searches inside of people's homes are none without a warrant on a routine basis in this case the core facts i'm contested as follows the officer who did the search ultimately meets with my client who comes in on his own having heard that there was a domestic violence petition knows that before my client gets there that officer testified at my motion to suppress that he determined that the information that he had this is the officers word correctly words to stale i e about a year old so that he the officer could not get a search warrant which he the officer weapons would be civil in nature not to become a criminal case as it did in this case i cite in my brief cases from other which he was being told which was deficient in this regard to begin with it was not a search warrant rather it was an order in a civil matter for him to turn over any weapons or of this order and you look down and you see this obliterated obliterated serial number what was the officer supposed to do with that information well that's what he was looking for to begin with he had been told  well i don't think you can the can prosecute him on that information that's my point because he had not received a search warrant rather he had a civil order in that civil order is certainly he could see but he already knew i don't know you would be wrong about that plain view is plain view applies anywhere where an officer is and he is legally entitled to be so he's entitled to be there i don't know this case question from judge floyd if they were had a right to be there they had an order for him to open the safe and get the guns which he did once they they then present the guns they're standing there and they have a pla the difference how would that be is that different from the gun with the obliterated serial number since you say that it would it makes a difference because he knew about the  get the weapon i'm not suggesting that she had come to the courthouse before on arrival there working a good cigar does that matter and why does that matter because the fourth amendment matters because the search will incite others but you have to explain to me how that matters under any law or decision out of the four circuit i mean the fourth amendment how does it matter she had a valid domestic and i don't know about that but she got a judge to enter some order that she wanted to be protected and then he was  turn over his weapons and after just takes that valid order of the court takes it to him and he supplies the weapons as he is required to do so what's wrong with that scenario protest give us your weapons give us the ammunition and in fact cooperate with us so that we can then prosecute you now that's not just a fourth amendment issue in board it was in bor you do it was a court order it was more than i mean well perhaps this is a court order to do this was actually a federal court order in and the u s supreme court says that violated the to the power of the state which he did is alternatives would do so in no i won't talk to you you can't go into my house and then they would have to get warrants in this case or search why in the violation he protected but why doesn't that evidence come in despite any substantive claim of a fourth amendment violation laid that aside while it is a good faith exception there be no exclusion it's not a good faith exception faith exception that judges the conduct of the officer at the time he undertakes the act that you think is improper you think you think taking those weapons was improper you're going to let me let me go back to read the risk going  the record this officer testified that he did not believe that he could search in see these weapons he testified that he didn't testify that the court order good faith exception is objective standard it's not a subjective standard is objective standard so we look at whether or not they have a should be excluded look at whether or not an objective officer at that point would think what he did was proper he had a cool saying you entitled to get his weapons what and that's what he did one of what was that not just the definition of the because in this case the my name is jennifer raina herald and assistant united states attorney in the southern district of west virginia the district court's denial of defense motion to suppress should be affirmed as an initial matter and this was just discussed the good faith exception this is a perfect example of an officer relying properly on good faith good faith is when police act in an objectively reasonable manner and the deterrent effect of exclusion is undermined and therefore evidence testimonial and the district court expanded defendant's argument to include that however the united states does not believe that that man applies even to the act of production in this case presuming that it  can you still want to presume that this is testimonial evidence if we just accept for the purpose of this question that the production of the weapons could be seen as testimonial there was for the fifth amendment to apply in this context there has to be an invocation of the fifth amendment this is not a self realizing right in this correct it's a valid objection and of then of objection we'd have to see about what we'd call valid as some kind of objection to the order then that which you say was not present here correct correct plus some kind of force be on the initial court order to push you to do what you have in some way objected to yes your honor that's the kind of compulsion is require an innocent man and that is simply not here of state and domestic violence launder the well so settled principles of avoidance and for this court to actually reach a constitutional discussion of state law would be difficult in this case for several reasons first your arms court would need to decide whether appellant is in fact asserting a challenge to the initial search and seizure or rather the subsequent use the propriety of the use of those weapons in this proceeding and the state believes that what the appellant is arguing is that second is the latter and which case i would do immediately turn to questions that both the judge pigs raised asking whether the weapons once they were seized pursuant to the civil order was it immediately apparent that they were potentially illegal and in this case they were clear to me exactly how that argument is raised but it seems to me that there is at least some discussion to be had at some point as it really about the statute as they relate right i'm not i'm not sure they are arguing that but i think in this case when we look at how it looked first at the procurement of the order when the petition was filed and that was it happened there were no officers involved there was no evidence of any sort an issue here maybe that's where the issue arises it may be and in this case we would just again assert that we don't think the court needs to get into that but if we did look i think the government answered it to my satisfaction and they say they think so they defended it as well because she has gone to west virginia beach and they think that is castration but she says in a real sense it doesn't particularly matter where course asian might come out on that at this property challenge because at least for purposes of good faith in this situation as to getting those weapons that that officer is not  look at the statute and decide for himself a sunk cost to tional in this circumstance and therefore say i can't follow or correct greets entirely with your honor do you think they raise the don't address this situation and never have in so that if you were to determine that good fate is the correct basis for the decision th submit you'll be going further than any precedent now existing in this circuit or in the u s supreme court and what you would be doing i submit would be creating a situation in which  order in a civil matter are a bit more likely a quasar criminal matter i think is a more apt description but in order in a non  that we want to protect women or men who are victims of abuse nobody can argue sanely against that but in  legislating is we do we create a situation in which we simply put aside any concerns about the sanctity of a person's own in the right of