we'll hear an argument next in case sixteen ten twenty seven collins verses were jr mr fitzgerald thank you mr chief justice and may it please the court the warrant requirement for the home and curtilage cannot be overthrown by the automobile exception under the commonwealth's argument on probable cause alone an officer may search a vehicle anywhere that he finds it and may go anywhere that he needs to in order to access that vehicle that rule cannot survive foundational fourth amendment principles searches of the home and curtilage without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable as this court has often recognized so the rule we ask this court to adopt is that the automobile exception does not apply to a vehicle found in the curtilage of the home which they have a warrant well your honor the the warrant would specify the place to be searched for the car and so commonly a warrant would say for instance the dwelling and curtilage to look for this motorcycle so the warrant that authorizes the search of the motorcycle would by its terms authorize the intrusion into the curtilage so what if it didn't so they have a warrant here let's say to search for they have probable cause to search this thing covered by a tarp they have a warrant to search this motorcycle because it's been involved in criminal activity they want to get the vehicle identification number from it and they see it let's say it's parked two feet from the curb but arguably or it's parked where it is here maybe in the chordal it maybe not in the curtilage the that why it would be insufficient well your honor the fourth amendment by its terms requires a warrant to specify the place to be searched so if they've seen the motorcycle in that spot and they get a warrant the warrant would say this house on don't need avenue may have included the picture and it would by its terms authorize the access to that i mean this is my question about your argument based on the curtilage we ask whether a search within or outside the curtilage in order to determine whether the fourth amendment applies at all but that's not really the question here because there is probable cause and there is the motor vehicle exception to the wire requirement so the issue is not whether there was a search yes there was a search and yes you know if it were if it was the curtilage then there was there there was an intrusion on the protected area but the warrant the motor vehicle exception to the warrant requirement i take it is based on two things one is the most the risk that the vehicle it is going to be moved during the time when the warrant is sought and second is a consideration on the other side of the risk that if there's not a warrant the police will be wrong about probable cause and the degree of intrusion on property on legitimate property interests that occur in that situation it's a balancing it's not a consideration of whether it's on the  it's hard to see why the balance is any different here than it would be if this motorcycle had been parked on the street but the risk that it will be moved seems to be almost exactly the same and what  the invasion of privacy the invasion of privacy that's involved in walking a few feet up the driveway and the home is not even mr bird's home why does the balance come out different here well honor so here's here's the way that i think about that if you're looking at the terms that support the automobile exception you have ready mobility and you have the lessened expectation of privacy but the curtilage in the home are  important concerns than that so for instance if i had a fist full of cocaine and i'm out in public the cocaine is extremely readily mobile there's nothing that is easier to dispose of than a fist full of cocaine if i've got a sink it can be gone in seconds so it's extremely readily mobile nor in the cocaine itself is there any expectation of privacy it's illegal to possess it already but if i'm standing in say my living room or in my garage with a fist full of cocaine the court would require a warrant for the police to come to that address and look for that and get me so i think the privacy interest would be quite different if this was in the house or if it was in the garage with this is not in either of those places it's in a spot that's visible from the street right it's visible from the street from directly at the end of the driveway yes your honor it is obscured from any distance in either direction by the brick walls that surround where this motorcycle was on three sides one side being the house so the motorcycle here is five feet from the side of the house and to the extent that curtilage is that issue curtilage has been waived by the commonwealth by not arguing it below and this is a within that private space is your argument hinge on that distinction well i think we make that distinction because it's important just to make sense of the fourth amendment to think about it step by step and there are two searches here the first is the intrusion into the curtilage under jardins which is clearly a search outside of any implied license and the second is the removal of the cover from the motorcycle which is similar to opening a container to find a vehicle inside or perhaps opening the door to a car moving a cover from a car so this motorcycle were parked on the street and it was covered by a tarp you would say that the motor vehicle exception doesn't apply because it's covered by a tarp no your honor if it were parked on the particularly placed within the curtilage of the home so the location of the motorcycle is very important here so what difference does it make that the tarp was there to tarp perhaps makes it particularly clear that the officer was undergoing a search not just say walking where he could have said oh this is all nonsense let's change the hypothetical is there still a violation under your theory of the room if the motorcycle was in plain view in the currently age and he motorcycle i don't know to you i don't think you would have to move something on the motorcycle and so let's just assume that no no top on it so if your argument still stan yes your honor so if the motorcycle is where the motorcycle is in this case but there is no cover on it there is a fourth amendment violation and i know why because i mean suppose the policeman is standing on the sidewalk he the window of the house is