a warrant application which included observations made by the police during a prior warrantless entry which the government and which the court found to be based exigent circumstances the the defend his position is that the court the district court was wrong in determining that initial st and there were rumors during telephone intercepts which indicated that that person was suspected to be a drug dealer by some of the drug dealers but there was more about that best that i think is a big problem is that they had the ability and it was by mistake but they didn't present the the the full facts of what they were learned from this informant to nineteen year old drug conviction plus the the amount of money in the car and the diff being the individual's dishonesty about the source of are so they find him in the car with all the money they have the prior information about him and then they go to the part where he's saying they had no basis circumstances and yes the district court that they did but are you saying they have no basis to even know where he lived which is not very far away from where he's found in the car with that cash my position is your honor that the the amount of information presented to the judge at the time the motion to without reasonable suspicion and then they could they could conduct further investigation to see if they could establish probable cause to get a warrant to search the apartment so alternately a case has stayed here and now there were no exigent circumstances warranted them going into the apartment once they heard the footsteps and the guy refuses to open the door and added and he tries to get out the back door well that the judge didn't seem to accept that proposition that he was  it's the it's the case in which we're all relying is that that the government can create exigent circumstances but in that very similar activity was determined not to be exigent circumstances and  particular with regard to probable cause i understand to the court's question that this is going to largely turn on the exigencies but i did want to clarify just a few points the first is that the district court had ample evidence to conclude medina lopez was a known drug dealer the court had among other things sworn statements of law enforcement officers and police reports submitted by both the defendant and the government that he conduct a controlled purchase that he conducted a controlled purchase of heroin providing that to a government informant it wasn't based on the mormon hearsay agency actually viewed this and that's part of the record that the court can consider there was a detention hearing that was transcribed and docketed before judge o b l made her decision in this case in which the details of that transaction were spelled out agents actually watched this happen so it wasn't a rumor and it wasn't informing hearsay but even setting that aside and setting that tension hearing aside there were multiple sworn statements that he controlled transaction occurred and that medina lopez was a participant in that transaction so when she concluded that he was a known drug traffic it wasn't based simply on this past i think it was nine years that he served in state prison for cocaine trafficking but moving forward i think again looking at the totality of the circumstances on the record heroin it's not just the woman with this cash she had just taken from that apartment it is also knew what was at that point the well corroborated information from the w they hear from the inside somebody say who is it they announce themselves as police and then there's the running away that's that's what she thought he ran it interlocutors ran away the door they had reached was actually a different door because they're deciding what to do again they're making these decisions these decisions in the moment they're making a split second decision what do we do this person isn't coming to the door he's running away they fear evidence destruction they fear th is if it was an instantaneous action that they didn't hear footsteps and immediately knocked down the door they tried to figure out what to do in the circumstances and they decided the only reasonable thing to do was to enter the apartment  purpose of freezing a scene and or it and conduct a protective suite we're dealing with a separate scenario here i think it's a much closer call if they have no information that somebody is on the inside but they still know it's a stash house and they still understand that they have arrested a courier with well over a quarter million dollars in cash a mile away but that would be a separate analysis based on the totality of the circumstances in this case specific facts which are what allow the district court to police the police in using this exception to the warrant requirement  courier is expected to arrive somewhere it can create that exit in c and they're forced to make decisions in the moment in this case they need a decision after consulting with the u s attorney's office to go figure out the precise location of the apartment of tina warrant and secure that location and one of the ways they decided to do this was to knock on that door to see if anybody was inside to see if they needed to basically see if there was underpinning the police acted reasonably irrespective of whether there's some scenario in which they could have gotten a warrant first the police created existence of doctrine was sufficiently narrowed there's no indication no allegation