not have the same protection that the household the homeowner if there was a home how do you know the judge reads a single family home the  this search the better they do it all over my apartment i expect that the people that are right there have crossed the common area and  concrete stoop this is why is that my curtilage if it is and why is it that space in front of my apartment door occurred or why isn't the curtilage the common area because doors are locked and yes but you have almost no expectation of privacy if you live well or student park buildings where they probably doors open and have absolutely no security because you know old dozens of people will walk through there without the right to be area apartment building because of the fact that that is an area were the individual apartment owners have no control over who is there because the other apartment owners have the right to allow access and so that there is the it's clear that there is no expectation of privacy fiza so that and no curtilage involved in the common areas so search of a kind because people had no expectation of privacy as to smell and because a dog could only detect contraband could not detect legal  song at this time is that given the state of the law at the time of the search the police officers were acting in good faith that the use of the dog was perfectly legal except for t which there is also through the analysis there should no longer be followed so i think that the police officers there was competing case law regarding whether or not you can go exception to the excited exclusionary rule that said that even if this is supposed to be bad under judge games the good faith exception would apply to allow all these the dogs and the because the police off the there is no you cannot deter the place are there they're acting in good faith or was the was the law in effect at the time so that under the good faith exception the exclusionary rule wouldn't should not be applied then we get to the final question yes that's true we need to apply good faith we get your original question where justice apple sends a real question why did they bother with the dog because they had sufficient probable cause with al the dog to justify the wars because they have a crime stopper to that this person is doing drugs the trying these tips shows that the will individual does this address a fund that this individual has a history of drug arrests they find that this person does have a website that has information on it abou officer said probable cause why did they take the dog here because this suggests to me that they knew about the criminal activity they knew that there was a package but they hadn't tied up the return address to the defendant's brother and they were quite sure they were going to be able to convince a judge how do i know that passengers within this park because they needed to i that gather and they almost had it but they didn't quite so the dog i think they took the dog you know out of this  listening to the judge discussing the case with his opponent the judge looked out and said young man before you say a word i want chip to know that we understand your argument the young warrior said well judge i want to thank you for making my argument but please don't lose the case for me a citizen's right under the fourth amendment is defined by the number of sticks he has taken from dean for of the it's bun property law if we want to discuss the nuances of it includes the right of the tenant and lieutenant takes his rights from the bundle of property owner and it's minstrel with the spark with respect to or persons residences twelve century that's well we're talking about that case based upon the reasonable expectation of privacy of the world when you lock the door it gives all over the world you have a right to expect the privacy but that wasn't necessary did the tenant get it when he rented her that apartment he got the common areas under the circumstances that they were somebody escaping and then followed back up to his apartment through a secured foreman area they distinguished it and decided all troll did not apply anything more then the use of a key found in the defendant's pocket to open but common area and then check for the now what right did the police officer have a three am in the morning on the twelfth of january of two thousand but to the same right as you or nothing less than you and i would dealing with the reason they didn't have probable cause and they had to hunt for probable cause was they had an on not much on the substantiated  detail perhaps we don't know we don't have that the we haven't heard the recording of the nine one one call but we have heard the orchestra's description significant and very significant that nobody had the dollars sniffed the package and nobody checked with the post office w california to this particular interest is that is or yes that's it that's what they have now when they find the package the package with a california return address now the fact that the tip included the information that she had a website that she advocated the legalization of marijuana but there was a a graph of us currency on that website what does that add to the information that was of a residence is caught a search under the fourth amendment and requires authorization by a warrant now that's what that's the law even the seventh circuit recently a knowledge that that might apply here except that we have focused on the time the circumstances of this i think that this is a intriguing question but again police officers are not required to act at the first moment that they get probable cause they are allowed to continue to investigate this and then who are in the way you  they went about corroborating all the details of the tip think rise because at that time the use of a dog in this fashion is not was not considered a search and it was considered to be illegal activity and the police officers were just like i said trying to get the