed out other theories to support your argument but the question is looking at this through the lens of the officers who went there you know was their conduct reasonable and as you've acknowledged they didn't look in drawers or you know plaza it's they did not look into the cabinets where they were conducting clearly investigate their research for evidence all of the things they did seemingly would be consistent with looking for a person somewhere in the house your honor i believe you outline in evaluating whether or not the officers are conducting community caretaking function is are there reason oh articulable facts that will point to the fact that somebody else would need their assistance and in this case all the facts point to kolesnikov being the only individual who needed aid so whether or not somebody was in the home is  facts that would you know work against the idea that he there was somebody else in the house i don't know anything explaining what happened to the knife and would you acknowledge that the picture itself the police couldn't tell from looking at the picture whether that person was definitively kolesnik off or not but they just by looking at the picture the fact that they received the picture from kolesnikov ex girlfriend who called specifically and never mentioned anybody else about plus the cough would lead to the conclusion that if she's reporting all this information about the lesson the coffin must be kolesnikov now the officers could have conducted a further investigation at that time they could have reached out to his girlfriend  or talked to neighbors to see if anybody else was in the home but instead they merely walked into this mentality without a warm after he told them they couldn't enter now i'm not saying that the officers couldn't have done additional investigation and then entered his own too if somebody related information that someone else of the now or the someone else lived there but at the time they entered they didn't have any basis for believing that someone else was in the home all the evidence in fact pointed to the contr other than the fact that he pointed out he was wearing a bathrobe he was not what the knife was apparently and recovered and they don't know if there was somebody else upstairs because they were relying on someone who you acknowledged apparently was intoxicated but let's go a step further ok if you want to allege that this was some kind of a fishing expedition expedition for evidence the fact that they didn't go through the cabins they didn't go through drawers isn't that consistent with their testimony they were just looking for somebody is and they are consistent with that testimony your honor i think going through cabinets and going through drawers is limited to what police performing some kind of investigation going into somebody's basement going down into their basement going checking through doors is the exact same thing is going through somebody's cabinet let me ask you this when the police discovered the can bis plants and initially they opened the door and saw the plants correct correct ok so the plants were in plain view correct yes but plainview only applies when the officers are lawfully in the place that they're viewing the incriminating evidence and i think that is possible i just want to clarify that that they didn't uncover anything any evidence of cannabis possession in drawers or cabinets again but let me ask a final question you rely heavily on the  case i believe and in that case it was clear and make right at least that the officers purpose had been accomplished when the defendant was secured in the room there the case law clearly indicated the police had accomplished their community caretaking purpose at that point here that's not the same situation here isn't your honor i do believe it's analogous because in this case the police were called to kolesnik call home in the ambulance before they entered the home sleep it would seem unreasonable to expect that he would be walking around carrying a knife throughout his home well do we have a precise time when the ex girlfriend you know thought that this have is the picture that was sent with the e mail that does not identify the face of the person with the knife correct that would be correct yes so somewhere we may have a knife in that house and if this is a community care taking activity why can they not look for that particular weapon your honor i would actually ask why the weapon is the so called weapon is significant here this isn't a case where mr kolesnikov could have done more harm to himself he was already secured in an ambulance that knife was his personal property in his home and he had not brandished it against anybody else prior to the police coming to check on him well once again how do we know that how do we know that he had not used it against someone else there was no evidence indicating that he used it against somebody else all the evidence indicates that mr claus nichol used it on himself yet the bloody wrist of his ex girlfriend was conveying information about him she never said that the email was sent by somebody else also has never testified that the email may have been sent by someone else all this information seems to be coming from m right now in terms of some history do you have any idea why we now allow police inventory of vehicles after a traffic stop and before the before the vehicle is taken to a tow lot without the defendant being present you know why we do that off the top of my honor i can say well after being here for a few years i think i might know the there were disputes about what was in that car when it was taken  and was it a one hundred dollars radio it's a one thousand dollars radio was it was there stuff that shouldn't be there or was it completely clean but because there was no inventory because there was no record of what was in that car litigation ensued where there were suits against police departments for the theft or whatever of the the materials that were alleged to be inside so if we now have a legitimate police procedure to inventory that can be identified to a trial court and a hearing and that inventory occurs that releases