so my opinion with the cases that we cited in our brief it should have gone to the front door purse it should have knocked on the front door first all right here is a private residence is that you said in the privacy of your home nothing that would say that there was the threat of danger or immediate day one can watch true to one's home and you could say with everybody bustling into a house that would be a retreat to one's home so my opinion the warrantless entry into the currently each of the of the area the home especially the back doesn't satisfy the process and sense that my client's motion to suppress should have been granted solid ground no unintended they could have stayed there at the rear of the house they didn't do that they should have done in my opinion this and then felt that going to the front of the house and knocking was not satisfying to them as to completing their duty they could have called the state's attorney's office you could open the judge up you could have asked for an entry of a warrant if they thought that some emergency existed but they did not do that so my opinion they didn't ask for a warrant i don't think this wise to the level where a warrantless entry is justified in this case yes to an explosive because with the case  outside the back door simple know where mrs cannon was rightly so five minutes before and couldn't tell if she's on the dock or she got there the question becomes and i could not tell the ages of the other individuals there so did i raise them now to say whether or not it was under the direct supervision we're just talking about preface my point here on the ground supervision of a parent my opinion with my quiet as to where when how much and why right now granted there was a a point to which the line of questioning ceased but when you presented something at trial whether or not he evidence that they presented is beyond reasonable doubt is going to decide in my opinion they didn't present enough they call three witnesses they called officer byrd and two other officers they chose they she didn't know what was going on five minutes before so with a man with the mother there and not knowing where the mother was going to the front door mother at the rear door to say drat supervision requires they say direct supervision i don't think they really mean that in the sense that you have to sit there and monitor it however right on top of all that supervision and lot of things because you are at in as i said the statute in the in my opinion i don't have to go in there in this type of case improve the defense beyond a reasonable doubt i don't have to prove my client's innocence but what the state presented and the evidence  order of alcoholic beverage on this route and there's no doubt i can take comfort in the fact that the officers were not willing to have a great debate with a young male on the front of the porch in that wee hours of the morning  we don't have and that's i'm saying we who govern from the fans and release who gulp down in the sense that in the privacy of one's home with a parent at least we show that in our case in chief and the respect we request the court burden in the first movie burden beyond a reasonable doubt and i am saying bird is just a slight now guns and the evidence can come from the state's witnesses and the state's evidence was she's there what more do i need to say that she's there at the house at their home and you also can tell me where she was five minutes before she can tell me if she's on the back because they have the snap at least that presented enough evidence i think to make a prim because this was in my opinion this has other ramifications going on just as if you have a loud noise in a residential area can the officers walk in the back of the backyard of the house and the motions the process o before or was it ten or was it two robbers before and the three of them only there were speculating on one time with consumption to the amount of consumption and that's just so the fact that it's out we don't know when or where they say all they evidence to say that work supervision has to be proven that it wasn't beyond reasonable doubt i presented some up against the say direct supervision was there from the evidence that they presented well with their witnesses so i think it drinking party and a loud noise so the officers responded the call to get in the car they listened to see what they can hear think hear loud noise it's coming from the back under all of them will drone please if there's a legitimate reason to approach the back door or office  and approach the back door and hear that's they want to talk to the residence and the residents are at the back door that's a legitimate reason and then when no one answered ever goes us officers i'll talk with you but only on the front porch so there than actually invited onto the front porch during the only goes beyond a reasonable doubt issue the state doesn't have to prove when where or how much alcohol was consumed they just need to print proof that alcohol had been consumed and they did that in this case there's of observations by the side of the house and then again at the front of the house by the side of house one officer testified about the people and in this case framework of how exemptions are raised by the preponderance also has been applied in a criminal sexual assault case regarding a different exemption you know that wasn't written into the statute and  otherwise the trial either by the state or the defendant the state must meet its usual burden of proof as to that issue together with all the other elements the reason that's not a reasonable possible buddy that this kid actually sad that his mom was in bed before the officers arrived saw under the tent the officer testified that they saw mom at the back door after the kids were coming and so the kids were on the back porch and thence to fund to fence councils are you today that doesn't that she didn't know that he had also consume shots of liquor ah so right here you didn't put on any every any evidence that i didn't mean this didn't i mean office or shop and are outside so that doesn't show that she was directly supervising it when it happened or because it as he says it doesn't show when it happened so we don't know when it happened just the fact that she happened being inside while they're outside doesn't show that she guy who's got the burnin and when it kicks in and the people submit that law just being being home when defense comes the light isn't good enough to raise it and even if the people had to prove it under the evidence that was presented combined with a common standard as the trial judge believed the oem to find that his mom was upstairs sleeping that that shows no direct consumption anyway i mean no direct supervision of consumption i thought the direct quote out of the transcript was that he said that she was in back home we don't know where that this i mean i don't know where it is i don't think was ever presented to the court where exactly that this was the on the couch another shot that wasn't that evidence wasn't even brought up as to who what when where how why which i was trying to go to the court so combine it was too strict in that motion at every stage he had the facts to present to the house because i think they took that to an extreme because there's no way within reason that in your home you're not going to be another going with your child every moment of the day no matter if the downstairs playing a video or they're up stairs doing on t will say that the family was still under the direct supervision i'm the parent because if she's still there and she's still at the house who's to say that she's not under that direction then at the moment down mentality in their case i don't think as a parent has to be held to that high standard i agree with the risk of alcoholism you know things can happen but when you're in your own home and that's when i alluded to in the beginning