good morning your honor's question well finger for the appellant geno only serving four minutes for every bottle the issue in this case is whether it clearly violated it violated clearly established law for  agent acting pursuant to standard procedure to accompany ms ione to the restroom during the execution of a search warrant when weapons have been found on the premises and the warrant authorized to seize your small pieces of evidence clearly established law was not violated and although the district court found to the contrary recent supreme court cases indicate where the just or court went wrong like i was  g treated differently than her husband i believe that what we have to look at in this case is whether or no acted objective leap reasonably regardless of whether there were other alternatives available just do you know the answer or why her husband who was the target of the investigation was able to go to the down search from what i can tell when i had somebody not only stand there and watch for but you know corner into the facts pull her dress up i guess all the way around pointing to just below my neck where her husband who was the target they didn't do that i'm just i'm just curious especially when she wasn't  detained first i would say that agent no followed standard procedure it is unclear to me is that standard procedure when someone is not detained and if it's standard procedure why didn't they follow that with her husband i don't know why it wasn't followed with her husband all of that seems to undermine and question whether it really was standard procedure if they didn't do it with her husband no i don't believe it does undermine it your honor number one she cannot be i guess bear the burden of another agent during a search not following standard procedure just because another agent chose another alternative does not mean that the which was made under penalty of perjury i would note that the district court did not discuss the policy and opposing counsel have not contested that that was in fact the standard policy well can i ask if she didn't ask to go to the bathroom and she just she's not a target she's sitting there could agent all have the exact same search if she's not if you don't ask go to the bathroom and she's sitting around oh i say and and age and all decides i'm going to search her to see if she has guns or if she's got disks or thumb drives that sort of thing and disrobe so she can examine whether or not she's hiding things yes i believe the answer at the answer is yes but i would clarify that of course there would be some privacy she wouldn't do an if she has the conserves that she has that caused her to go into the bathroom and witness her and make her pull her her dress all the way up to the top i don't know why i didn't issue a pat down was not done it appears that way from the record but i don't believe the record is clear i also don't know if agent no was in charge of conducting any a national what would that have a sense to do that before she went into the bathroom as part of you know what was her concern was it might have made sense but if one was not done then certainly she would be you know the other question i have is since she was since missoni was free to go she didn't she could have walked out the door and walked out into the seven eleven to go the bathroom is that right yes and whatever concern that miss that your client had wouldn't would not have i mean she could have had if she really was hiding something under her sun dress she would have been able to walk out the door but yet if she went to her bathroom in her own house without a suite being conducted in the bath of her and without her be in search she  your client was to stand in there and watch her just doesn't make any sense to me what we have to look at is confronted with those circumstances was what agent called it objectively reasonable and it was the fact that there might have been objective levy's novel because there may have been other circumstances that would have occurred she could have left but she didn't she would have been allowed to come back but agent no wasn't confronted with that she was confronted with a person who wanted to go to the know and she was faced with both security and evidentiary concerns that led to i guess what was the articulable basis for the agent to believe that ms ione had weapons or evidence hidden on her person weapons had already been found on the premises the record indicates that there were two doors to the bathroom so she wasn't monitored she could have left the bathroom she could have left anyway she could have left and gone into the house and either disturbed the search startled other agents or weapons were found in a safe to which miss i only have the combination subsequent to the initial i'll i'll do that now it was not clearly established that the law at the time prohibited agent conduct i think that's clear from the casella case and it's also clear from district of columbia versus westby the district court defined the constitutional right very broadly our right to privacy or absent a valid reason could ational do what she did when there was an excessive force case and i understand just recently came down but they specifically emphasize that in excessive force cases what they were was their primary concern it seems like emphasize the use of excessive force in an area of law and which the result depends very much on the facts of each case and officers are often forced to make split second judgments intense uncertain and rapidly evolving situations that's the excessive use of force case here it seems like she was arguing that she was acting according to policy policies don't seem to be the same as the excessive force cases and or the where there develop in split second judgments and tense so  case really squarely govern us here certainly if you feel that casella does not always be case does but i believe they can sell it provides a general framework of analysis and conducting a search warrant is a dynamic evolving situation which we know from the record michael i only called the police which was certainly local police certainly very unexpected and created some disruption of the search so i think the analysis is the same general analysis if i could there as i will be discussing the constitutional violation prong of qualified you make sure you talk into the microphone pleasure or i don't know if you can i think they will bend up a little bit of course sure thank you i will be discussing the constitutional violation clearly violated miss iowans constitutional rights to bodily privacy and unreasonable searches and it is light it is in light of these egregious facts