quite close and there inside he sees a huge pile of cocaine ok i thought that perhaps i got it mixed up i thought that seeing something that is an illegal substance that can be easily disposed of in about three seconds would in fact justify create an exit in circumstances under which the policeman could enter am i wrong about the close your honor so what is the law there if an officer standing on the sidewalk looks into the window of a house and sees a pile of drugs through them go that creates probable cause that would permit the officer to get a warrant to go in so he goes gets a warrant and they go throw it all down th cocaine right there and there's somebody wandering around and saw it and and can't he is i don't know what is an exit circumstance of it isn't that it's particularly important to that hypothetical that there is someone wandering around ok beca a motorcycle which is a rather unusual shape and happens to look identical ie like the one that you know was just stolen you can't go in to go look at it you have to get a warrant as they drive away in the meantime but nonetheless you're there by yourself no other policeman it's in the window ok it's like the cocaine or it's in the driveway why can't you so just to be clear in this case the supreme court of virginia steered away from same without the tarp that's what confused me so that's why i asked the question so the officer testified that when he arrived at the property there was no one home and the exigency the relevant exigen were there one here would be eminent destruction of evidence and he testified that no one was there the motorcycle is under a tarp he has a picture or a cover he has a picture of the motorcycle in exactly the same place from facebook which he known as what she must know was taken at least a few hours earlier because he's been with the person he believes owns the motorcycle in the meantime so there's no obvious exigency here so he just i'm sorry did you know there's no obvious exigency here and that would be an issue for and in this case i go back to the exchange that you had with justice alito and when you gave your hypothetical about the drugs and he said well that would be different it would be it's very different in a home but here you have the motorcycle parked out in the open on the driveway in this enclosure where you can see it from the street and i guess this is the question i want to ask you if if there is that difference like in a home you better have a warrant  e here it's out on the street but in the curtilage in the kernel it's nuts sabotaged you know it's not it's not disputed here how far are we committed by jordanians to treat the curtilage exactly as we would the home that seems to me to be important given the i think the things that you and justice alito agreed on so how far do we say look what you're dean said or what we've said in other cases is we have to treat the curtilage exactly as we would the home even though you can actually see the motorcycle on the curtilage yes your honor so in jordan's the court said quote the curtilage is protected as part of anything in the same way so so you may your honor be it sounds like you are describing a difficult case of fourth amendment standing or a right to object this court is very clearly said in minnesota versus olson that the overnight guest has the right to object and that's the status in this case at minimum i mean really it's his family it's the mother of his child his child who lives there and she is the lessee he spends several nights a week there on the other end of the spectrum minnesota versus carter being in a place for a couple of hours just to do business would not create a right to object so to the extent that connection to the property connection to the curtilage would be treated the same way as connection to the house purposes i thought the issue in john dean's was whether and was whether officers who did not have probable cause were permitted to walk up to the front of the house at which point the well yes your honor so jardins identified a search and it identified a search of the home based on actions taken exclusively in the curtilage of the home and it the majority essentially said as i read it that the officers acted beyond the scope of the implied license when they brought a drug dog and they spent a few minutes in the curtilage sniffing around that's not what there would be an implied license to do which essentially is just a knock and talk and so it's a search of the curtilage and the court stop there this court stop there but of course it was affirming the florida supreme court which had thrown out the search for lack of a warrant based on the protection of the curtilage council we permit the police to seize items in plain view in a home they get a search warrant for the home they see an item that they have probable cause to believe is incriminating evidence they can se premise of all of those cases is that the police are there legitimately if you have a warrant you are permitted to be there in georgia deems you could couldn't see the  from the house because you didn't have a right to be in the curtilage and so isn't there a difference when you are in the street as these police officers were they have a right to be on the street they have a right to look at whatever is visible and they could see the motorcycle from there so is this a plain view case is this a exigent circumstance case i think that's why i thought that justice prior was asking whether the search of the car was part of this because was this in plain view in essence i  said i understood it they weren't sure it was the same motorcycle they thought the wheel was the same but i'm not sure why that they needed that if they knew the motorcycle was stolen or did they not know that that is still i don't remember the record is unclear and we would not we don't believe that the officer thought the motorcycle was stolen he was looking for the motorcycle but how do you a true sort of way i'm looking at this which is it's the police are standing there they see something and have probable cause to believe that it's incriminating evidence how is that different than being inside the home with a warrant and again does i'm not sure i see the difference although the  is a difference because they are lifting they're searching something else besides the notice i was so your honor this is