return to some factual issues that i think there on this case and that is to iterate the fact that my client lived in a house that abutted the international border between the united states and mexico in nogal arizona it's actually a portion of the united states right now that is more like a two militarized zone than it is a civilian housing area and that there's a series of cameras along the international border mass influx all the time day and night of people through this area it's a residential labor neighborhood there are two ports of entry along the border but there is also residential housing that extends east and west from the international ports of entry so this is one of those areas of the united states where people tasks in their attempts to come into the united states find employment and look farther north as part of their surveillance they have agents that are monitoring these cameras that look into people's yards and see the activity that occurs in this particular case the agent who was monitoring the cameras around midnight and this is uncontroverted testimony says that he saw people come into my client's backyard then he loses track of them because it's just the back part so when the agent that comes on for the morning shift is advised of this she monitors what she sees on the cameras looking into my client's backyard and she sees other individuals approximately seven thirty in the morning she radios first to agents who might be in the vicinity who respond they find nothing later on in the morning it's not even in the morning probably twelve fifty one o'clock in the afternoon agents respond three of them go to my client's house one of the agents has a bit of a history with a client my client's daughter had gotten into an opera cation with a border patrol agent so you know i get in the eyes of the border patrol there possibly notorious and i think that's one of the things that he says and also that the monitoring agent says is that you know the people here all the time the government agen goes my clients have approximately six hours after the last verified incident of undocumented alien traffic and use that as their justification to go to my clients how i sensibly the reason i go there then they should have a warrant because there are three agents there this house is not going anywhere this is a private dwelling i think the fourth amendment is clear the private dwellings are protected notwithstanding the fact that they are near the a search and then seizure in the backyard is based on the statute for it and they had no warrant and did they have probable cause or are there some other basis for doing it does the statute eliminate the need for a warrant or probable cause i mean i've mostly like to focus on what authority was there for seizing the backyard i guess i would refer back to the santa maria case for the answer that question and then that case that was only a barbwire fence surrounding open land and the well meaning was not a dwelling it was a trailer that was detached and that's much more of an instance where that is open land you can see through  my client's property is fence on all sides so in order to be in there looking in the yard they have to be in my client's dwelling and so one of the issues that have to do with the consent and it's kind of a unique issue  fine had called an attorney who was representing his daughter the attorney is telling my call to tell the agents no they don't have the consent to be there the agents testified that they said if you don't tell us we can come in and probably the crux of the issue what is the dwelling is it the fenced yard or is it just the inside of the house the curtilage here i think my position is that if it's fence then it should include that and so if my agents now in all those backyards but i think that's the problem here i don't know that you can always come up with a bright line test because there are so many very very and so many permutations that you know i think if you get to a bright line test for every situation it's not it's just not going to work but the statute say except to answer it well if the protection of the law has been extended to open land think that's part of the legislative history is that at the time there were people that said no you can't come on our property and it's just because it's such a vast expanse of property the statute was passed to allow agents to go on the property to look for aliens in this case it's a little bit more tightly construed than that that's a bit more of a telescope because you've got wide open property you've got a bar where you can see pretty much everything that's not the case here we have a house that's surrounded by a fence it happens to about the border but you have to place yourself in go position to be looking into the property by going on to the dwelling physical premises visually or physically in order to be there and that's where i believe that the who had a dual drug an immigration purpose for entering mr censorious land in that case and it was enclosed by barbed wire there was evidence that the agents crossed either over or under that barbed wire and through a gate i his land and they went too far in searching the trailer on that land and in that case the court noted the reason they went to far as his the only thing they were looking for in that trailer was drugs there was no evidence they were looking for illegal aliens in that trailer and i think the same thing is true here is there a distinction between within the boundaries of private property and on the one hand and within the courage of a dwelling on the other you know i don't think there would be a need for the statute if it didn't compass the current was because otherwise there would be no fourth amendment protection applicable to the the fourth man then what are you saying well i'm saying that in this case the statute provides that agents may enter upon the curtilage and i think santamaria in that case this court especially found at least well i don't think it is authorizing searches person i think it's authorizing the agents to enter the land to apprehend illegal aliens and from a practical perspective allowing these agents to get on individuals when and to carry out the law enforcement refer this court to its decision in the hamlet case where it said basically agents could without reasonable suspicion go up into a knock and talk that case agents when they didn't get an answer and went to the back to work and which is essentially what happened here for officer safety one of the agents was left in the driveway area agent adams at some point the door close the front door closes asian feldman vises it out is that the door front door closes he hears a noise in the backyard he responds to that noise in the back yard pursuant to was to search for illegal aliens the point at which it was improper what is the point where they're looking soley for something which is actually does not authorize and i think the court make clear in santa maria that the agents were on the current list because the government in that case actually took the position that you trailer was an open field it was a can strain the tree something deserving of no fourth amendment protection so i think that for that reason the case in hand factually is identical to santa maria except the asians in this case didn't go to the further step they didn't look  that the reason he went from the street to protect the officers in the house i don't believe there is any i privacy interests of an individual it can't be the case that just because you live on the national border abrogate your right to privacy they may be looking in your hand in your yard all the time but it doesn't mean that you have given a consent agents to be on your property all the time if they got cameras trained on your backyard and they think that there's somebody there there's nothing to prevent them from going to getting a warrant and that is really the reason we're here they think they had enough to go there and look they say they were doing a knock and talk but these aren't fuller brush salesman coming up to the to the door to say hey will you take a look at our project they are showing up they're going in they're not going away this is not withstanding because sent issues whether he says or no whether it's talking to a lawyer these are officers who are charged with enforcing the law they're not going anywhere they are there to get in the house one way or the other i think the proper way for them to do it in this case was on the warrant there is no reason they couldn't it would have taken a little more time to calm the radio to get a warrant what would that have been five ten minutes maybe fifteen i don't know i'm speculating but there's no reason that it could have been done in this case and i think the fourth amendment requires that in this case the