watch about a quarter mile away and public park in the northwest sure of lake desire and she randomly selected somebody using the best guess you didn't know exactly which  was from her observations nor did she know which one she was driving into when she drove off of lake desire she picked a place which happen to be not be location of whoever might have possibly been fishing she went in the neighbors to the north across the lake it's hard to know the colors the fishing pole asking what the test was that the testimony was that of but both agent will lead and carter wickersham that there was a fishing pole without any kind of gear or wine that was lying on the worker sham stock which is hardly unusual for this there was nobody fishing at that point are under a terror boccia interpretation of the statute of seventy seven vehicle and left the dock area and they were stopped within a minute or two on a public  it required a probable cause for stopping an automobile that the fishing license statute only applied to people that were currently engaged in fishing and regardless of whether we look at the statute or the constitutional  interpretation the statute had she gone in you know rang the front door bell even if somebody had actually been fishing and she saw them go into the house you'd only be limited to ringing the doorbell and you know asking if they want to show their fishing license or statue would not allow somebody to go inside the house but here there was absolutely nobody on wickersham property she picked the wrong property she saw property with a beached paddle boat on it there was no boat on the property or the neighbors to the north she picked the wrong property and that's also you know a reasonable shot to do here are you saying that there's absolute prohibition for the officer to go onto the property to investigate if the officer sees somebody actively fishing if you know if the officer went and looked at the end of it we already say no there is no absolute prohibition right that somebody seen actually actively fishing or on or by so it's not enough than your city if she observes a fishing rod that is similar to the first fishing rod she saw cross the lake and it's still in reasonable even if people could access that dog from adjoining properties not just from the worker sham house the adjoining property also has a no trespassing sign and that's well well that would have a lot i'm fine i guess the question is as is this is described and maybe you can help us out you know you've got a lake and like many of these lakes the houses look at the lake and the is on the lake so if you want to see if there's a fishing pole you can't see it from the front door and the question is given this is there anything in the statute or otherwise  precludes the officer from going on the property there have to be you know reasonable probable cause or at least articulable suspicion our case we're going probable cause if there's you know fishing going on you can't otherwise you'd have the right to go not only go and look at the dock areas more closely but to go and see whether there's a fishing pole which is something you'd have to go to that she sees the fishing she's cross alexia's fishing she estimates where that's go intersect maybe she's wrong we can talk about that but she makes a best guess estimate of where that fishing pole is based on how the lake is configured and she goes to that house at that point has she done anything to back looks in the bushes back there see if the person who's associated with that pole is hiding back in the bushes that's that's quite a stretch there's no fishing isn't presumptively legal activity presumably everybody who does so the question is now we've got there's nothing at the front door she goes around and she sees a fishing pole so at that point has she done anything illegal that's what i'm trying to understand your view on even bear fishing pole you just so we understand you're saying that's a fishing pole with absolutely no line on it that's correct and we and in the manner of going to the house banging on the windows yelling at the loud voice and according to joe worker stamps well that's all bad manners but the question is you know is it constitutionally illegal if it makes it more reasonable your honor and even if the object was to please the court assistant attorney general allison sipped representing washington department official wildlife officer when he will lead officer will let is entitled to qualified immunity for two reasons first none of her actions on august fourteenth and ten violated the fourth amendment and second the worker have failed to identify any preexisting law that clearly notified officer will light that the actions she took constitute a fourth amendment the events here second it did hold that the administer that the seventy seven fifteen zero eight zero did not support and administrate of search of a car on the highway and it focused on the moving suspicion less vehicle stop president under the fourth amendment if it did not address the circumstances here which is entry into a piece of barriers between the neighbor's property and the wickersham property so it falls within the open fields doctrine of the fourth amendment law and her travel down to the dock is not a fourth amendment violation certainly there is no preexisting precedent that would tell her beyond debate that she was an authorized to go down to the dock nor was there any law that  fishing there there were there was no one currently fishing at the time that she got to the dock but for fourth amendment purposes because there's no reasonable expectation of privacy  was a reasonable knocking talk in query at a door that was accessible to the public there was no barrier between the dock and the house she walked up the slope and climbed