not a plain view case because in horton versus california the court said in order for plain view to apply to allow the seizure of the thing the officer must have a right of access to the thing itself so there is no right of access there is no implied license to go into the curtilage to look for evidence that you have seen and so seeing the motorcycle from the street in this case is just like seeing the motorcycle or seeing drugs through the window of a house do you dispute the fact that they had probable cause to believe that the thing that they saw covered by the tarp was the motorcycle they were looking for we do not dispute that and so ultimately here this is a fairly straightforward case i think there is the motorcycle you don't dispute in other words you in your view you agree that the policeman standing on the sidewalk knows that that item covered by this has probable cause covered by the tarp is the possibly stolen motorcycle you agree with that he has probable cause to believe that is the motorcycle that eluded him in traffic but he was looking for of course there could be other things under the tarp as well as that but i'm saying if he'd had access to it if they'd said please come to my curtilage right now if that had been given him access he could have just grabbed the whole thing tarpon all is about that but the officer testified he went to the house solely to look for the motorcycle that had eluded him he was asked was the motorcycle do you think the motorcycle was contraband and he said no so he was looking into the eluding and when he ran the vin number he found that it was some identifying characteristics in the extension of the wheel that allowed it to go one hundred forty miles an hour and the color scheme and all that you couldn't you couldn't see the color scheme but you could see that the basis for the probable motorcycle it's the driver that he was searching with elusive driving or whatever dangerous driving it is a police investigation in which she is ultimately trying to find the driver first by verifying that he's found a motorist can't you can't seize on th cause that is outside the implied license of his ability to go and knock and talk at the door of the residence your honor so he can't he can't stop to perform additional searches or seizures one additional search and i would you have a license to go to the door and knock but you can't look at anything in the way you should have to block it off you know you have you have the right to use your eyes but you don't have the right to go beyond what a reasonably respectful person approaching the door would do and stopping to examine or se motorcycle would be outside of that implied license now of course here the motorcycle is not even on the path to the front door he's not going to the front door he testified he was not knocking and talking he walked up soley to take the cover off to see if this was the motorcycle that he had probable cause to probable cause to search that motorcycle to find the acquired death acacia number which will tell him the owner of the motorcycle which will help him arrest the person who committed this crime right yes so the case comes down to this  the motorcycle were parked on the street or maybe further down the driveway and therefore not in the car milledge they would need a warrant they could search it but because it was parked a few feet further away although that's visible from the street they could search it in the first instance because of the risk that the motorcycle would be taken away but in the second instance moved a few feet further up the driveway still visible from the street can't be so they can  it because of the additional invasion of privacy that is involved in walking those few feet up the driveway yes your honor the case comes down to yes the protections of the curtilage of the home which the curtilage again is protected as part of the home itself and for good reason officers are prevented from going into the curtilage of a home to prevent them from being say in the back yard where there might be a parking area where people are parking to avoid them keep them from going into garages and things like that their little police have an interest in seizing or securing this motorcycle as soon as possible no your honor there's no exigent circumstances your honor it's exactly the same will it it's exactly the same as if he had seen something readily movable like drugs through the window of a house he would have to get a warrant for that and it's the same here and there there are forty nine other states in the federal well your honor this court is not you know readily mobile can include a car that's wrecked i mean at some point maybe it becomes but readily mobile is not something that's examined on a case by case basis so you think that's irrelevant it's mobility and its attendant and it's the ease of moving it it's irrelevant to this case that's what you want to say it is it is not any more readily mobile than things that require a warrant such as you want to say that mobility is irrelevant to this case yes i will say that i found i reserve the balance of my time thank you counsel cox mr chief justice and may i please the court officer rhodes a search of the motorcycle should be upheld for three reasons first the search occurred outside the firm bright line of the house where the justification for the automobile exception fully apply second officer rhodes had probable cause before he ever stepped foot on the rudder brief you seem to say if you're not you don't seem to say you say you're not taking a position on whether an officer can break into a garage or walk into a garage that's close but not locked so you seem to be suggesting that the mobility of the automobile answer is that by force or without force this court has never said that the mobility changes depending on where it is to resolve my question for you because that seems to be what the virginia with the old is saying which is where the item is located is irrelevant if it's an automobile whether in a garage or the motorcycle parked inside the living room some people park their bikes inside actually doesn't matter where it is that that gives the police the right and church and search the supreme court o regina did not impose that restriction and this court has never done that either we think that it would make sense if the court were