the ultimate question in this case is really quite simple the state is aware of the mountain it has to climb to states of people such as this trial court decisions are entitle to great deference even in a case that involves questions of law there's no question about that and i think the state's brief outlines the standard of review in death  and as to those factual questions they're reviewed for manifest weight and the ultimate decision with regard to questions of law is of course reviewed you know but the question here really is sergeant gordon master sergeant gordon's decision to park where she parked and the cutout next the defendant's home off of the drive were reasonable given the totality of the circumstances she immediately smell cannabis now as to the factual questions involved in that overarching ultimate question as i framed it i don't believe there is a dispute  so we're not asking this court to determine that any of the findings made by the court amounted to an abuse of discretion or were manifestly erroneous the question again is as this court laid out in woodrum was this decision as i just outlined it reasonable police action the states admits that it was absolutely recent given the totality of the circumstances and again when this court as with any reviewing or reviews questions of law i think i've been before this court on a number of occasions where and we've discussed the fourth amendment questions and  i'm not want to say that the touchstone of the fourth amendment is reasonable reasonable miss reasonable miss reasonable guess and the question that this court i think has to ask is how do you get to that the the answer as to whether this is reasonable and that analysis is at the corner of the totality of circumstances so what were of circumstances here as outlined in the state's brief the police received an anonymous tip the stable can see for purposes of argument that this anonymous tip was not an anonymous tip that would give rise to probable cause let alone reasonable suspicion given at least from my perspective in reviewing this case the staleness of the tip in conjunction with the lack of specificity and the lack of record in this case so the question then becomes well why did the police go to the defendant's residence the answer that question is simple because they testified to their rationale for going to the residence and i believe the trial judge accepted their reasons for doing so and that was to conduct a knock and talk and on page eighty three of the record from the hearing on the motion women a detective bring hausen testified that the reason they would conduct a knock and talk in situation like this is that it was protocol to corroborate that anonymous tip so they're there for the purpose of corroborating the anonymous tip we reach a point on for a number of reas i suppose you could just see armin but i don't believe we've got any place near that in this case again the fourth amendment question is one of the reasonableness and totality of the circumstances now clearly the record reflects in this case that this individual if this home had been the subject of anonymous tips and investigation in the past it is not a stretch  suspicion question my point here is it is not a stretch for a trained officer so there's three officers to not want to approach someone who's been accused of possession you're distributing drugs from their home alone and there is great value not only to society in the safety of the officers but frankly to the safety of this individual and that's war now in this case in particular where they arrive detective ring house and specifically testified and i think the record reflects that the court accepted that you approach them obviously casually represented to the defendant his badge and said we're here gave him an opportunity to remove his daughter young daughter from the driveway i believe across the street to the grandparents house and again one of the benchmarks throughout this case that you will see is that each step taken by the police was reasonable this is not a case that you sometimes see on c n n where six eight twelve members of law enforcement approached the door decision in light of collins that followed this case so he didn't pull this walk far into the driveway pulled up out front modestly approached the defendant inform him about why they were there now this leads i think to a critical point and demonstrates in part why judge the sorriest in this case ultimately got to the wrong legal conclusion based on the fa conversation during this time sergeant gorton pulls up in the cutout next to the house next to the window and that i believe is representative exhibit one in the record immediately ultimately believed the representations made by greenhouses and gore based on the way the trial judge entered its written order when i first got this case i got the same impression somewhat from reading it upon further review and reading it in depth and reviewing the fact i think highlighted on page eighteen or nineteen of the state's brief we point out specifically that judge historias found the inspector and the master sergeant that the the ability to detect cannabis and that training was a canon the courts were it's not the state's akin to a drug dog drug detecting device well of course this court is well evaluating the situation are not akin to a specialized device as we point out in our brief to hold otherwise would be to totally eviscerate decades  evaluation of the trespass rules and  i do want to address dean's burns in the these cases because i think again for anyone who's ever done any trial work one of the pitfalls of trial work that we don't experience as much on appeal is the limited time in which you have to deal with issues wherein you fall into a rabbit hole and words or phrases like curtilage come up there's a relatively new case in the united states supreme court that deals with murder there's relatively new cases from the illinois supreme court case that deal with privilege and so you have an inclination as a practitioner as a tree or as a trial judge i think permitted on the colonel ij because quote there is no customary invitation unquote for police to introduce train krug dogs to explore the area in hopes of discovering incriminating evidence that's from  beneath so that's the most recent so illinois supreme court precedent with respect to burns and dirty well what does that mean that means that those cases are focused on trained drug dogs your yard no instead although the presumption is that when the police are on the curtilage it's a trespass that is not the end of the discussion that is merely  do i say that because the court points out beyond the girl scouts which is sort of a clever line and i think i appreciate from the case more importantly what about the guy from the electric