or that resolves that particular problem of who took what from home there is no specific to my knowledge similar protocol that is on all of the books police departments about securing houses but you know this officer testified that he was familiar with these condominium properties because he had been and others he knew the general layout of the properties maybe he knew there was a door downstairs that needed to be you know secured and the fact that the defendant doesn't care if he is pilfered while he's present don't you think  would be concerned if he was pilfered when he was taken away even voluntarily by an ambulance and nobody protected his stuff your honor perhaps but i believe that there would have been less intrusive ways of going about securing the home again these auster didn't ask mr close the cough for his keys to lock the door like where could the keys be located in fact they are didn't ask him even if he cared for instance maybe mr kolesnikov for instance would have signed off on a waiver stating no i just don't want you to go in my house you can just leave the door where it is except for and then that would have been  minimum not being very helpful generally that's ok you can ask him anything he says hey burn it down they go ahead and burn it down your honour's i believe that there would be a cut off at the point of absurdity if mr cause a culture told them to burn down his house clearly that could disregard that there was nothing stopping them from it for instance from just asking him where his keys were located so that they could lock up the house didn't go search is bedroom st they went down into his basement ok allegedly expressed an interest in taking it all much why would they let him go back into the house now after they've talked to him alone they could have discarded mr kolesnikov one of the officers because the  again the problem here is that they went to the basement of all places they went to the basement st and then checked the up stairs they didn't really check the living room were done the officers were familiar with once he was secured in the ambulance and once he received treatment at the hospital or the mental health center you was free to own that knife the knife if anything was an offense is committed against himself and it's right i guess i don't have any other questions at this time mr friedland if you wish to proceed you may do so thank you my name is david friesland and i represent the people  set forth and given the time constraints i will focus my argument on the community caretaking emergency and good faith exceptions to the th amendment and then stand in my brief on the other arguments and let's try to question your honor the state position in this case is that the sweep of defendants residents to check for other injured people was justified by the emergency exception in the community care taking exception to the port and then to the extent that this court finds that in this case the officers exceeded the scope of the emergency or the caretaking function the people argue that exclusion would be inappropriate as the officer's actions were objective really reasonable and done in good faith your honor the defense argument here really makes th community caretaking emergency exceptions not exist as justice dargon some pointed out assuming all and justice hudson assuming all facts being the same only that there is an injured person in the bathtub although i don't see why it has to be limited to the bathtub in your person could be anywhere but that the defendant's roommate is injured inside the reds under the defendant's argument there would be no basis for these police officers to check on this person except what it seems to be into limited cases and that's number one if the defendant consents and or number two someone specifically tells the police that there is someone else in the house and i don't believe that this argument adequately reflects the state of the law the requirements for the community care taking exception are satisfied here it's just a tug and noted st for it to apply the police must be engaged in a function other than investigation of a crime and that's clearly s they are responding for reports of a possibly suicidal individual nd that the search be reasonably necessary for the protection of the public and that's clear that the police officers entry and sweep of the funds house was only made for the purpose of ensuring that there was no one else injured inside there was no pretext year for any other search simply to check for other people who might be in need of aid and therefore the issue before the court is whether this entry and swee was reasonable under the totality of the circumstance and the facts your support that the search was reasonable given that the defendant had not provided any clear answers as to what had transpired earlier that night regarding his suicidal text message and the cuts on the defendant's arms his disoriented intoxicated state the officers received a check for other people or victims was reasonable in his argument and in his reply defense counsel pointed to five crucial facts that he argues make the community care taking exception in a political and i'll address each of those first with the defendant told the officers that they could not enter his house and  people are not arguing there was consent the defendant's statements or lack of consent should have pretty much little to no impact on whether objectively the officers to check for other people inside was reasonable obviously if you consented there would be no issue but the lack of his consent to go in does not obviate the public safety concern nd the officers already identified the defendant based on a photo that they had received and  the officers may have known that the person they were talking to was the person that they were to check and they hadn't identified who was in that photo at the time the answer the rd the defendant had cut marks on his arm  cut marks actually support the inference that other people could be injured as the defendant did not explain what happened or how he got the car the possibility of other injured people inside the residence increased