to draw a line here although it's not necessary if it were to draw a line it would make sense to get off saying it's not necessary because the facts don't support it but i and we know it is that's what we said in case after case so we do we say now the curtilage is not part of the for purposes of automobiles and then how do i fit in the line sure there are a couple things big thing let me try to answer them in turn we don't we don't read hardiness and the other court cases like oliver as saying that the curtilage in the home should be treated the same for all purposes for determining one's reasonable expectations of privacy you might treat the curtilage in the home the same and that's what hardiness seem to suggest but it's cited to all over you know one of the curtilage cases and then in footnote eleven of all over they say we do not say that the curtilage in the home should be treated the same for all bill exception applying in one one place versus another because this court hasn't hasn't done that if the court were to draw the line and recognize that you're trying to decide a lot of cases here not just this one that would be a good place to do it because that is the firm bright line that the court has recognized in a lot of other cases so under that rule though police could as i understand your position search for cars in garages closed garage of cases in the past at least have suggested and we deem a barn a garage curtilage then the police can without a warrant search for a car there are your rules right it's not part of the dwelling if it is part of the dwelling then no they could not searching not many people live in their garage some people do some people do in a barns but usually there are reserved for cars and for animals and you're suggesting that in those places the police can search without a warrant honor for a lot of residential purposes that might have stores out there next to refrigerator somebody might be living out there the teenager gets too rambunctious so that i'm out in the garage because i want to ask you two questions and the first is just to be sure i have the basics right yes ok the basics question is weird hypothetical but i'm using a weird hypothetical for illustration the mad art burglar has just stolen the thinker rodin's thinker from the local museum it weighs two thousand pounds and with his confederates he's put it in his new glass house and the policeman stopping on the sidewalk looks in the window and sees my god there it is the thing he's just stolen i thought the law is but that policeman can not go into the house until he gets a warrant yes it's not the thinker it's a wisp a wispy bit of very suspicious drug smoke and they are if soon as the smoker who he sees in the window already believes he's off in the side as soon as he gets an inclination as a policeman around i'll tell you were all that drug is going to be right down the sink ok in that case he doesn't need a warrant because there's exit in circumstance is that right that that's right if the whole struction is imminent and what i mean we have in this case is we do not have the existence circumstance by definition you all of rule that out is that correct i think you do have accidents or you nice to have it but that's not in front of us that's not why we took the case that's not what this is about right there is a categorical exigency to automobile but now there are two differences between my example one it's curtilage not house and two it is a movable thing like a police like a like a car ok so the question is it and moreover the policeman didn't know with any certainty certainly suspected maybe had probable cause but he didn't know that's the right motorcycle have all those things are true hypothetically it's as if though it's the curtilage he saw in the middle of the driveway a box and he thought inside that box there might be a motorcycle or drugs or something and can he go up without a warrant and without there being exit in circumstances to open the box to look to see if inside there are drugs or a motorcycle i thought that was this case and even though and i think you want to say yes you can if it's a motorcycle but not if it's a box i think i think boxing carries a   into the box open the tarp why does the fourth amendment permit that ok that now it's a long long question i just needed the basics and now i've got to my point and i really answer your and i'm sure you'll correct me if i'm in this state w hypothetical says my understanding is that there was a virtual certainty here that this was the same motorcycle under the tarp so there was not any uncertainty about what was under the box as it were the court to  second part the court has also treated other closed containers differently than vehicles and ross case and they have said containers are different than automobiles because of the movability of them is just far of other items and there was a debate there are some predecessors of yours on the court who wanted to suggest that closed container should be treated the same there are a couple justices in coolidge who thought that was the case they ended up in the dissent in ross see aspect in other words while it's not the case that you see the guy you know revving up the motorcycle about to take off which would be an exit in circumstances which you think because you want to stand or reply if you automobile exception to  stationary vehicles on it within the courage because you think all the guy has to do is he sees the police officer he runs out of the house starts it up and goes away yes you're on your own i think that's one of the least controversial points in this case is that because this court has repeatedly held that a car doesn't actually have to be moving or with somebody there with a key well ready to back to my basic question which is how do i differentiate created an absolute rule the police can break into anything go anywhere where they see the car whether they're at that place legitimately or not yes this this court has treated it as an absolute war remember that was founding because you know we could see somebody they have a fireplace leave a chimney they could destroy the papers that we see through the window where the drugs we know that they have indoor plumbing and so they can be readily destroyed to what's the difference between the destruction of drugs and papers in a home and a car in