authority and some sort of cases is problematic in light of the supreme court's holding in sampson and the u s supreme court in science and dealt with the issue of suspicion to conduct that search but the court noted nice that by virtue of the probationary status that probation others do not possess the same liberty enjoyed by law abiding citizens and the probationers have significantly diminished expectations of privacy now when the court was analyzing sampson the court noted that parolees had even fewer expectations of privacy than probationers because it's more akin to imprisonment than probation and the court noted in sampson that parolees had that diminished expectation of price severely diminished not merely reduced which is what the green bay by the case holds it is severely diminished in the court noted that those substantial and overwhelming interest justify privacy intrusions that would otherwise be prohibited under the fourth amendment so considering the total of the circumstances and sampson the court noted that mr sampson didn't have an expectation of privacy that society would consider legitimate and the court concludes that the suicide suspicion a search was reasonable  drug cases possession upon cases and importantly those cases did not involve a parolee with some severely diminished expectations of privacy and let me as you  a conditions of release where where it is made explicitly clear that they are subject to warless searches and seizure of their person place of residence in a motor vehicle at any time in not just by parole officers of any law enforcement officer and specifically address the mackin issue here is not any kind of consent i think mr rose quick to point out that it's clearly established under sampson that parolees have severely diminished expectations of privacy by virtue of their practice is to have the inmates sign the conditions of release but that's not a consent that is for there it's to show that they understand the conditions that they are under by virtue of their status as a choice have severely diminished expectations of privacy and that goes to this fourth amendment balancing test where you weigh the expectation of privacy against the state's interest your honor end of this continuum for right next to prisoners who have no expectation of privacy under hudson be palmer in the court did recognise that parole is quote unquote a variation on imprisonment so this did lead the court to say and sampson that the parole there did not have an expectation of privacy this is saudi would recognize as legitimate apple lease really impossible task in this case i think is to show a body of relevant case law that does this fourth amendment balancing the expectations of privacy on the one hand against the law enforcement interests of the other in those cases just don't exist richards as announcing that the supreme court had so quickly changed his mind on that point and that the reference circumstances there constitute an exhaustive list yes it has to be circumstances like that right  when you read that it sounds like there's a it's got two things that are really like that it's really godly like violence or evidence or something or something well you your it whatever the supreme court discusses these cases they're not they're not going out of their way to talk about every possible circumstance that these are these are ordinary law abiding citizens that they're talking about so the baseline is that ordinary citizen baseline we're talking about a sometimes we have to go back and announce whether  richards and i believe parts are just gives no hint that the court is going back on what it said and will said to say ok now we are giving you a comprehensive catalog of circumstances where no knock is permitted or not permit under griffin and the wisconsin u s supreme court case griffin v wisconsin a state's operation of a probation system present special needs beyond normal law enforcement that may just about approaches from the usual requirements so so probationers are considered special needs well if probationers are considered special needs then leaves are certainly considered special needs and that's also the case please the court counsel i'm john wesley hall from little rock i was pleased to this case by the court after mr lane succeeded in getting past summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings in the district court and the answer was yes the definition not apply the exceptions comes later in the first case was richard but you also wrote the brief and i did not do it but richards was a motel room they went to the door and they heard a crash he went out the back so every district court case every state case what few appellate cases will go in one direction at what point do you say there is not a robust consensus of cases it is by definition when there amounts but it was a four to three decision and what do we make of the fact that the least three justices of the arkansas supreme court thought that it was not unconstitutional what's a reasonable police officer to think is it so clearly established and in the mind of this reasonable police officer that what he was doing was unconstitutional when three justices of the arkansas supreme court thought it was just fine so when the u s supreme court decides a case by four we can ignore when is that yes is that have any bearing on our analysis of whether it was a reasonable officer would have thought there was such a strong consensus that it was clearly established for what its worth we don't have the benefit of the ordinary for device not a key but i device design designed to overcome as well so i could get into the room for medical purposes if somebody died inside it was so or whatever and i was into a lot how specific do you think the and that is not going to separate or only from the from the general citizenry enough to be going to cause a problem with this clearly established idea i get your point but the answer is no because probation  reasonable this everybody's entitled to reasonable that's under the fourth amendment can i get around that the search has to be reasonable and entry has to be reasonable if they did a prayer search by pulling his door off with a bang device or something like two thousand and one sampson two thousand and six reasonable is coming from the woods now there may be exceptions and what is unreasonable and being able to break you without announcement is unreasonable statute that was adopted in two thousand and fifty but it does say reason unless it's written in the statute because it has to that's just basic fundamental constitutional responses comes back to being way into says the supreme court many many times correct  is by mr cantor right please proceed thank you your honor and it is also it is a privilege to argue this case against mr hall who has written on these matters and is very familiar with it speed district of columbia of the west a supreme court and i if served is intitled to two qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that existing laws place the constitution the constitutionality of the officers conduct on some court might preclude a law from being clearly established rather the argument that we're making is that the existence of an actual debate concerning the particular officers in this case whether they