on the second the question in this case with regard to that first issue is whether the police had valid consent to enter and search the residence in question which was sherman williams mother's house objecting to the police officer search under georgia versus randolph of course where there are multiple people with common authority over a residence where one of them consents that consent would still be unreasonable as to another party who is there present physically present and expressly objects to the entry in the search and that's what happened in this case now especially in the courts or the circuit court to make any specific findings on this contention and so i guess we're left to kind of reason out why the court on this basis wouldn't have denied the motion to suppress i think the court was wrong as a matter of law in which case of course this court should reverse and remand the case or the court they actually found that there was no objection and in which case the court was that was manifest error on the evidence that was presented share both sherman williams and his brother jeffrey testified that sherman did not know that sherman did object and he did not give consent he objected to the entry by the police the police officer he testified he didn't recall they were binding there is an acknowledgement both were there interestingly and kind of an unusual circumstance in this case is that the victim of the residential burglary was present at the time of this search she had actually retrieved the police was a few she was she was a neighbor and worker of the homeowner so she has a lot of familiarity with who lives at the house who's there you know who comes and goes and whatnot knew both the homeowner and knew  to someone he says he doesn't recall if he made a call beforehand before the search or if you made a call after shellie williams testify she got a call before at a time that would have coincided with being before in the brothers testify called before so well that doesn't go directly to the question of sherman why humans are saying he objected she backs up their version finders testimony is more in line with what sherman williams and his friend are are saying and with what the couple of things i have going for us so we don't really know what the court thought about that because the courts and make a finding on this matter and so to the extent factual findings from the quarter necessary from the circuit court we ask it sent it back so the court can make a determination if we're talking credibility but the other determinant issue and i think we need the court to say something on that so if i guess it to the extent the court didn't i would ask this court to send it back and state hasn't offered any objection to that as a potential i think not necessarily to make explicit kind exists or credibility to make factual findings on this particular issue so make a factual finding on what's an objection or not which i guess would come down to credibility but make no special findings that would be determin three days chairman every day while she's at work at least so five as five days a week comes over and watches the house so he hangs out there in the morning and some breakfast apparently when the police came to send their things and video games in the brothers the brothers are the only people allowed i mean apparent already we are looking at what under the facts are known at the moment at that time well with a reasonable person you warranted in believing that you ask a direct question do you live here and you get any of the us response here we don't have something on the record suggesting that thank you so what the officer knew though was that he wasn't the homeowner that the homeowner was at work you know it can he's got this neighbor the victim  you know if they think she has the authority to consent i'm not sure why they would even need to call shirley williams let alone get her to be the one to sign a consent form on i think all this is indicative of it's at least ambiguous and if it's ambiguous the officer should have inquired are the rather than just relying on whether shows up at the door to let them in and let them through the house i'm happy says or on the basis that sherman williams was present objecting had asked this court to reverse house generally doesn't pay any teles he doesn't have a key you know that rant sherman if we're talking actual authority and sherman has a key jeffrey does and so on the question of actual authority there are more significant things showing sherman for all intents and purposes case and obviously it was the way or the credibility he heard all the testimony both sides there was jeffrey and sherman who said sherman refused and then the officer said sherman basically said nothing that's what officers involved in an op would testify and he was in it based on then the results of the motion to suppress hearing that clearly the judge believed the officers and and will submit to the record shows that there actually refused because officer up what officer walden both officer said there was no refusal the only thing they had was even sent from geoffrey that kind of leads into the next issue whether or not jeffrey whether or not was it was reasonable for officer hopwood to believe that jeffrey had the authority to consent and very quickly very clearly other people submit that he clearly had the apparent a you know if there was somebody else with greater authority for example with why would they why would somebody ask the audience to the door and scuffs with police these types of matters  that he doesn't recall any conversation with the defendant with sherman with with having any conversation with sherman and with officer walden who was the other officer who showed up you know to kind of back up on the situation also testified he did not the sherman williams objection it should go back to the trial court to sort that out because on this record those aren't that's not directly contradicting you saying you know remember something isn't saying something didn't happened well no what it does say  the key point you know to this particular issue of controlling point why this is the key question determine object or not well you would think it would be remembered if you have jack that i mean that's important you know i am back off my objection there's no evidence of that and i don't think this this part can take it that far i don't even think the circuit court can find that on this record because there's no evidence to suggest that he she relented from his objection