well i've looked at the file and there what the court said a number of times and it's unclear because he says either it happen one way or the other the government presented two different versions what happened which were totally conflict with each other  manager said she put in the door and she believed that the time she was opening the door the person inside was opening the door at the same time she came to that conclusion after talking with the detective and deciding that the person inside the what has to help because there was a lot from the inside but the same time she testified she did know that inside lock was engaged so still it was very possible she could have opened the door on her own but when she was clear about the she put the key in the door and made a lot of noise with it and it was a bit obvious to the person  that's what he said she believed the door was going to be open jumped up to get behind the door because she's naked right and then he says and opens the door well to me that's kind of that that that she would get up to get behind the door to assist in opening the door because she believes it's going to be open without her consent anyway and that's that's besides the fact that it makes no sense the naked woman would open the door and buy her complete voluntarily five o'clock in the way it can't be voluntary because she believed that they were going to open it whether she doesn't think or not now if you take the officers version of the events which is totally contradicted what that i'll tell manager said they have the motel manager not for them it's very clear they are using her to try to get access to this room then they tell her to step aside and according to their testimony this bill a opens the door and looks around the door and says i'm naked and you well she's already told me she's naked but he tells her to do that anyway and she does she complies he said he she did what he told her to do at that point he can arrest her right there is nothing that stops him for us to her she's complied with  of what they're permissible conduct under an arrest warrant surely you have to give her the chance to get closed you know could arrest a naked woman and carrier back out into the hall without entering the room that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense like they feel officers have choice at that point they could say you can go puts grab something to put on but you have to stay where we can see you or were they going to arrest her as she is they're the ones who chose to go knock on the open is the door i was about halfway like forty five degrees how did she appear when he told her she had some more and so i told him tim sheens for me she didn't have clothes i told her to move to the bed but standing in the doorway is not the same person so she was she correct or incorrect it says pretty ok well he also testified that when she first opened the door he told her to move to the front so he could see her to move out from behind the door he didn't tell immediately to go back into the room may please the court money is tom writes i'm an assistant united states attorney from spokane washington with the court's permission i'd like to reserve one minute for rebuttal on cross appeal the government's cross i think you might as well just cover it in your ten minutes at this point lay had voluntarily opened the door whether her state of mind had some relevance to this that is not the test as as the facts show this case the officers went to the hotel manager or motel manager and indicated that they had some suspicions with this room twelve she indicated she would go up there use her master key and open the door for the officers they indicated do not do that but rather knock and see if anybody comes to the door that was the testimony you see if anybody comes to the door when you knock and that was basically the finding by the district judge here those findings are not clearly erroneous he either says he said in the alternative it happened one of the district court found that the occupant of the room is the way opened the door and at that point to the earth there is no illegality they immediately recognized her with outstanding warrants she indicated she wanted her clothes the only reasonable alternative was to allow her to get the clothes and they proceeded to allow her to do that they didn't note that this wasn't a general rummaging search they didn't go through that hotel room looking for other items  defendant with his outstanding arrest warrants arrested him he then either lines or move toward his jacket containing the firearm and they took that away from him so everything progresses onward and the search arrested an individual that was fully clothed but decided to go into the house so that of that room there and do it general as the as the majority founder rummaging search and found only counterfeiting material that wasn't the purpose of the entering the room in this case it was merely to allow her to be fully clothed that she was taken to the police station the next issue was the government's cross appeal across appeal deals with  has has the following elements and the elements are that there is a signal to stop by a uniformed police officer the defendant willfully willfully fails to stop so he has to know that the police officer signaled him to stop and then that the defendant exhibits will wanton disregard for others in attempting to elude the police vehicle it's the government's contention that the willful and wanton disregard for others lives and property in attempting to elude the police presence is a serious  washington law or can we look to sort of general characteristics such as car chase in general as being always putting human lives at risk were what it you know once you consider the other elements i agree the word property is there but once you consider the other elements you can not have willful and wanton disregard while being pursued by a police officer in a in a vehicle cha refusing to endanger someone because of if i think your point i would need to read the statute as a whole and i agree with you that i need to reduce any time  wanton conduct has been interpreted to be reckless conduct we do not have a brain the traffic laws we do not have obtained the speed limit we don't even have negligent conduct we have a reckless conduct willful and clearly allows that it doesn't qualify i think you can see your time has expired the face just your use will be submitted for decision and we will hear arguments in the united states