with this observation and justified a brief sweep th that there was no indication to believe anyone else was in the house on the phone the phones console indicated that the girlfriend had not indicated there was anyone else what this also supports a brief check just because his girlfriend hadn't expressly identified or said who else was in the house merely because she didn't do that or identify everyone doesn't believe doesn't make the officers believe that someone else could be in there unreasonable and in fact the defendant did have somebody else who was inside the house his room in the trial court noted the possibility of a child in the residence perhaps the defendant was watching his roommate's child the bottom line is that the officers didn't kno and therefore it was reasonable to go in and check to find any defendant argues that he told the officer that no one else was in the home again defendant statements should be given little to no wait the police are counsel's point about that that he should have known that there was no bath tub in the basement that they were familiar with the house i believe that the office should be able to check anywhere in that residence where they reasonable leave a person could be and they went into the basement they saw a light on therefore it was reasonable to check in that basement room where a light was coming assuming the court finds that the police exceeded the scope of the emergency or caretaking functions exclusion would be improper because they were clearly acting in good faith their actions were objectively reasonable and based on a good faith belief that their conduct was lawful defendants kind of argument that the police could not have been acting in good faith because the circumstances and because each one involved different circumstances it's impossible to prescribe a blanket rule to officers about when they can go on a house for emergencies or to perform their community caretaking function he cited to the dog sniff line of cases  which is distinguishable because those cases are more capable of right line rules about where a dog to entertain at sniff or the cases involving g p s devices placed on cars whether that constitutes a search here the officers were not acting with reckless disregard for established neagle precedent uing the defendant's argument most favorably to him at best the offices exceeded the scope of the emergency or caretaking function but they were doing so in good faith to ensure public safety in this scene or merely yelled into the house which does not address the possibility of the injured sort of just disabled person or if there was a child perhaps they have headphones on playing video games that none neither of those  affects the reasonableness of what the officer did here but regardless what the police officers did is not the sort of conduct that needs to be deterred here is this is the sort of these conduct to be encouraged checking on people who might be injured unable to speak or call are simply locking up the house and going on their way would be a dereliction of their duty and so therefore the caretaking certainly requires a brief check to make sure there were no additional for the reasons i stated in my him not wanting the police in there but when you look at the rest of the circumstances that they hadn't addressed the knife situation they hadn't identified who was there he had not said whether it was him that the slants hold that against him you can hold what he did say against him if they east if they say hey who is this in this photo did you send this  is unclear about what happened i think that that is certainly what he doesn't he doesn't have to answer the questions or about correct he doesn't have to answer the questions but is it merely to answer them can't be construed as extending this emergency can it well he did looking at what he did say i mean he said things so based on what he did say it goes to the standard not a subjective standard correct yes and you said down the defendant's statements and he lied about someone else being in the house he said defendant's lawyer lie all the time he's not to defend it he's somebody that they're there to take care of right i agree that he wasn't a defendant at the time and they certainly at the time he was in no way suspect however they don't of the circumstances police officers don't always have to take the word of the people that they're talking to i think that in this case the officers looked at the circumstances in decided that there was some there was a possibility of somebody inside injured it they hadn't recovered the knife they hadn't identified that the person within the was that he was the person in the bath and so therefore they decided and i wondered objective reasonable standard i think it was appropriate to go in and just check for people that nobody's lying bleeding on the floor ok and nice and this is where this defendant here he lives there right yes most of the kitchen sure  reasonable to expect to find a couple knives in the house correct yes  he's outside and within five to ten minutes of speaking with him they are concerned that there could be somebody else inside they just don't know and based on what they've seen and what they've heard there the officers form the opinion that there injuries there had been physical that somebody had been injured and so i believe until they know one way or the other the emergency is ongoing they don't know specifically that somebody is inside but they don't know they don't have they have identified that everyone who was the investigation wasn't complete as soon as they had more information the emergency continued with and it was five to ten minutes by the time the defendant was at the ambulance wires specific articulable emergency as opposed to caretaking which is a little bit more could have been should have been made about this requires a specific emergency x person is in the house and it is injured or with the issue with like a child in the house on its end that's an immediate emergency that can be identified here or what's the emergency that was identified not possibly but was identified in this case they add they can't