assumption to make due to the fact that she answered the door and was wearing a robe and was in the residence along but once even if that initial assumption was reasonable it was not circumstances where they had to search immediately they could ask simple questions like that what's your name do you live here can we enter they just kept the initial questions they did later asked after they began the search they asked what's your name and where do you live and she said that she didn't live there at that time they continued searching even though the only basis for the search was her apparent authority to consent to it at that time so so your position is she could have actually been a burglar with hotspur who wandered in off the street through could come up and she could say oh that's his mother you know and it could be somebody selling carpets certainly that could be if there was some additional macarius goings on by ms carson i don't know what they took additional steps to verify i think  police officers to assume that the people in the house are going to hold those views this isn't the middle of the night this is a nine or ten in the morning when the when they enter into the home she's in a bathrobe they don't know how long she's been there or when she put the bathrobe on or whether it was her bathroom they know she's  important thing here is that what's important for miranda waiver is whether or not the person making the statement is knowingly and voluntary waiving on terra waiving their right so their understanding of what those rights are is what bathrobe and there are just too many explanations for why somebody might be wearing a bathrobe in the middle of the day you know house it could be the next door neighbor who's come over to feed the m b it could be your opinion be somebody with no authority whatsoever over the house and bathroom these nondescript sort of things you know doesn't tell you it's hers or anybody else i mean to have a rule that the police can search any house in which a person wearing a bathrobe decides to let them in a person apparently with no stake in the house no incentive to say i don't want to search so i say maybe out of a grudge toward the ex partner maybe because what's it to me you know here the police find you whatever you want to do it's an extremely try it goes further than anything else i can see and i think also to throw in law seems inconsistent with what the tenth circuit said in the cost case i mean you just have to go through a few more class before you can rely and concerned i would say first of all we're not proposing a rule where any see the defendant leave the residence with a young boy and drive that point the agents then walk up to the house after that offense taken into custody a knock on the door and mr carson answers the door she answers the door wearing a bathrobe which i think that the point here though is it's not i guess incumbent on law enforcement to come up with on the spot a series of hypothetical sorts have to ask a question what's your name do you live here those are easily answered like bam bam and we've said in many instances the police are entirely entitled to open up a conversation with somebody that they're to argue no warrants and all sorts of fancy things they need to stand there in the porch and say you know who are you do you live here which  you're saying that officers are always going to see a parent authority from somebody wearing a bathrobe no that's not receiving it at this point in time the defendant has essentially left mr carson in sole possession and control of this apartment social expectations i'm not sure that it's very reasonable for officers to see a woman answer the door in a bathrobe and say oh she must be as well that's the question isn't whether or not they believe that it was his wife it's whether they believe that she had mutual or your son standing our friend right or access to in control of the apartment and without asking a single question and that's the problem a very small exchange between the officers and this woman could have di this they could have left one officer on front porch chatting with her while the other one goes off and gets a warrant for the house and none of this happens you know people  apartment knock on the door she answers the door in a bathrobe when they ask to come in without any hesitation she but then the whole problem you know somebody who doesn't care about the house has no reason to tell the the burden on the police so to have just a brief exchange to validate their right to enter the home which the supreme court always tells us is the paragon of fourth amendment protected places well the burden but they but in terms of you know what their expectation is in the scenarios that have been good been brought forward if we're pointed out in real life i mean if if the if someone came over to keep the cat in the da shows up and says we're going to this person's apartment it's reasonable to scenarios it's likely that that person is not going to just say yes come on in without hesitation without disclaiming any connection the d a wants to search this apartment at a minimum you might think the person would want to distance themselves from whatever it is  to the point at which the defense counsel refers to the point where she says that she resides elsewhere it's important to note that in that same conversation that's when she says my son lives here so that point there in the house was with with mom and they je reasonably people can disagree about you know what we think might be the case but it was reasonable for them to make that assumption at that certain task case on apparent authority when there's no verbal exchange there i mean we don't know anything should human being who opens the door car in a certain way and the police figure are we're in their cases i mean there are a number of cases where the