everything draws in why this case is different from the majority of cases we see is because of the inflection of time on march twenty sixth two thousand and four howard county is arrested danny is arrested and believe you know paul and i think it's three cell phone store robberies with a gun on march thirtieth that's four days later he says to his sister stacy get rid of the gun on later depending on whether she got rid of the gun the day she was asked to do it or the day she reported it and if you take care of so what the police know when they go to  know that mystery lives they have been told this by stacy they say they have no problems figuring our from her description  when three man are standing there on the testimony was two or three with guns and they said you're coming inside with us to talk that's not consent so no he doesn't they knock on the door are and they create this we have bass case scenario nine days earlier that gun was put up in the loft of a ceiling nine days ago and the police knock on your door you know i'm not sure that every other case you read it's flushing stuff it's you know things being moved around inside not answering the door when you know there's people patiently and merits telling lies that are blame lies we don't have any of that here i think of the places you said are you mr asia or just confirming as part of our procedures who lives in this house can you tell me w well because you know that i wrote about that at the very and off my reply brief it's to it's not attenuated you know there's a linear line they go straight through from when the police created the situation by knocking on the think you know the biggest problem i have with this case is respectfully why the hell the government misses the mark as mr a for two and a half hours is made to sit on a sofa and his living room with armed officers present the same you're right if the evidence that was used to convict him was attained after they came back with the war it interest in the property anymore because they're sitting in a booking cell and stairs mr agent was not under arrest there was now until they find that gun there was never any probable cause to arrest them there was probable cause to search the premises yes but to arrest him no so the reason it doesn't apply is when you distinguish the choros done you know putting his jumpsuit on and that sort of stuff mr agent is sitting on a sofa denied his medication for two and a half hours while the police get this warrant for something that happened nine or ten days if that makes sense and you know you start we got sidetracked which is probably my fault usually is when we were talking about kink you know king explicitly says the resident could have answered the door and refused to allow police to enter the home that's it for seventy two hours not something mr asian was ever offered reasonable he was given no opportunity to climb the entry and you know when we get to the justifications for that the evidence might have been destroyed non sensical going to melt the gun done you know the government in their response talks about well there might have been other stuff that's true in every house all they have reason to believe at that time was that there might be a gun in a ceiling tile having the problem of what constitutional right of his was violated and i take your point about they said we want to commit i haven't talked to you he didn't say you know you can't command i don't say said out here  lived there they just monitor it perhaps so but they didn't so the constitutional problem is that they knock on the door to make sure that he live with guns and say come inside we need to talk to you without any exigent circumstances existing other than perhaps what they create and put and that's not that that's not what you door that's what you think but after knocking on their already happy acknowledging that maybe they didn't have any reason to knock the door it's the unconstitutionality they're not going to have a problem and the knocking on the door i don't think and so fire go leads to us going inside that well once the police once he knew the police were out there he other people were allowed to leave the gun could have there's no dispute that when the officers entered the house they didn't recover any items of value then use anything from their initial entry not even the statement from mr agent in the problem cause further search more so there's absolutely nothing that was used in the in the search me i do your honor i think it's prudent and reasonable for the police to go and investigate and see if in fact the information they have can be confirmed  they were there at the house to see whether or not mr agent with that's the key the defendant frames the issue in this case that they went there for the purpose of seeing that mr engine was in the house and that there was only one outcome in this case but there were a number of outcomes that could have occurred once the police decided that in the testimony from special agent day in this case indicates that they had a public information that they believe mr agent lived there there was a record from his prior criminal conviction that you live there but as we know utility tonight in fact answered the door another scenario could have been then one of mr agents family members could have answered the door they could have said mr holmes we back later this evening at which point the officers would return to their vehicles waited until the search  court that he could have destroyed key evidence in this case there's three piece of evidence that were frankly damning at trial it was the firearm that was recovered the fact that the firearm was recovered from his room so he could have removed it from his room enforcement never want to recover the firearm so it was removed or destroyed for all intents and purposes it's a factor in the officers going into this entry they knew that the nature of the offense from was which mr agent committed was one in which he  the arm that was used in the commission of a series of commercial robberies that once again he believed the police were looking at him he would certainly it's certainly possible that he would take the same action to conceal or hide or destroy evidence that could be used against him corroborated everything that the officers testified to cases and that's what they made initial protective sweep and then stayed with him in the living room as to macarthur factor number four on the time that it took in this it seems to me there's a lot of similarity or overlap in those factors is it your view is that government believe it meets the requirements of we've already covered this is a stand in turner's well absolutely your honor i think school i think you want to encourage our officers to continue in the to the trajectory of their investigation when i really believe is next in this case they thought it was prudent to make sure to assess whether or not mr agent lived at that the officers are destroyed and which they yeah i guess he knows because they went to the is there a case where that level of conduct his created that shouldn't circumstances we're just go into we're the event that creates the exigency you now realize we've got the kentucky versus kane case  limits created exigency but it i'm not where you're the case that has what i would consider this relatively low level of this is see we see i think in light of kentucky versus