know it specifically but just because they don't know what happened doesn't mean that there isn't a number to see they have a nine eleven my point is if these are two different theories then in this theory there is a specific emergency for which the police are acting to address your arguments thus this morning have been maybe there was someone in the house maybe there was someone injured maybe there are a lot of maybe but this theory requires a specific emergency yes i recommended that i that the place to be searched is sorry one moment that the the the place to be search is associated with the emergency the officers knew that the suicide the suicide attempts had come from th house therefore i would argue that the inside of the entire house is subject to the ongoing emergency i'm told and have that information you will get the person who they were there to talk about with in a suicide right case can you distinguish that case from the facts of this case sure in mc right the officers went when the purpose of the caretaking in was to assist the ex girlfriend in obtaining her belongings from inside the house the police did that they separated the parties i believe it was in a common area and the purpose the court said that the purpose was the caretaking was to assist her in getting her belongings safely they went the search exceeded the scope of that purpose because the officer went into the bedroom with the woman they had one officer standing with with m and the other officer went into the defendant's bedroom and search of the bedroom the officer with looking into a closet in a place where he there was no need she could gather her own belongings it was clear that the officer exceeded what he was there to do in this case we don't have honner pointed out they didn't look in drawers they didn't go in i don't from the office reaction they didn't even want to find anything they were almost finished with that call but they went in the house they only looked in places for body where somebody could be in  a basement in a room with a light on that's a reasonable place to look they didn't fix exceed the scope of what the caretaking function was here as an officer did he look inside a closet and you know had no need to look anywhere i th purpose there's some cases cited by both of you in your briefs that moving this along once you're involved in this community caretaking moving in along resolving the issues that are before specially since we're not contemplating prison criminal activity at that point is important so why would it make sense for them to you know put him in the ambulance and then one of them go to the left side of the house the other go to the right side of the house and ask them questions about you know who lived there what are they like what would be the purpose of that within the concept of why they were there in the st place  are you asking me why i should to the left side of the house to the right side of the house to speak with a purse or to talk to the neighbors what a council said that they had lots of opportunities to make the  were concerned about by just talking to the neighbors what mandated that they must go talk to the neighbors under the circumstances i don't believe they had to go talk to the neighbors i and i don't also believe that they don't they didn't have to call back to the council also argue that they could have called back ex girlfriend she wasn't on scene this is it am and they don't have a lot of information about what had gone on in that house they're concerned that there somebody injured it just started to disagree with the emergency part of that but i would argue that regardless whether there was an emergency or whether they were going in to make sure nobody was injured under community care taking it i don't think that before they do that one of the requirements is that they go over and check with all the neighbors about who lived there again under the totality of the circumstances was what they did reasonable sure they could have done two other things something else they could have yelled into the house they could have knocked on neighbors doors but it's eight am and they believed somebody was inside injured or could have been so i don't i don't believe they have to go to the neighbors if the are two sets of stairways at or near that kitchen location and one goes down and one goes up is there any reason why i mean any you know metaphysical reason why you would go up st and then go down later or i mean what mr walker seems to making a significant point that they went to the basement st what what's where does that come from what is that why is that so significant i don't believe that it is significant they there were my recollection is that there were two officers one went downstairs one went upstairs one stayed in the kitchen i think there were three officers one went downstairs one went upstairs and searched anywhere that there could have been a person council argued that it had to be the baths of that there would be no bath tub in the basement just because the photo involved a person in the bathtub and council alluded to this defendant was drunk hung over possibly had no idea what happened that previous night therefore anything could have happened in that house and they weren't able to figure that out from the text or from speaking to the defendant so going downstairs where somebody could be maybe there was a fight maybe there was yes there's a lot of maybes but it's reasonable for the officers to assume that there's could be a person injured downstairs could be a person injured upstairs there could be a child that if they had as your honor pointed out that they would have to lock up the house before they left the scene for both protection of the defendant as well as public policy to make sure nobody stole anything but they can go downstairs they can go up stairs as long as they're not looking through items present a reply this would be the time yes please just very briefly thank you st i would like to outline that unfortunately i believe counsel misstated the facts in this case  particularly the officers were individually searching throughout the house the record