the garage so this gets to just a sort of ayers question as well there is a little bit less mobility inside the garage there's also more expectation of privacy in the  the difference between opening a garage door and just walking out and getting into a car is to minimize well you can you can you know it happens just as quickly and what i just said isn't totally satisfactory because in mcneil you said you don't really look at the policy justification that it is and if it if that distinction and there is no real distinction why that's just discourse  that you're asking us to expand the automobile exception dramatically and to basically make an all time exception forever that even if the driver even if the police know that the driver of this car is away on vacation and won't be returning for two weeks even if they know that they're not required to go to a magistrate and get  and vessels going all the way back to seventy ninety and so that's different than homes or curtilage and and and cars are like festivals on the open sea or suggested that you can go look for one in a home that was never the basis was you can search something that is on the open seas or not in the harbor or on the streets not that you can go into a home to find one that   fair to point out the arrow in this direction well carol did involve a car that was on the street but there have been many cases since the ninety years since carol where it's been applied when the car is totally immobile and not on the open road and so it has been a trajectory of the vehicle exception of mr costin's that i mean one of the things you're saying is that we basically should give we shouldn't pay attention to the fact that this was on the curtilage and you said earlier to a different question you said well you're committed by jerry dns to treat the curtilage as the home for purposes of the expectation of privacy but for other purposes you can make a distinction between the two and i'd like to know more about that or what other purposes can you make a distinction between the two and why can you make a distinction between the two for those purposes when you can't make a distinction between the two where this fundament the question of where you have an expectation of privacy sure well certainly oliver open the door to that that argument that we're the court said we're not saying that's the same for all purposes and one example that we saw brief was the difference between santana and page where you can have a warrantless arrest outside the house right even if it's on the front steps but you can't have one inside because there is that's just beyond the pale to be on the threshold be on the firm bright line that this court has has drawn another example and just wanted to get the answer to my question which is for what purposes would you treat the curtilage differently from the home and why they are but not for the for the reasonable expectation of privacy question so for what purpose is first and then why  so you know you cannot search inside the house without a warrant unless there are exigent circumstances or if there is consent and that's a line that this court has drawn and they are not be exception is also  a categorical and so we find them in in in friction and so the court has decide what's reasonable mr god that's really a simple question for what purposes would you say that the kernel it is not the house for purposes of when you have probable cause to search and a warrant or an exception applies then you don't treat them the same and why is that my would you treat why would you not treat them the same for purposes of when you need a warrant if you do treat them the same for deciding whether there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in them well the court said in ross that when the automobile exception applies you  are committed to the same search with the same scope as you would be if you had a warrant so the only thing that's different is having a warrant and so as long as the investigating officer sticks to that as the officer did here you're not going outside the scope of a warrant you see i don't know just when i read your dns here's what i take it to say i take it to say the home is the most sacrosanct of places and actually we don't think that the home stops at the door we think that there some areas like the porch and like the driveway or whatever and we can argue about exactly what those areas are but there are some areas which are just as sanker sanct as your living room that's what i take guardians to say and in that case i think you lose here amendment protects the same quality of privacy but they're not the same quality of privacy for everyone i'm going to even the done factors realizes that they don't act as a corporate that if you have enough money to to build a huge wall then that's going to that's ok let's say the the probable cause is based on the fact that you know that the drugs are in you know it's foot by foot orange boxes and you see from in the carport for you know foot by foot orange boxes and you'd seem to be treating that the same as the situation when you have the motorcycle or an automobile but i thought part of your argument was that the automobiles were inherently different because somebody can just jump on the motorcycle and right away while they wouldn't have the same mobility issues with respect to the box the orange boxes now are you arguing is your argument extend to immobile items in the carport because it's curtilage rather than the house or is it limited to the mobility that's characterized the automobile exception yes the automobile exception is just that it's an exception very circumscribed and then the problem with that of course is we've said the curtilage is like the house and but maybe you would i mean if you have an automobile in the house which is not you know jay leno's house right where he's got dozens of rare cars or  jurisprudence it doesn't need to reach that here there are limits that the mobility stays the same and the other just occasions for the exceptions stay the same whether it's inside the house or outside the house but if you need to draw a line that is a sensible place to do it and i'm sorry but i started box you know the first amendment says that people have the right to be secure in their homes papers persons and effects so in the kernel the curtilage issue goes to the question