company what about the mail me to say that the police that that detective gordon could not park her vehicle in that cut out next to the house immediately off the road and step out and immediately smoke cannabis would be to say that the mailman can't pull into that cutout if his daughter's in the driveway with were tricked boxes or whatever those things are that's correct your honor and again this goes to my point for this court to say that that master sergeant gordon couldn't park her squad car there given the totality of circumstances and again just as an aside simply because there's someplace else to park doesn't made where she did park and reasonable for purposes of course the number the state media point really wants the other two vehicles are that w it is your honor and i believe that's a question that i think would be resolved at the trial level but up and i can't represent that i've not been to the scene i don't know that that's what was represented by the state below and i think that goes to the question of what was reasonable could she have a part of a mile down the road off the side of the road sure but just because she could have parked there doesn't mean the question in that regard is is there a customary invitation and that's the phrase that this court has used in what room and it's a phrase that the supreme court has used in there a situation in which enforcement officer would be on the curtilage where there would be no presumption of trespasser implication of the fourth amendment and i think i answered that question for myself no with a really important kept up that police end up on the curtilage of people's homes every day and it's absolutely reason they run through the backyards of people's houses in hot pursuit they engage in vehicle accidents that they may or may not have caused and then held on someone's property if they are they are already legitimacy on horseman purpose that presumption of being on the curtilage is is one of may be asking itself my time's limited so i just want to make sure that i'm clear about this would it would i like to challenge whether this was curtilage at all sure but the court made a determination that this was curtilage to that effect if it is a legal determination based on the application of facts and i don't believe that i can genuinely represent to this court that based on the record that we have because just can you pull the driveway is required not burglaries two doors away because i live on a long street and there are a whole series of hurt to answer question i think it's door and it doesn't correct up and those cases indicate that front doors are the most public of these private spaces all around the house that are considered  so i as i was driving here today i was trying to like think about why this is in this case because it's not it's a little bit difficult the reason it's not an easy case is because if this was a front door and this was opts walk to the front door that determination it absolutely is but court side you are backyard police officers are not allowed to figure out the front door this is from the dock at the front door it's a reasonable expectation that a visitor will wait for a period of time if someone doesn't answer unless invited then they leave they're not allowed to go to the side yard they're not allowed to go back and we haven't got there without any and without an accident say yes we have enough to prepared in such a way that it's just as consistent the make up of that area is just like the rest of the road in the driveway so obviously somebody has made a decision that we want to make this place is not just the court found t driveway where you can pull up a little bit and drive like that you can also pull up right next to you right  there or should be today there are three questions i want to address for the court very briefly but before i get there i want to address the question about the dubious finding that counsel points out because when i have an will point out that as to the codefendant in this case based on the exact same set of facts the court admitted this drug evidence on the specific finding and i think the court can take judicial notice of this i'm just pointing this out for the record for the integrity of my officers that that argument was made by the by to lawyers for that codefendant and that was rejected by the court so there's no question here well those are rejected to correct it's not addressed in columns and where the court sorry justice sotomayor writing for the majority said this is this is six hundred seventy want right at the beginning of the opinion the fourth amendment interest it in the item search i e invasion of the curtilage right the whole point there was that became an invasion of the early age be cause for the reason they were this is a council sort of nibbled at the edges of this and i think she landed right on it in certainly if the police are going there to peek in your window that matters if they're going there to exercise an automobile exception that matters when you pull up in a cutout on the side of the window with no knowledge of what's coming in or out of the home that way or that windows even there before you get there is part of the totality of circumstances and errors on the side of it not being a protected area or  area where you were invited to be just like the girl scouts of course the girl scouts come to the front door but guess where they sometimes park before the iowa out of the van next to your house than the cut out they're invited to be there and this gets had that's exactly what the court gives out in burns and the nia that if he doesn't want to you parking in the cut out guess what you have to post there a no trespassing sign because otherwise people will think you can said that master sergeant gordon testified that page eighty six eighty eight of the record justice of the army you you followed up on the question about the quote unquote scare quotes about inadvertently parking when i first read the court's order i sort of cringe thinking does he not by that the morning analyze this case i'm not sure i think what the court was actually pointing out there is not that the court didn't believe the officer because ultimately he could have found it on that basis he could have said they're not credible i don't believe them they came there for that purpose it's a violation of the fourth amendment he didn't he said she got there she parked where she parked she got out and she acted like a drug dog well that's not the law i believe and i believe the court believe that this was a police officer who's not a lawyer and a police report and under oath testifying and being inarticulate about how she got there she i believe she was actually testifying precisely as just a statement points out that i inadvertently park there in other