up the decks and knocked on the door she could hear a man in the top of the house in gage in a one sided conversation she knocked on the doors and reasonably believed he didn't hear her knocking so she knocked and yelled trying to get his attention beef and that falls within the knocking talk exception to the fourth amendment mr pope concede that if she had gone to the driveway side door that would have been reasonable well this was a door reasonably excess a bowl from the dock which is open to the public lake so the door that she the third level mr wickersham was the second level and nobody comes out or doesn't it nobody came out and beefy goes up to the top is like one of these multilayer she went up one more flight of stairs  and then getting no answer went down a flight of stairs and before she could had an opportunity to disengage from the knock and talk the wickersham raced around the corner and attacked her and at that point the the legal principles that are a political shift from whether it's a reasonable knocking talk to her emergency response to self defense against an attacking eighty pound doberman well before you get  there came on the property she first went down to the dock yes in so what i understand from posing counsel is that the facts are under spewed that if she had observed the she would see that there was no bait maybe didn't even have a real i don't know what type of equipment she has but it looked like it was a nun fishable rod is that right  that's not the record as i understand it your honor carter wickersham declaration says that there was an old beat up fishing pole there is no further explanation and officer will let the said she could see the pole and she did not check to see whether there was a line because she wanted to talk to the woman she had seen fishing she didn't want to disturb the pole if there was a line in the water that would be another factor she would want to when she was looking at no there there is no evidence saying it was an unfinished made up is not the record i'm unaware of that that is in the record once she shot the dog was there a seizure of mister on the taking the record in the light most favorable to mr rich or sham he was detained by officer will let for approximately five minutes and what's the basis for the detention basis is her objectively reasonable concerns about officer safety as the district court explained she had concerns about her safety based on mr  behavior and that is supported by the record evidence of after shots were fired no one came out of the house she waited for a minute and based on her experience and training she said it was not normal that no one came out of the house she proceeded around to the driveway side of the house and when she met mr wickersham at that door he was by his own description yes she first was concerned for her safety of course when the dog attacked her and then she said it was not normal after shots were fired the man did not come out she said it's not normal he should have come out i didn't know what to expect so i still had my firearm out that her death are two twenty seven to twenty eight when she when mr work came to the door he was holding a six inch black mobile phone which didn't know what that was whether it was a weapon or not hence mr wickersham says she dealt with him to drop it drop it so the authority for the detention was a reasonable response narrowly tailored to her concerns of officer safety she required him to sit in a chair on the porch for five minutes  a generalized concern based on the circumstances because once you've charmin that he had no weapon and he comes out of the house and he's distraught because he's concerned that his dog bleeding out he hadn't committed any crime but that the tension extended beyond that point and you were and i didn't see anything in the record that she really did any fear for safety beyond that point you're saying given the duration of the stop that type back to the concern that she have identified before that point yes and keep in mind that she reasonably believed that there might be someone else in the house she didn't know if there were any other people in the house as well she had heard a one sided conversation and saw not only a woman fishing on the dock but a man in white shorts mr wickersham emerged from the house in white shorts she there could have been other people in  house she didn't know so she was waiting for backup i see my time is out we asked for these reasons we asked you to affirm  on the walking portion of the dock the pool was rusty and weathered the real had no fishing line in it there was no tackle or tackle box on the dock there was no bait or anything that we would resemble someone fishing on the dock and it goes on beyond that  as far as the seizure goes is i didn't address it in my opening but this was a reasonable attention of mr wickersham the idea that a telephone might somehow be mistaken for a weapon by a police officer  and then mr wickersham continued to deny he denied access to the phone after he dropped it in the officer had an opportunity to inspect the phone that's that's prime a fussy and reasonable in this situation mr wickersham having to be talking to his lawyer of all people which is you know probably go to the issue of damages from that this is you know certainly detained there was no reason for the continued detention of mr  ascertained he had no weapon he was almost totally blind no particular threat to the officer that's unreasonable and as far as you know this is a you know again unreasonable search of the property if this is allowed you know anybody's property would be allowed to keep keep continue going on which is on a fishing expedition and we've asked the court to reverse and we manned for a trial on these issues your honor thank you thank you