of whether it is in search of then it's nonsense of the home before the amendment doesn't apply but once you get beyond that it is a search of the home the ultimate fourth amendment question is always is it a reasonable search and that's where we are here is reasonable it's a balancing of interest that's what reasonable must man in at the end of the eighteenth century it's what it means today and so you have to grapple with the real privacy interests that are involved in the case versus the other considerations namely the mobility of the autumn and beyond that i understand your argument to be is why it's reasonable to draw a distinction between an enclosed place like the house or a  an open place like a driveway even if it technically falls within the curtilage that correct and the search that occurred here was very reasonable was limited in scope my have is that the court below didn't do this it basically said the absolute rule not a balancing test that said you can search any place where a car is because that's what the automobile exception permits but that's a very broad statement that would permit a search of the garage or the automobile inside the house you have a very strong argument and so would the court alone if it had said given the nature of this driver exigency analysis that is another ground on which we win we rather win on the categorical exception but we squid clearly think that there are accident circumstances here beyond the categorical exigency in the automobile exception that that would be question for we man because it roads have probable cause before he ever stepped foot on the driveway to know that this vehicle was stolen the supreme court of ginia in his opinion had up fifteen said the officer rhodes had probable cause to believe it was stolen and there was testimony h i thought i did i thought really relied upon the fact that it was in plain view with the tarp i think that is mentioned but i think that the probable cause that he existed was formed at least in part by the comparison of the photograph on the facebook page and when officer rose walked up but stood at the end of the driveway and could see the same thing but it was in plain view it was it's not as if there were that close garage and they went in open the garage that's right and he wouldn't he wouldn't be able to go up to the edge of the garage assuming it was curtilage out there and look in to see if it was in there the probable god cause was formed before he ever stepped foot on the driveway mr cox was there one search here over there two searches here we submit that there was there was one search search of the motorcycle that's right but why is that why isn't there any search of the motorcycle but there is really the search of the cartilage happened before the motorcycle but it's the search of the cartilage it's a different search  entirely we look at as as one search because it's the object of the search that you are entitled to search whether it's under a warrant or one or under a warrant exception and you look at it by you know it's not a separate search for each access point that you you you go to you would have gotten to warrants if you had gone to a magistrate you wouldn't get a warrant to search the motorcycle and then another warrant to actually cross the driveway to get there so we see it as as one search for that reason does that mean you  without a warrant that you always have access to a place if there's a reason that you can see is something that you might find within the place i'm hesitant to speak beyond the automobile exception but i think the automobile exception would give you that that ability unless there was some other rule that prevented you from doing it such as a rule that the automobile exception doesn't apply in the house and i'll say that to go back to justice course such as questions about the original understanding of this all along the justifications for the vehicle exception have been based in the contradistinction between vehicles and houses or dwellings at first it was the difference in mobility but then later in in cases like katie and cardwell and carney they also speak of the reduced expectations of privacy that you have in a vehicle as compared to a fixed welling or a building so if the court were to draw a line it would it would certainly have some some healthy pedigree in the courts previous decisions let's there further questions thank you thank you mr cox mr fitzgerald four minutes remaining thank you just a few points in rebuttal here so the curtilage is protected as part of the home and if we look back historically speaking the automobile exception is born at a traffic stop in the hundred twenty s the automobile exception as it is created makes sense in that context but the automobile exception has grown it's become a categorical exception we no longer look for exigency on a case by case basis and now the automobile exception is literally knocking at the door of the house and the question is whether to apply this exception created based on exigent circumstances in one nine hundred twenty five to a search of the curtilage of a home and now on the state's argument even even their back up argument even what they give up there easily could have been probable cause to think that this motorcycle was at this residence if it were around behind the house if the driveway went just a little bit farther and it should not be that searching for an automobile or what might be in an automobile would get police around a house like that around to the back door where there might be in this case the side door a sliding door where if you're standing where this motorcycle is you can see directly into the side door of the house and you can see this just a little bit at the petition appendix page one twelve the curtilage is an area that is intimately linked to the home this court said  as well as in serato it's intimately linked to the home both physically and psychologically and it's where expectations of privacy are most heightened we submit that the clear bright line rule for officers which is that when they go to a known address to look for contraband even readily mobile contraband they bring a warrant should apply when they're going to a known address to look for a vehicle as well and if there are no further questions respectfully as this court to reverse thank you counsel case was submitted