as stated by the supreme court in garrison officers are required to discontinue a search as soon as they describe discover there are separate units on the property and are put on notice of the risk that they might be in that there was sufficient facts and information that the house contained separate living units such that they were obligated to stop before conducting a search o room in this case the timing is important from the time that the agents st entered the property to the time that they conducted the search of miss wall them on mr dollars on to his room agents had observed sufficient fox indicating that there were rooms in that property that we're not sure of in common and that were private rooms eleven of the rooms was exclusively possessed by the target of the warrant when they enter they had about twenty or thirty minutes to do a protective sweep of the house they did one initial sweep and then they did a nd initial sweep after that protective sweep and before the search was started the lead investigator the lead investigator that investigate the case wrote the warrant and was directing the search she testified that she looked into every single room and she did this in order to visualize what room was a what and during this time they learned that the target of the warrant had exclusive possession of the detached room outside they found him coming out of the detached room outside and they  aside and then they saw the detached unit that was not physically connected to the room and the house and they found it had a door knock it had a padlock and they forcibly entered that room and once they entered the personable longings specifically to the target they found pictures of him they found they found items that would normally be found in a in a bathroom such as toiletries medication and they found searched the common areas and the room used by ricardo within the house but a private gathering of miss walker and mr just was held out to be exclusively their own there were this was a multifamily house so i'm not quite sure when you say exclusive how they would know that that this no one else had anything of their own inside that room mr del santos and ricardo were brothers yet they were brothers with their own wives or their own girlfriends and their own they would have a private bedroom to their own and and then this situation it is it is the mr jealous i'm just and the target are family members but they were living within the same house all their rights to a room that they believed was their private bedroom k s u question setting setting all of that aside what is the probable cause i understand that the agents didn't get a felon in possession of firearms well but wasn't there probable cause in existence that that allies and regina also were in possession of firearms if there was probable cause them that they send an e mail or fax or a call there was no reason to expect that the evidence would be destroyed the house was cleared that agents were there that would have been the easiest thing to do i see  single for bathroom a single kitchen single sort of laundry facilities a single set of common areas none of the bedrooms contain any of that or any other and issue of a separate living unit and on top of all of that  residence is occupied not by strangers or renters or borders or some individuals in a commercial relationship but by family members and the district court properly found that family members would be more likely to organize the residence as a single unit so the court was on firm footing in saying that the detached bedroom which was fenced into the back yard in just a few feet from the main house was in fact part of that single duality what is the closest case our opinion so we're controlled by it's true so either i think the main a case is helpful in that case this court held that agents would not have known that there were separate residences when they entered the house even though there were unrelated individuals living in that house and even though the doors were locked it held to the agent would have only known that once they entered into the rooms and found that in fact they were studio apartments well here i think this case is even stronger because we're not talking about unrelated individuals we're talking about a family and we're not talking about a studio apartment we're talking about a bedroom i bedroom didn't have a closet it didn't have a sink didn't have a kitchen it didn't have a laundry facilities it didn't have a bathroom didn't have any of the envision of that would suggest that it was a separate dwelling unit or any sort of bedroom that was being used exclusively the final point i'll make in this is this was referenced by defense counsel and it seems to be a theme that runs throughout some of the briefs the agents didn't need to establish probable cause as to every individual living within the house it was perfectly permissible under ayers to establish probable cause to search the house based on probable cause related to ricardo in fact errors says that probable cause to search a residence based on one of multiple occupants of a single family residence is valid to allow a search of the entire unit does that still apply when climbing as i understand these if i remember right these were in the guns they found were in a safe and they had to find the combination and open it up and it clearly belonged to somebody else other than ricardo is there ever a point at which you say wait a nd this is yes we have we have a search warrant that allows us to search the entire premises but this is clearly something that is different than related to the purpose of the search warrant possibly your honor i in this case though i don't think the agents actually didn't know that that safe didn't belong to ricardo and the reason is because this is reference to page one hundred and forty eight of the record the bedroom it's blocked off you know he seems to be living here but some of the other agents might not have had that information is that the government's position that i actually don't think any there's no evidence that any agent realized whose room w on them or put into the record to show that they only use this one particular bedroom of course there's no reason to think that the agents would have been aware of that because they weren't searching for mail or personal items they were searching for guns so they would have been looking at the physical items and you know save something trying to find those guns as opposed to looking at mail so i don't think there's any evidence here that they knew at any time whose room long to who is the sole question that we need to decide whether this is a single family residence that was a plug you know covered by the search warrant or do we are an alternative argument that the government would have is there some basis i guess i'm a little bit confused why the government did or why the agents didn't just go in get a search warrant for allies then regina as well they knew that they lived there correct that's correct and so they knew that and they already had an investigation going i think it's as is as you point out in the brief they didn't they didn't make a misrepresentation to get the search warrant but they also it would have been so easy to do it and avoid this whole situation why didn't they just do that i think the reason perhaps because the information they had at the time they saw the search warrant at least as far as i can tell is that the most recent pictures they had of a life that they listen to those on facebook with guns were three or four years old so they had no reason to suspect necessarily that they would find guns relating to a life where as ricardo the facebook photos they found reason and so i think that taken in conjunction with the fact that the investigation originated with ricardo it was much more robust as to ricardo and they just had much better evidence so there were actually search warrant and it would not have undermined probable cause or perhaps would have an increased probable that it didn't need to be included in the warrant so agency or established probable cause as to the residence that was  sufficient and then i think the final point that judge lefkow referenced is that agents did learn during a search that ricardo did occupy the main house as well so since agents had a warrant to search ricardo's residence that was recorded as residence even if you assume that this was two separate wellness so i think just to make clear what arguments or this is one dwelling unit but even if it was not agents not have reasonably realized that it was multiple dwelling units and even if it was multiple dwelling units and perhaps they should have realized it the residence they had probable cause to search included the main house because ricardo lived there so this room cannot be considered a separate when it was not rented out to a rd party how do you reconcile that what the principal because st is illinois and that the tests we are to apply is whether a person had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their space which is seems to be the point that you know the defendant is making here sure and i think that comes from cats as well so i think that principle stands for the notion that for a place to even fall within the realms of the th amendment someone must have a reasonable expectation of privacy so for example in the cat's case it was a public phone booth and the court said because there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in that phone booth by the person in the booth you needed a warrant to search that phone booth but that one of cases is nothing about the requirements for what it takes to get a warrant or what's permissible when you have a warrant and your position is that the warrant cook cover covered this i just like to cover a couple of points st of factually i think opposing counsel mentioned that there was no reason for the agents to know what room belonged to him at the time of the search and  that's actually not the case that may have been true with the time of that they requested the warrant but again before the search was even conducted the agents excerpt of record one  hundred and nineteen they did all of these things before even conducting a search and the lead investigator herself indicated that she went through the rooms and visualized to determine what that they have probable cause of the entire house once they entered the house garrison and men all say that once they determine that there are multiple you know they still need to get a warrant and  refrigerator and some cooking supplies but there's no evidence that men had a bathroom so the case law shows that even when there are certain things used in common that doesn't mean that individuals are giving of their