there's no dispute about that penn state suggests that there is a debate about fix your grief suggests that the police officers went in first and then  the building to come into this house and seize the gun and shoot his finding was based on his interpretation of point yes now do you have any agreement or disagreement with his idea that plainview consists of approximately three elements but it doesn't have to be tied it's in circumstances i know i don't believe it but your offer was a basis for probably  contraband there's a number of first district cases guns and drugs neither one of you discuss them at all and i mean are you aware of any first district he says where the police were at a location i mean did you mention maybe you actually observed on the steps there was a discussion or some testimony that the defendant and another woman were coming out of the building there was shouting an argument yes some say and then he was observed actually lifting up the shirt caribbeans and turns aren't those pieces about the notion that the police can not take dogs sniffing around the door then go get a search warrant and recover i next you know home this is there's nothing they would or should have court judgement but if we if we can see for the purposes of argument that they've done everything right so far how this is supposed to play out so you're saying they saw the water and based on heller he has a right to have a gun in his home that's of course yes because you can be armed but that doesn't mean it's not still dangerous to the police you've got a guy who you think again hypothetically if you were coming to your objections asking to the best of your you've got a guy who's committed an aggravated assault i a reasonable police officer might look at the sky and say i don't know that i totally trust this guy but you know i have some reason to be a little worried about how he's going to be right and it just seems like this is a tough spot for everybody to be yes i mean i i think you have a valid decision but the you know the six or seven backers that are generally considered breaking circumstances are whether there was a crime under investigation that was recently committed whether there was any deliberate or unjustified delay during which time a warrant could have been in pain whether a grave offense is occur whether or not there was a reasonable belief the suspect was armed whether the officers were acting on a showing a clear showing out right to speak so do you believe that if the if the police have a right to be in the building in the destiny that the link you exception would apply i believe indicated unlawful constitutional possession of other than the fact that one when he was standing on the steps and then he went into his home his monthly bills into his home were in hell right and if you suggest the position that you take considered certainly not suggesting that when the police officers enter into the vestibule guns drawn you drop a gun that we can clearly conclude that this is killed as opposed to counsel he could not have done anything safer than what he did the actions that he took at that moment was the single safest thing that anybody could have done in that situation he voluntarily service contraband let's go from three ok so pro three says they have the right to gain access to that so maybe in the vestibule but the guns not the guns in the house they have to cross the worthless arrests without probable cause and at edge and circumstances so if you don't have extreme circumstances how do they have the right to cross the threshold of the door to see this is the access to it they don't have a search of a person in their area immediately surrounding them incident to arrest and then they mention in texas the so called plain view doctrine and so actually the supreme court of the united states or i've been trying to find out from either one of you whether you agree with this notion or not there are certainly cases that say that in order to have the plain view exceptional i there must be e circumstances but again your first district cases that say edge and circumstances can supply that they were wrong in other words they have the right to be where they are in order to see what they are seen so if they don't have the right to be in the vestibule it really doesn't matter what they see but they have to have a right to be there first so if they were in the vestibule and had a right to be there and they observe something i think they can act i don't think they have to knock on the door i don't think they have to call i just don't think they have to let the come sit there but i'm not sure why either of you didn't  see what's happening with the man with the gun for detail rest him for aggravated assault i there's no necessity he was arrested for aggravated assault not did any of the officers at the suppression hearing for a trial when they were talking about how these events unfolded chicago that they do nothing i guess i mean yes but we should write it this will are changes the entire landscape and that the police shouldn't really be doing anything here did it just you know area with a dog sniffing around to go then get a warrant to search for contraband drugs in them all and burgers on the third floor and he was ok doesn't me at these to try to charge them with the offense of possession of drugs that's what those pieces are about but they do have other principles that they state you know him regards to what a home really