in this case the officers easily could have sought a warrant to search mr jones as residence and safes but they did not this quarter versus sitting below because the officers opening of jones a safe file aided the fourth amendment at this court is not persuaded by that rationale it should still reverse the decision below because the officers failure to heed jones objections violated georgia against randolph turning to the first argument the plainview doctrine does not apply because officer pure golf he admitted that the stakes were close and therefore he could not see them in plain view in his initial police report officer pure golf you wrote that he quote that there was a key in the top smaller safe and the safe was unlocked so i pulled it open for officer safety and then immediately viewed several handguns and ammunition then on cross examination at trial officer kerrick also he admitted that the police report was correct and that he could not see the guns until the state was open therefore it was clear  for the district court to find that the safe are open and that they were in plain view that the guns were in plain view because the guns were not in plain view the only question is whether ms kelley had the authority to consent to the search of the safes but the actual and apparent further rationale to understand the miss kelly did not have the option of the apparent authority to consent to the search of the safes because the officer should have seen that the guns were not in plain view and i miss kelly having already i'm testify that you cannot have the ability to enter into the s guns that is true your honor but nonetheless she never entered into the saves to not have the keys to the saves and the officers were aware of all of these facts and scully also sad that she quote never got involved with the gun saves and therefore she locked up the actual and  apparent authority and for this reason the courts reversed the decision below but if the court is not convinced by the plane the rationale it should still reverse because the officers failure to heave jones objections violated georgia against randolph when the police entered into mr jones's residence he told them first i didn't invite un and second in response to officer chavez's rummaging around for several boxes he stated don't you need a warrant either of these are sufficient to amount to an officers could consistently remember who arrived first who handcuffed mr jones and what order they arrived at the house or whether anything was said to mr jones within the house is further evidence that it was clear error for the district court not to credit mr j testimony well you just come down to whether you believe jones or the police will choose your way it is a question of of clear air for this court to decide whether or not mr jones is credible but given that mr jones was consist in this testimony it was uncontroverted and additionally the officers had a government had the opportunity to put new witnesses on the stand after jones testified during the second suppression hearing and they never did but they absolutely couldn't because after jones testified the government still call the stand to testify as to further events that happened on the day of the search therefore because the testimony was uncontroverted the government's own testimony from the officers was completely confused as to the order of events and the government could have called the future with witnesses after jones testified it was clear error for the district court not to credit you on this testimony the question therefore is whether under georgia against grand off the statements amounted to objections which could overcome kelly's consent to the search and either of the two statements are sufficient objections and georgia against randolph the supreme court said that she just herman's whether a statement amounts to an objection one must look to social custom in this case even if miss kelly were in the residence and explicitly said to the officers i consent to your search the officer is standing at the doorway hearing mr jones say i didn't invite un is certainly sufficient as an evidence of social custom that he did not want them to enter their house and that he was objecting to the search of the s an objection because the officer should easily have understood that they did not want that the defendant did not want them in their house similarly here don't you want to warrant taking in the context of the fact that officer chavez was rummaging around through but even if the object the statements do not amount to objections the court should still reverse because the officers violated fernandez against california by removing jones from the scene for the purposes of preventing him from object the officer's actions without far away was he he was on the adjoining property approximately twenty feet away from his residence at a picnic table but your honor in the case of georgia against randolph where one needs to be present to object the fact that mr jones was taken off his own property is highly relevant and united states against what slip this court said that's just the fact of being in your driveway was far enough to prevent one from objecting because they were not press surely being taken off your own property is sufficient to make it so that mr jones was not present  randolph and therefore he could not object to the search so we're pretty certain that he's on the curtilage of the property what is a regular of slickness for a card and where where he was he was twenty feet away from his residence in between it seems like his trailer in the adjoining trailer at a picnic table but he testified that he was not at his residence and i believe the officers had testified similarly as well well we're not at his residence that is your  includes the land around the trailer even if it