indicates that the commanding officer and officer berryhill went down to the basement together  remained in the kitchen it was only after they got done with their search of the basement that they decided to go up stairs i would also address counsel's argument that  police's mirrorball concern without some form of objective evidence to back it up with give them would open up the possibility of police acting in further is just based on mere suspicion which would completely undermine the th amendment warrant requirement what we're talking about here is allowing officers who are addressing certain community caretaking functions to act based on mere suspicion for instance if somebody is cars parked illegally and they need the car on the way does that give them a basis for searching that individual's trunk i think that would just be absurd and the state also points to no object facts indicate that there was an ongoing need for somebody to receive assistance again i would concede that if the officers spoke to a neighbor or spoke to cluster cause this girlfriend or  some other means searching a database or what have you discovered that there may have been someone else in the home then that may have given them a basis based on cost me costs inability to identify himself as the man in the well actually it's pretty simple in this case because the officers have a duty to follow and enforce the law and here the law is that without a warrant and then left there's an exception to that requirement you cannot just enter somebodies home that is the chief evil that the four putting them in was designed to guard against and that would be all  it's not on the record unfortunately all right erica and i have nothing and just as i do a final question mr walker when the police arrived at the residence and they met with mr kay  was able to tell a fair point that the his face was the face of the person who was in the tub with the knife unfortunately your honor the pictured did not show anybody's face the top picture and so it was not definitive at the point that mr kay was the person who was sitting in the tub with a large knife correct yes that would be correct ok that's all i have mr walker i think and i was trying to find the page  the brief and i can't so i apologize i believe you mentioned an abstract concern is not sufficient to proceed with this search or with this  overview of the house what does that mean it means that the officers have to have some reasonable suspicion not just a going to get suspicion they can come up with hypotheticals in their head in order to justify we entering somebody tells my argument was principally focused on the fact that there were other means by which they could have formed a basis to search the house again and they could have reached out to dispatch to confirm whether they finish their conversation and remove or tell the ambulance which is staging down the street to come forward i missed where i am i to assume anything they take him to the ambulance and they see some marks but they do not see a knife and that pretty obvious he's not dead so why wouldn't looking for someone who might be otherwise injured and we're particularly looking for th knife be not an abstract concern but an issue that needed to issues that needed to be resolved in order to ultimately close this community care taking investigation your honor as i believe that that toes a very dangerous line if an individual is threatening to commit suicide or d to do something within their home to themselves maybe they're talking about self castration or something to that effect to allow police to search through an individual's home and fee all of any sharp objects within their home without a warrant and would be patently absurd these individuals have a right to possess their personal property unless they've received  process and an independent magistrate has determined that there are danger to themselves or something like that in this case the police had secured mr kolesnik off in the ambulance at that point they could apply for a search warrant in order to get this evidence there was no immediate danger there was no immediate necessity in fact the officers could have stood going to the point of securing his home they could have obtained some kind of worn or staged an officer at the  door in order to properly go about entering this man's home instead they decided to take an impermissible shortcut which is unfortunate i'm not saying that the officers may not have had warrant to get in the house and i say i did a community caretaking the party prince the the party i think who is the subject of the e mail has presented himself we found some cuts on his arm but we did see in a picture really big knife that we have not now found we need to go in secure that knife and the magistrate and i say that's right it's me so why do you  need but i want to close the investigation make sure this is the only knife and make sure that there are no other persons in the the residence that might have been injured or some way implicated in the cuts on the man's arms are you to you know do you think the magistrates going to give you a search warrant on that basis because now the house has been if you point to some facts for instance in applying for the warrant the concern could have been i believe in a basis if the officer indicated that someone else may have been injured inside the home because the individual who received the emergency aid didn't identify another possible that i mean in that though but there's a delay in doing that why delay the process for that why don't we just look for it and if it's there it's there if it's not it's not because mr kolesnikov has a right to privacy a t some exception to the th amendment war requirement his home is his castle the police are not entitled to search just based on abstract hypotheticals argument this morning thank you very much for participating and thank you for your interest in arguments we will take the matter under the eyes met we are standing in adjournment at this point and  colleagues office or cell phones so phones in ten minutes ok johnson do we need to do it in ten minutes can we do a little bit later