the issue in this case is whether or not a an alleged probation search was constitutionally effected judge in las vegas first considered this matter he made findings and recommendations to the we i on behalf of the defendant the defendant allowed even oral argument in the court's m if the judges would indulge me i'd like to ask some hypothetical questions first of all there's no question in this case had my client not been on probation this starch without a warrant would have been unconstitutional secondly had my client then on probation but there was no condition  allowing a search of his person and his property at any time by the probation officer this search would have been unconstitutional the only thing that creates the problem is that my client of greed to certain conditions in order to obtain probation and thus his free state offered will give you your freedom my fine greed but we want something in return my client agree to consent to a search of his person of the consent that probation nurses under nevada law give ice of merit should be determined by state law submitted a nevada supreme court case where the court said that if practical the probation officer should  a probation warrant before search our attorney general has also issued an opinion concerning the skull and the application me i've got to remember it was on another ground it wasn't the fact that there was no warning and judge i apologize i just cannot remember right now ok you determine whether or not my client writes under the consent clause in his probation agreement has been violated i mean the fourth amendment protects the person from a search without a warrant the only reason in this case that no warrant stand your argument for the question is if if state law does not apply to this particular search do you lose your in the probation officers office and was advised you're under arrest for violations of your probation then the probation officer transporting them across and arrest for probation violations the probation contract between the probation neat and this date is terminate there could be a case well there's a little bit of an answer about a probation violation but not a lot we don't have any definitive answer that his probation will be revoked so why does he have to stop the search at one particular county detention center and book here and he will remain in jail until the judge revoked his probation and sends him to prison that is the standard procedure is a california state probation case it was affirmed and the search actually it was a confession that with the pain after the probation not within and the interpretation and application of california probation and searched laws and i just i just recommend that decision to this panel's consideration because there was three or four judges on that panel that is censored and they think there were morning and may i please the court my name is patrick walsh and arguing on behalf of ellie the united states united states versus knights the supreme court's decision is controlling in this matter and the magistrate judge and the district court judge got it right there was no need for an evidentiary hearing in this case because the parties agreed on the facts that were important to the judge's decision in fact the facts were boiled down in just three paragraphs in the magistrate judges reported recommendation that the defendant wasn't even present when the search was there and even with the defense probation officer there was another probation officer in the search was done by law enforcement authorities it was a search for two cars that may have been stolen in a warehouse  the state clause clearly says that a probation officer can search at any time be necessary by going to but i think the question is many many supreme courts or a legislature modify our construe the fact the limits of consent state law can we enforce that as a consensual search under federal law under these circumstances way that it might be a warrant may need to be obtained if that's practicable to do so and in that case it was clearly practicable for them to obtain a warrant because the defendant wasn't even present at the warehouse the defendant didn't have control of the because clearly under the united states versus knights there was at least reasonable suspicion here and the balancing interest here is favored even more than the united states versus knights because they required reasonable cause to search in that case and here they can search at any time deemed necessary so therefore that the ministry privacy interest of the defendant is even less arguably in that case but clearly even if it wasn't this falls right squarely in the united states  necessary to know what to reduce the probable cause standard to have an agreement from the probation well i know there are some cases that suggest that there's inheritance already and probation officers can do to conduct home visit so therefore that might be a basis in this case we do have a very broad clause which i think lance great support to our argument it's arguable that we could do it with less ok thank you thank you