conclusion based on michigan office act reasonably in this particular case we don't ask do we know whether we just remove curse it is an exercise in line drawn and strictly that it is the only role that i can think of if that's how long it takes to exit to execute the warrant because of that i feel that the rule has been versus some must always be interpreted in the strictest the narrowest terms factually it's nearly identical to this case but it relies on a protective sweep rationale so you had a car in front on you know on the street not too far the fact it's nearly identical in terms of the distance and and essentially the officers approached they couldn't see i think that this is the one they couldn't see in the windows but they did a protective sweep they detained the individuals and  suggest i'm going to go into this residence therefore i need the rest make sure there are people there who might are well that's that's usually how we do it but judge gregor says that extends to people who might be sitting on the street they could attack the officers don't feel that there really and that that person was suspected of being armed i really don't feel that that place is very much all i think it's a bit of first of all about the shooting and they're investigating that individual same thing comes back on housing picks up the dog of a bag of dog this was an error and we don't know the exact what was said between the two individuals in the car and the suspect but it's quite apparent that it was related to picking up and dropping off dog food and the police later all this garbage justified in being in the nature of a terry stop until the marijuana was smelled them at that point there's probable cause for a search and i think the problem w three and sixty of the transcript officer mcclintic page thirty three admitted that mr freeman could not go forward there was an armored vehicle blocking his half he couldn't back up because there were officers behind i think that's the government's position is that the police were intending to block everything there and they would have had the sense that that would have included them well i don't think th  can i ask you about the the jones case you cited you cited in connection with another case but it's as i just read a passage all of the vehicle was not on the premises covered by the search warrant it was parked on the public street immediately adjacent so that an i could pose a danger to officers on the scene it was a drug case it was a search warrant otherworld a couple of movements where there were movements inside and outside the car and the ridge darkening of the of the windshield or or some of but the court went on to say  you know that the protective sweep of the car was reasonably necessary for the officers personal safety because somebody could emerge from the car and pose a danger to the officers  been parked there for over an hour but what they knew they also knew there was a nd suspect the armed robbery suspect was directed to have been involved all these factors  concern for the well and that goes back to the chief question which is one thing that's present in this case is not present in the jones case is you have the occupant of the house repeatedly going out to the vehicle which if anything heightens the danger you don't have the the in and out reaching in and out but that would heighten the safety concerns that the officers may have that those people in the car connected the people drug dealing inside the house the danger and it also i think supported using summer because are was part essentially right in front of the house he'd been there for a while that the officers well there's an argument the argument is the senate he doesn't extend to the public street and that's the argument but i think that's that's true but i think if if if that would mean that the senate is limited to the premises and that can't be right because the court said the court doesn't say you can see people on a mission but people in the immediate vicinity which means it has broader than just the premises search and using that would reach into somebody in the street which is essentially right adjacent well i forget in that case was the premises the house in which case in summers or bailey and the question be whether it extends beyond say the yard to the street i think that's fair and how far do you think it would go well what the supreme court told us is that the factors you look at are the lawful limit you so i do think under under summers and daily he was within the out properties season assuming he was but obviously we just a case where the excursion back down the driveway by an eight detainees got into figure out i think it's actually very similar in this court squarely held in that case that one of the reasons the officers were entitle to detain vehicles down on the premises covered by the search warrant which is that which is the promise it was parked on the public street immediately adjacent so if immediately adjacent is the same thing as a media facility i think jones may answer but i don't know i mean is there a difference between those two i can't think of what the difference is they sure seem like by the police i believe your question and he certainly if your restriction of movement is is boxed such that he cannot leave that area of his own volition they're going to prevent him than he is  encounter where there is no show of authority that the person submitted we have read of i believe mcclintock testified officers in swat gear with assault rifles and a low