does include the land around the trailer on or the fact that being in your own driveway is not sufficient to be present certainly indicates that being at a picnic table or you're out of your shop and you also can't see what's happening in the search has sufficient not to be present you simply shouldn't have a situation he's is they know he is he is a convict then convicted of weapons while asians guns he may be violent and but they put him out of so standing in side they put him in a picnic table twenty feet from the house your honor was an object of lee reasonable for the officers to remove mr johnson his residence when he was being completely complying with their requests to put him at a picnic table to guard him but how do you agree to let him search right know he did not agree to let them search he objected to their search but even more problematic is the fact that the officer simply point to officer safety as a rationale to conduct  he testified that he opened the safe for officer safety because you're afraid he was afraid they were booby trapped if the court is going to allow officer simply to wave the flag of officer safety and allow them to conduct warrantless search then the balance of the places ability to circumvent the war when the police officer testified is it's not to be believed because he's just waving the flag there and if the defendant just cries would leave him no your honor the district court can make reasonable credibility termination challenging clear error he asked this court to do it in multiple instances and so i think it's important to remember what the district court actually found in this case what it found is a fourteen year old calls up the cops and says my mother's live in boyfriend has been molesting me for years the cops arrive they say do you want to talk to a fourteen year old and mother say no we don't feel comfortable talking here they go back to the station at that point the daughter tells everything that happened the officer say all right we're going to take you back to the house the mother says no i'm scared mr jones is violent he's aggressive he's a felon he has firearms in the house officers confirm felon they call a couple other three other officers to come help them secure mr jones take him out of the house they go to the house they walk up knock on the door say mr jones do you have any weapons in the house he says no other than those nice points to the nice behind them they say all right we need you to come out he voluntarily comes out of the house they handcuff him for officer safety taken fifteen to twenty feet away the mother then consents to the search they up against to try to argue that those facts are clear we don't believe he's met that hurdle just briefly in terms of whether he objected he continues to say that it's uncontroverted testimony that he objected that's just not right  at no time did jones ask about searching the trail or what's going on and said you can't go on the trail or anything like that pier gal's he said at no time did joan say you can't search this place i live here you can't go in or anything like that jackson says jones never made any comments about the search of the trailer whether anybody could search the trailer or not and deputy child has testified similarly it's on page five of our response brief his position mr jones argues yeah but they don't talk about whether that's inside or outside and jones claims he objected inside just a court found as a testimony incredible use a liar he had a motive to lie just court said he didn't believe that the st john's objected but the officer's testimony covers both inside and outside they said at no time to the object so really what we're still dealing with here is claim excuse me clear error your honour's we don't think he's met that burden unless this court has any further questions we would rest on our briefs and also rest on the inevitable discovery doctrine as outlined in our  two brief points are above your honor the first is that the government's reliance on officer safety truly does not make sense when as opposing counsel just just just argued the officers knew that mr jones had snide nevertheless they allowed him to go back into the house to collect his keys and wallet if the officers were truly worried about officer safety then they would have had to follow him into the house or collect the keys and wallet on his behalf and this is further buttressed by the fact that officer kerrick alston himself testif against interest on cross examination at trial that the safer actually closed and he confirmed that his police report that was filed contemporaneously with the original search was correct that he opened the safe because he was afraid that there would be booby traps the officer safety rationale is simply insufficient second as to the question of whether jones objections are uncontroverted the government plays fast and loose with the timing of when mr jones made his statements and which officers were present during the moment when he made those statement were not present in the residence when he made those statements and therefore their testimony is irrelevant as to whether or not he objected officer gunning testified only as to what happened when mr jones was outside and therefore similarly had no testimony about whether or not jones objected gal ski responding to the question of whether he had any conversation once there at the picnic table similar to observe gunning the only officer to testify about what happened during while they were inside of the house with officer gunning  the officer shot as who stated that at no time to join object but officer shot as simply could have been responding to the question of whether john said the phrase i object and as discussed earlier mr jones made two statements that amount to objections but did not employ the term