motion to suppress the government in its reply and its response and this court forced to raise the issue of standing of my plight to have to receive the benefits of the fourth amendment know we don't know exactly what happened or what the circumstance right in other words you know the government raised it to call court maybe you would have taken the time to establish that well right you know he was in the right and yes to something like that or for anybody would have a  good then to give you an example you are funny look at the united states versus coles case which this court decided a year ago all right instead when the police do not often talk technique which is exactly the same technique quantum of reliability the information conveyed by the neighbor gave to the police i don't know whether they had probable cause or not and doesn't that make this case quite different from coles wasn't illegal search and entry into the room then the f b i staking out the room and then whining about the room service being the maintenance man and then when they knocked on the door that's not them talk however we call for backup and they will write themselves in a combat formation in the hallway that leads you to believe that they're expecting more then just to get information they were expecting to go into that there was a probable cause in this case matter of fact counsel conceded in his brief that it was no probable cause and it's important to note that in this particular instance the police officer who were first told the drug activity and that's what brought them to the apartment building when they got to the apartment building they first learned from her first time now that they're hearing information about a gun that was not a word before then that neighbor said oh yes there's been a drug any illegal activity of any kind so that the information from the name is dubious this is of woman who they did not know we have never dealt with before they had no way of knowing whether she had true motives   could not have been answered to the judge appropriately will do you know have you dealt with this person no your honor we have not well she said she was in there that's true in but the information that the police officer then attempted to cooperate seemed to come out of that very information she was providing and i point specifically to the situation when the police while she went up stairs to confirm whether or not there was some drug dealing were in would expect some heavy traffic really some traffic and some hand to hand exchanged no that was observed so the police officers quite properly had some pause as to whether or not the credibility of th stranger was sufficient to go need to to seek a search warrant in this particular case the officers could not have done anything other than what they did if this is not a straightforward knocking talks in ariel there is no such thing as no knock in the event that they didn't in fact were going to encounter a firearm the the lead and this is where it counts was mistaken if you review the record thoroughly the lead officer in this uniform behind officer cruising also whining saw the defendant and did see him with a firearm if you look at the record closely there was a question in the answer pertaining to this very issue and transcript you will see a reference that franklin bubbler had a weapon and hit the lever so he actually remembers that so it is not just that also could the same oh yes i saw a gun he actually described which and in that meeting where the wea r comes so let me ask you sort of the general question particular case it was not the police officers who triggered the exigent circumstances it was franklin problems reaction to see the police when he opened the gun pointed a weapon at officer crews that created the a z and  you know they said this is the police they obviously submitted to this code of the fourteen they felt they had no choice to open the door so that the police officer actually did in this particular case was quite reason i'm not just saying this is chris with the police say this is all source so and so i'd like to call on me or this is chris i don't think we need to make that distinction i think what we need to concentrate on is to talk to find out whether or not this information is indeed accurate before they make any rash judgments and then we also have to examine the actions of the defendant in this case which is the resident for permission to have a conversation may i speak with you about something that i just heard from one of your neighbors and this is what i heard and then the resident of that apartment had the opportunity to then say thank you very much i don't want to speak to you if you have a warrant you wouldn't want to search my park so even though there may be call cause let's just assume as i said for the sake of boredom that there was that doesn't end the the the opportunity of the not have probable cause but i'm not the police at that moment the point is that they believe that they had enough information to get back cop so they believe that they had information about the apartment eight that there were drugs and b that department continue surveillance like they've done in many other cases to see if there is criminal activity and at that point the big goal for a war now if the occupants of the of the apartment come out and become aware of the surveillance then that moment the conditions do change and there are cases in circumstances but at this point that happened what happened in this situation is the police i don't know why they grew tired a good patient i don't know they decided to push the issue by using the technique did not control technique which is used when you really are looking for information in articulable suspicion that the crimes being committed on a public street you know terry kicks in the good book with the it was in their home and we don't want people's castles to be subject to the same this if neighbors are complaining about drug dealing and it isn't it sensible that the police want to investigate if they do some investigation of courage here and they have reasonable suspicion  enter the apartment how is that different by test to enter the apartment but in this case they claim that a person came to the door with a weapon to use sounds like you're kidding into the question i asked your adversary  technique because they really do have information they're not trying to seek more information they're trying to provoke a reaction and now in other circumstances for example there's a case you missed the jones from the fifth circuit where they were this case is united states