thank you sir the the government in this case believes that the actions taken by officers made an officer swarm on the evening of june fourth two thousand and three were reasonable and their conduct throughout the evening both in going through the residence searching the residence conducting the urine test arresting the family and seizing the start off for ten shotgun that was in the the initially no you want to their initial their initial reason for going there was a compliance visit to ensure that the defendant was keeping with the terms of the pretrial release when they show up they do not have probable cause a search correct wrong if they have reasonable car yes sure and the reasonable cause was was based on information that was provided to officers swarm earlier that day that this  wasn't considered what the judge did was looked at the facts of the case and said reasonable suspicion is not enough you look to determine whether there was probable cause he said it was a close call but he did not believe there was probable cause therefore and he believed that was the standard that need apply to this pretrial releasing a number of conditions and one of the conditions for release was the subject figure and test any time day or night by a peace officer hanging your hat on a piece of paper resign the piece of paper yes in the been checked that require him to do certain things without a warrant one of them is the met through a random drug and or alcohol testing any time they have an eyepiece notes or without a warrant and the second one two lines below it's that is you have to make yourself your residence and vehicle to search and seizure we just don't have to go get a warrant if we have probable cause when thomas search your house we don't have to go to the trouble of getting of obtaining a warrant and we know you want to you still need a warrant unless there's certain circumstances in which a warrant is not necessary and there are certain  night have you under in order to be able to search his house you have to have probable cause you don't have to have a warrant but you still have to have probable cause so if you can have probable cause for going into his house you know existing circumstances we got probable cause but we don't want to go to the trouble of going down and getting and getting up getting the magistrate routing the magistrate out of bed in the middle of the night to get a warrant and always wait that but we might still have to have probable cause even though we don't have to get a warrant yes that that of that but the government is not saying just simply because that document says without a warrant that it necessarily means telling me that he has waived he's waived his right to have a warrant shown to him but the police officer still have to have probable cause it's the pending on the actions that the police officers in gauging the first step that that occurs at that residence that evening is a urine test the government is saying that there was a special need  you in testing without probable cause otherwise i'm not asking a very specific question about this about what this war means and i don't think it requires application i think it just i just requires it's a question of interpretation when the form  that we can search your house without a warrant does that mean that we can search your house on something less than probable cause yes or that reasonable suspicion would be sufficient for us to come and search your house and since we couldn't get a warrant without on reasonable suspicion we can do it without the war as well i'm sorry so you lost me on that one there are two requirements in the fourth amendment  magistrate will find a warning even if we have probable cause we can't go and search your house if we don't go and get the warrant this form says i don't have we don't have to have a warrant to come and search your house now do the police nevertheless have to have probable cause to search the friend's house right answer no but the once the officers go to the house the government is not does not believe that the officers need probable cause to get any urine sample from this well that retrial released some of these sort of a similar i believe i want to say may seventh two thousand and three and those are the blocks that are checked that indicate that the individual will be subject to the urine test any time of the day and night a search without a warrant of his residence person in the has not time has not passed by intervening circumstance that make that search a belief about it being a plea to retain the all that goes out the window it doesn't go out the window going to because to get to the search incident to the arrest we need at the special needs search and that is acquiring the urine sample from the the trend and that's what happened as happened in this case and in order for this to be justified based on a search incident to arrest the arrest has to be valid yes or and is this arrest valid again because the the officers had reasonable suspicion want i think when you're talking that way you're going into an equal protection argument because why the people that post bail that have the money to do so with no conditions and here's a poor person who can't post bail and he to give up your fourth amendment rights or we're not releasing you whereas a rich person can post the bail and they can do anything they want here but that that will always be true i mean nevada could just simply say ok you can protection we won't we won't impose the has waived is having to be shown the paper is for him to arouse a judge in the middle of the night and say i have probable cause to go to this person's home and i need a warrant that that preclude probable cause when you consider that i think the randomness goes to the time of day or night and not to the standard well but it also says they are nice all right i'm doing some different work in that sense and then the words they are not since they're also repeated in lanham can be used in two senses random from the standpoint of the officer or random from the standpoint of the person being searched from his standpoint it sounds pretty random because they can show up any time from the officer standpoint well might need rob across for that because of the use of the word random with respect of a drug sample a macin the previous clause assume for a moment that this really means random in the sense that the officer can do it from his standpoint reasonably randomly and therefore once they got the dirty sample which turns out in the end after a further sample testing not to be dirty but at the time they have you know lots of them are going to really sample and they have probable  were in that living room three times kind now allows and actually judge kozinski in hudson you basically follow kind now and said within the area of the person's control they were in the living room three times with mr scott he was on the couch they took him into the bathroom tested and tested dirty which by the way came out negative later he was on any has to means he was not on math  took him back into the living room again then took him all around the outside of the house to the securitas route around the outside of the house to search the shad's came back and sat him again on the couch all that time and nobody ever noticed that again and the question is that's plainview issue now the question a search incident on arrest right all the time even after miranda by asking questions first and mirandizing later are likely to read when and women to answer i'm sorry i didn't you can't once used or been arrested you can't ask them a question likely to read the lead to an incriminating answer trying to say if they would have read him his miranda rights and he said that i would like to speak with an attorney and i don't i'm not saying anymore i'm assuming they didn't do that and i'm assuming the state introduced into evidence and the statement clearly cannot be introduced into evidence i think what you're arguing is the statement can be used by the officers in figuring out where they're supposed to look that's crap and i spent your vat's my best that's exactly my say never mind the statement the statement doesn't matter if they violated his miranda rights it's i am not exactly you're saying that it's ok to violate miranda rights and get that statement from him i'm asking questions i but that's what i'm is yes please your answer is yes are they continuing to conduct a search when they say where are the toy guns well i guess if the answer is yes it may be that this is a search that they're not search and mr scott while under arrest and not mirandized has foolishly helped him in the search does that make this thing less anything less of a search now you know well i knew that