us this morning is united states versus ross nineteen dash seven thousand and eight when you're william campbell on behalf of the opponent mr ross the issues that i think are important as morning and oral argument initially has to do with what i think is the rightful way that one particular part of talk county deputy belonged to the appellant mr ross or the radio call set into motion a series of completely unrelated acts by this deputy she went to the  scene where the truck was parked roughly simultaneously as her rival mr ross and his family were leaving the residence and to try to help the court comprehend the topography or geography of this location we have one road that's an east west basically straight line road and we have a north south road that sort of curves around and goes to the north and up that that's a private road that's on ross family property there's more than one ross family that lives on that property carl martin being just one of the three as i recall that live up there but she gets out there and now she's got this agenda all her own has nothing to do with that she understands that he's gone by in a car with this family she then radios the ada police department find a reason to stop which the allegation was that was a speeding that's my experience of a early exercise thing and oklahoma which you've got an oklahoma license plate all oklahoma but let me let me ask you this i thought she had information that he was believed to be involved in trafficking in stolen merchandise right what we have is an allegation that she says that another deputy from some other county was told by somebody else that there was property there well i'm not saying she had probable cause but she had some information a believe that he might have been trafficking stolen merchandise  going and getting a warrant on this information was a she has this police department or police officer not only stop the vehicle she then wants him arrested and detained and she does that so the she can take a really interesting confederacy of our enforcement agencies we have her with upon a talk county we have a light horse police we have a game ranger and we have another deputy she takes them up to the property our contention is that when she crossed that st carroll guard she was no longer nor were they on the county road at that point that road goes north another order a mile or so and then it splits and over right fork goes to marty ross's property there is a nd cattle guard there and to get onto his particular little portion where the house and barn and stuff were requires another crossing of that the allegation was that they observed these items from quote the company wrote they did not they were on a private road on private property in the briefing your honor i don't think the government tested that fact we have certified that that was a private road and i know the court found that the district court level i think that was erroneous or it's part and that  stolen property there is an allegation of stolen property involving a red a t v and she sees a red a t v from public land i mean that's that's what we have is a finding right well i think there's  care and correct that erroneous finding well it can but it would have to have something that would undermine it and the point we have here is we a testimony from the officer and you can correct me but i think she said she saw it right i'm sorry or we ok and granted we have this hearsay transmission of the information but the you but the district court judge under the circumstances that were presented did not question that recitation right correct ok let me let me  move off of that subject for a quick nd let's let's assume let's just take for the moment the spotting of the a t v out of this what under the notion of knock him talk why couldn't she just go up there i mean you're you talk about you make a lot out of you know what they want on private property but if she had suspicions about stolen property she had suspicions about methamphetamine so you talk about shifting rationale it doesn't matter anyone pick up you know and she had the abandoned car why couldn't she go up to that house even if she knew he had been detained somebody else could be at the house why couldn't she just walk up to the house and ask somebody i think the presumption under knock and talk your honor is that the officer doing that hasn't had the person they want to go talk to were arrested and detained some miles away she doesn't know that someone else is not in the house and you know that law enforcement can go up to a house what if there's somebody else in there also would be well what if she doesn't know there is anybody else in the house right well i think that just a moment was in the record shows that when the white car of the iran it was a recall went by this was marty ross and his family that left whether or not there may have been a residual person i don't think  record is one way or the other certainly it looked like everybody was leaving it isn't it isn't edwards was hansel isn't isn't that showing isn't that the point that they're there there could have been someone at the house possibly also boy isn't that enough to justify going up and checking things out there's an abandoned car there's this other information maybe the families with the with mr ross but fun is there's a possibility of somebody being confederates or marty ross and others use only so that it's marty ross who is doing this if she wants to know what's going on he has the central character in her narrative saying we give you this hypothetical  she she is staking out marty ross's house ok she knows that his wife is at the house she waits till marty ross leaves and then she goes and talks to the what that's law enforcement does  all times was what they the under the notion that look the white they're hoping anyways going to be a more amenable to them talking to her and letting them in the house the case law has supported that you can do that right a central focus so why didn't she talk to him well under my hypothetical marty ross was still the central focus but she didn't want to talk to him she figured she figured she gets more information by talking to the wife or talking to somebody else why isn't that still work the only difference is in my hypothetical it was certain she was there but it but it could well be that the possibility is enough to go and try to find out right again i think that there is a character difference between what she did and your rather acceptable hypothesis of if she had done it that way i think that would be acceptable if she wanted to watch week to see and then go talk to somebody i think you're absolutely correct in that  when was there any evidence that she knew who was in the car in addition to him in other words we talked about marti rawson's family was it did i mean basically you know when a windows can be tended that cutting so you could have a situation where she didn't nose in a car i mean situation that they had was that mr ross executed stipulation so yes we were jury and his trial counsel then attempted to sensually redo the motion to suppress hearing i think that's the transcript of the proceedings or the judge white