that the government now tries to justify   she consented to the terms of the search including i guess the bathroom mind monotreme don't isn't that implicit by staying how does that impact our now your honor i don't think staying would make  or having the option to stay would make asian nose conduct reasonable because as the government also noted in their brief if she needed to use the bathroom and she couldn't leave in use it up in time somewhere else then we can say that just because she can stay or she can leave that that would make these this degrading search and invasion of ali privacy then reasonable deposition summary your honor she says that she had she was ordered to pull up her son dress and then necessarily have to pull down her underwear in order to use the restroom so as to the amount of exposure that would essentially wanted to make as well retard self states that had the officers in that situation held the plaintiffs in the room naked for any longer than was necessary then their conduct would have been reasonable well here is well even if there wasn't are you will justification for this for the strip search being of ensure safety purposes then that justification was necessarily dissipated once no government justification and was necessary unnecessary what about she says it was her procedure a policy that was standard while you are there is been no record of events of procedure other than the affidavit and as well even if it was procedure procedure in franklin shows that procedure can be applied and reasonably as well grown as if there is no further questions i would like to see the rest of my time best characterization of what happened here so far this was not a passive or incidental observation even though ordered shelly to lift her dress and permit visual observation of her breath and p before she would use the restroom and then she required mrs mrs i own to keep her dress lifted the entire time and refuse to afford mrs i own a small major update nidia by turning a few degrees in another direction there is not a case with factual similarity here we agree with the government but we don't need a case to see that this is unconstitutional you agree th similar enough the language of the poll data indicates that that what made the observation so intrusive was the direct unobscured observation while the plaintiffs a but isn't that the problem that the supreme court continually refers to that you can't have a level of generality it has to be almost a case on foursquare when the supreme court scrutinise is this court for reading their precedent too broadly that it's usually in the context of excessive force cases where there's dynamic rapidly evolving circumstances here at this occurred about thirty minutes into the search and they have been investigating mrs mrs and mr i own for three months they knew who they were going whose home they were going to be expected them to be there this is more like anything amendment case where  constitutional principles apply with obvious clarity following the i r s regulations does that make a difference well i would point out your honor that and the policy here did not say but you could order individual to lift her draft to permit a for the proposition female occupant in the restroom and sometimes the officer may need to maintain the individual in her field of vision that is not what happened here she didn't just maintain this i own in her field  violated by the observation that you know i'm sorry no i understand you're the doesn't say you can't observe same sex person use the bathroom it does not say that you know not observe the observation is not the only issue here that the supreme court and  sorry the supreme court and this circuit have held that merely arranging clothing on the body is enough to constitute a strip search strip searches tend to only be warranted when there's a search for contraband and there was not a search for contraband here there was a search for evidence and michigan farmers makes the distinction between a search for evidence and a search for contraband and this is simply not the circumstance where a strip search is warranted and even if assuming that a search was support it which we don't agree but even if situation it was a parolee your analysis case i'd say the more analogous case would be i'm sorry interpol but the person had even lost you know more less rights to privacy because it was a proly and they that that was beyond the limit of what could have happened here this was a woman in her own house just trying to figure out why it was wasn't ok it's a poll that was it ok here i think the closer parallel is county of los angeles versus retell which was a search case and i think the cases say and i see my time's up may i may i finish thank you your honor in this case shelley ione was not an innocent bystander although she was not the target of the investigation she was named in the warrant and evidence pertaining to her could be seized so she had  a a reason to potentially secrete evidence not only on her own behalf but that of her husband's so we're looking at a situation where it's not good but not even though all of that is true she wasn't detained you know she changes she chose to stay well i don't i don't think it it turns on whether she she was on the premises she certainly wasn't an innocent bystander like a bara she chose to stay and when she chose to say she was subject to the parameters of that choice doesn't safford united unified school district have some give some broad contours sort of effect here because i mean it seems like the right to be free from invasion of privacy by the government an absence of any reason to suspect that she was dangerous or that that she had contraband you're saying she and i guess that's the point you were just making right now that they thought she might have had contraband on her yes that was an objective blee reasonable assumption to make she was in the office when the asian showed up she saw the agents coming to the offices where  most of the evidence was kept including including the computer evidence she could have secreted small things like a p c card on her person at that time before the agents arrived and i think again the constitutional right issue is not the bodily privacy i think it has to be phrase in terms of the circumstances which is execution of a search warrant weapons had already been found on the premises so there was a possibility of danger both to technical here a probably had been very difficult for her to use the toilet if she was wearing a long send us without it being picked up now i don't know what the circumstance is very i'm sorry i picked up to what degree well