understood what mr cook was trying to do at that point in time that he wasn't sure that he would be able to stop him i think was did not do at the beginning counsel i take this this argument is going to the sentencing issue on acceptance of responsibility is that where this is going but couldn't counsel have subpoenaed those same people for the suppression hearing it could have yes your honor and therefore didn't this put the cork in everyone else to the burden of a nd proceeding that wasn't really necessary because everybody could have been brought into the st proceeding that would have been the more efficient way to do it certainly but i don't think the fact that he was permitted to do this because he didn't cast the essential elements of you know i don't think the question is whether it was appropriate to permit him or not permit him to do it but the fact that it happened cuts against doesn't it the acceptance of responsibility in the sense that the court the government we're all put to the burden of an additional proceeding you put actual matters as to guilt or innocence and ploy in that hearing which you did not like i understand your argument with and i just ask another question that goes back to the search issue why wasn't  mrs ross's consent to search the property sufficient to justify what happened here at the bench trial she was asked and i'm going to read it to you in terms of these particular officers did they ask you for consent to search or did you offer answer i offered why isn't that enough to justify the of a justified the search of the home or doing the record they did rely on that so why does that even matter as long as there's a basis for the search why isn't that what counts  if we were to eliminate all the information from the warrant affidavit that they learned after they went to that house if they have enough for probable cause to search based on what they knew before they the county road i don't believe so i think the remainder of that affidavit was information that was too old and too still to provide a probable proper probable cause at that time does it matter whether the deputy could see one of the four wheelers from the county road no because at that point in time she was unable to specifically identify whether or not that was in fact a stolen item the need actually have the vin number in order to have probable cause i don't know that you necessarily have to have them in number but i think you have to have something that identifies it that's readily apparent unavailable to the office or mething more than just the identification of a mass manufacture product and or standard argument thank you counsel please the court my name is linda epperly i represent the government in this matter this is a case in which there was extensive litigation but love about the propriety proprietary nature and whether or not the search was  proper we believe that there was no th amendment violation let me let me interrupt yes your honor there was a stipulation before the district court in the district court and that the four wheelers nobody is there turn around and leave what allow the officers to walk into the curtilage of the home which under collins we know is a canned opening the front door of the house walk over to the below let me start with the knock and talk there was yes and then harrington implied license for someone to be able to go up and knock on the door in that situation certainly at that point they would have seen at least red a t v there was also testimony below and a finding by the court that that red a t v was seen from the road there is also testimony from the court below that there was consent that was never revoked and that the affidavit that was ultimately used to obtain a search warrant in this case was sufficient so there are multiple grounds to break that out ok as you've packed in a lot there  i read the testimony of the consent world that she drove up after the officers were already there and hears although it's unclear from the record after they had already walked into the hurdle ij taken pictures and written down then if that's true is there a violation of the th amendment here and again i i get that you're arguing there was probable cause but was there something that gave them permission to enter yes what gave them permission to enter was what started this entire incident on that day which was an abandoned regular and truck which was partially blocking the roadway and contrary to the reply brief i did not switch theories those are descriptions of the same thing there's an abandoned truck and trailer in an area known for illegal hunting but the important thing is it's blocking the road and so they are going someone knows that might belong to the ross family so if they have at that point aside from whatever they may have known about stolen property and everything else that was going on out there with methamphetamine they had the right to go see if there was somebody home who could come do something about the car that was blocking the road and what's the scope of that right they had the right to go knock on the door so they had the right nobody answers what's what's the sc they're right they can knock on the door they can wait several minutes i believe in this case they could walk in and make sure that there's not someone that they're saying they know there's other family members who live out there there could have been someone else at the home standing you know right there at the well i don't think they're going to be going out conducting a search of the curtilage but certainly anything that can see gap one foot into the hurdle ij if it's not in the direct path you have to walk up on the porch and most homes to knock on the door so you're on her other than going up to the door knocking waiting to see if there's an answer and then turning around and what else is implicit in life and you walk around the back and look on the back patio you can walk around the back i think if you if there's a possibility that the person may use that back door to come and go and i don't recall in this case whether there was testimony as to as to that or not go but what about attaining the vin numbers it's one thing to check to see if anybody's on the side of the house or in the back or whatever but why wasn't the collection of the then number just like point up the tarp in columns because they did not have to  vehicle or the a t v by that they go ahead but they walk up to the vehicle i mean the vin number it isn't you know it is not a billboard i mean you've got to get down and really look for it and you've got to write it down  so is that are we a long way from not can talk by the time we're collecting the vin numbers we're certainly move beyond the knock and talk because by that  so isn't there a collins violation at that point they had that point have seen the a t v the red a t v they have taken a picture and sent to the victim he says yeah that's the style and you're describing probable cause you're not describing permission to enter the home curtilage is the home in justice i think meyers opinion in collins she says you have to think of it is if you open the front door of the home and you walk into the curtilage are you telling me that any time an officer has probable cause that a crime might have been committed and evidence might be at the home they can open the front door and walk in and search without a warrant if they are if they see something in plain view even if they see it in plain view and they walk in and seize it without a warrant i do not believe no they could not if i can see from the porch through the plate glass window that there's a red four wheeler in the living room can i then say aha i walk into the house and copy down the vin number take pictures of the four wheeler and send them around to see if it they are not know can you not do that can you take pictures of the t v through the plate glass you could take a picture through the eighty's so one question is whether they had a right to walk around and whether that was within the scope of the knock and talk but let me ask you was there any challenge or above to the scope of the guard and whether that was an implied or revocation of the implied license to allow someone to go in but put a little bit of the idea of once you're in the fact that you can do a knock and talk and how broadly you can do a knock and talk at least i didn't see any argument about that they did not talk about the scope they talked about whether or not you had a right to be there in the st place her head that we argued that there was much argument about whether or not there was plain view in which road and was a county road was a public road but there was not a discussion about the scope of the actual knock and talk i believe that part of that is because the the court at that point things went quickly at that point there was a decision that we can see these things we know their style and even if we don't have been written down yet to verify exactly that this is is the stolen a v they made a decision to get a warrant they backed out which was the proper thing to do the wife came up offered consent they said no we'd rather wait for the warrant which they did and any of those items would have been sufficient to sustain the actions in this case when they so it's clear that they did copy down the vin number right they did and i don't recall whether they copied it down or took a picture of it but i know that they did get the van  cannot tell you that might be a distinction with a difference so it might be it's not something that i recall from the record at this time ok could i just move on to a certain for the the guidelines and han related to the firearms as it relates to that how many guns in your view were readily accessible we had the we had the a k forty seven guns including the one with the silencer that were in the bedroom i mean so i'm looking at two you have a different view and my question is readily accessible not guns on the property i'm trying to think  i'm trying to remember the closet for some reason i am picturing like three guns in that closet in the master bedroom and i don't know where i'm coming up with that ok but all right then with that in mind would it be whatever guns were in the master bedroom the record holds and the gun that was on the eighty yes yes and the main emphasis would be those guns in the master bedroom because that is something that would have been accessible to the defendant again given the sheer volume of stolen property in this case that was somewhat astounding that having those guns on hand was the connection with being able to protect that stolen property and i think that we mentioned in our brief this is not a case where you're going to have a gun set up perhaps a strategic locations throughout the home or maybe trap or things of that nature there are children how this is not a defendant who could do all of that the best he could probably do would be to keep them there near his bed so he could get to them in ross case that the district court rely on the guns were dispersed around the home in that made it look much more like you had him for ready access anywhere you might have to and your ill gotten goods exactly and i think to the degree that he could he did that he had them in the bedroom he had one on the a t v for when he was out going around property and then there were the bunch in the shed that i guess if you were out in that neighborhood there was a gun accessible yeah but i thought you were willing to go with the line that really the guns and the words seem to me it thank you different it's a question of how many guns were in that master bedroom we my recollection of record was been only with some it was the three whatever guns were in the master bedroom and the gun that's on here but the one in the master bedroom and it's we're talking you don't have to be multiple guns right i mean that as in that case i think actually focus on the quantity of stolen property as well as well as is the firearms and so you had a lot of stolen property right yes your honor i don't think that there's a requirement of a certain number of guns and i think that the court found here that it was important that not only were there i am surround the actually stolen firearms around which is probably the ones that are in the in the barn we'd finally urge the court to look at the fact that here we had so much litigation we had a suppression hearing we had a challenge to the district court an additional challenge to the district court and then finally a bench trial we would assert that that made it sufficient for denial of acceptance points there was an easy way for this defendant to preserve his right to challenge the search and not that the government to the proof even for a bench trial and that was to do a conditional plea there was no conditional play then that would have been the easy way to preserve this issue instead the government had to call multiple witnesses or hearing that to some amount of time for the district court and the only reason that that was done was to get this one deputy on the stand that and it was fixated  wasn't it wasn't just the one deputy there were multiple witnesses at the bench trial and wasn't decision that maybe conditional plea wasn't such a great idea until the record had been flushed out further after all after all agent agent cash was not anywhere near anything that happened when all these searches were being done and he comes in and says well here's what  pity told me and that's all that's all they had to go on at the at the suppression hearing and and mr ross never contested or claimed that he was innocent he was just simply trying do to challenge the search but he wanted to build up the record now why isn't that a reasonable position to take and that is when time is expired my answer your question for two reasons st of all the defendant had the ability to subpoena that deputy for th suppression hearing they did not do so now i grant she had a broken leg but if that had been done the magistrate could have continued the hearing and they could have subpoenaed all of the officers if they wanted to they did not choose to do that by putting the government to a bench trial at the bench trial unlike a suppression hearing we are not able to use hearsay so we had to have everyone involved come testify about what they saw and and based upon that we believe