swapping or whatever they did of the baker your argument is going to be clear about this is that the officer wasn't entitled to be on that particular part of the property is that correct correct ok i just want to be clear the officer had an arrest warrant that's true the o the day before sometime after six twenty five six thirty in the evening we don't know exactly when he knocked on the front door it appears no one was home and he left after both men then returned sometime after midnight we don't know exactly when we don't know it was dark out because they had to use his flashlight and for that second visit your honor he did not knock on the front door he went around to the stairs that led to the back porch and that's when he saw that the car so no he was not able to be on that back porch at that time for two reasons your honor one he did not knock on that front door to he had no reason to believe that somebody was inside when he went ahead into that your honor so his first searching on or in a second search those are two distinct searches yes your honor they're ok and the reason for that is in all the cases the government sites and we site their uniform to the sense that the officer knocks on the front door the officer has some information or some believe that that person is present such as another person tells them the person is there they hear noises they see lights something to indicate that that person is present an officer but man had none of those things when he went around to the back porch is there a vehicle present that belonged to the the driveway he testified it appeared that mr reid was not home but because the vehicle and it seemed as if he would have been somewhere on that property over this court he had not look at that third search by that second officer sheriff's office who then communicated with officer vanderveldt when he started his shift so an officer vanderveldt went out to the property or around six thirty the next morning he had already known what officer boatman had found in the record it states that he went out there to one execute the search warrant as well because it's tainted by officer search and so i'm behind you as you go but does the district court find the district court says officer bowman knocked on what appeared to be the possible front door of the residence and no one answered it you're saying that's really the back door officers knocked on that first door when he first went to that residence sometime after six thirty on september sixth when he went back to the residence on september seventh did not attempt to knock on that front door know when you're reading the entire transcript the officer knew which doors which the government mentions in their brief that officers knocked on to alternate doors not knowing which door which was the front and which one was the back and i think th right i don't believe that was in the report recommendation but it is in the transcript they report and recommendation just block some of these searches to get it correct and i think that's problematic i think for the fourth amendment need to look at each search in of itself and find where they even if they're by the same person when they're six hours apart your honor what authority tells us that that timeframe is too much too little or just right well if you look at let's say for example  secondly if your honour's were to find it snotty did i do believe he does not have license to go to the back because i don't believe that he had a reasonable suspicion a reasonable belief that mr reid was home at that time there is the truck in the driveway for that in fact the search warrant in this case describes at that front door is the front door so i think it's misleading to say that the officers really had no clue which doors which there is testimony in the transcript that the officers knew the back was the back when they did a  photographs the search warrant the case described the residence there was that first or the front door and going around back without not without first knocking and without having any reason to believe that someone is home  violates mr reed's fourth amendment rights and that's in cases like the case the government primarily relies on anderson that actually comports with argument because in that case anderson they did knock on the front door and the officers  had information to lead them to believe that someone was a light was on a dog was barking but they had no reason to believe the name was home here so he did not have any license to ground back for that second search after midnight in the dead of well he was have to believe he's all they have to knock on the front door first that talk as an implied license like girl scouts selling cookies but they can come to the front porch hear they talk about knocking talk but we're talking about in the dead of night the timing here is not an applied license to go straight to the from the front and you cannot justify this as a not one issue that i was having is collins seems to apply to warrantless searches doesn't apply to situations where you have an arrest warrant that you're trying to serve as the government needs an exception and there exception is the arrest warrant but i am arguing the rest warrant doesn't apply here because they don't go through the proper procedures by knocking on the front door or having reason to believe that mr reid was home when they went around the dead the night to the fuel that is legal we're talking about a roll area that country heat is a legal item it's used for car repair just recorded he bottles isn't self problem cars also plastic tubing right there was plastic tubing and f the problem i think i'm having with that as is frank's is about misrepresentations and i suppose you know mission could rise to the level of misrepresentation if you know it was it was something that was absolutely or sc torrie but it seems to me that this automobile thing you know at the margins maybe it's material but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of misrepresentation for frank's theory why am i wrong about that i think it does your honor when you take out the beaker and you just search the officers did not conduct searches she talked about the three searches they weren't searches under fourth amendment law they weren't searches the opposite had the ability to go to the home to e arrest warrant and in approaching a home in executing your arrest warrant they had a non search purpose so if you look at the screen core in this court's courage cases the question is was there a legitimate law enforcement purpose to ensure the curtilage one legitimate law enforcement purpose that often comes up in these cases is to not to talk to go knock on the door to talk to the resident to do some investigation that way here we have the execution of the search warrant so the officers are approaching the house and are able to enter the curtilage and there be no force been would not be implicated because they are doing a legitimate executing a legitimate law enforcement purpose of executing just rest warrant well one of the problems i have though is the is the is the fact that at least on one of the tabs i think the one in the middle the night the officers went directly to the back door rather than the front door why does that not present a problem well there's no reasons it does not present a problem and one of them is the officers testimony is he didn't know what the front door was in the district court found that so this is a this would be a finding that would be are you preclear error there's nothing in the record to contradict it the officer said he went to and if you look at the pictures this is a this is a remote location this is not a house it's on the and so this officer last clear they've got to try the the front door first no your honor i do not believe oh boy then robin say that peyton and we got four five cases and so you gotta try the front door first ya don't think they say you have to try to the front door first quote tell me of tell me if i'm wrong but don't robins have a graphic quote that says it was reasonable but you've got to think they're there and you've got to go to the alternative entrance following an unsuccessful knock at the front door i'm quoting tell it doesn't apply they said it was reasonable because they went to the all it going to the alternative entrance in those cases was reasonable because the touchstone here there is no bright line rule that you have to the front door first in those cases it's reasonable to go to an always reasonable this wasn't reasonable what made it reasonable to most cases was the fact no one uttered entered the front door this court has other cases i mean i know one of the cases that the appellant really relies on his the well's case and i think the wells case is really lost of of this point because the wells cases of the officers who were there for i mean well the officers were there to conduct a search but it still said they had even though it was the middle of the night it implied license to enter those sections of the curtilage where a visitor would normally be able to enter the driveway to walk to the front door and he said it wells the officers enter the driveway they walk up the driveway they walk past the past to the front door they could have taken past the front door knocked on it they did  he entered the backyard with no legitimate purpose in not having taken the opportunities to knock on the door that is where they violated force been wells here we have two entries both have passed to him and testimony that that's entirely reasonable under the circumstances there was no requirement to poor or otherwise that he that not knowing which primary one that he picked right it was reasonable for him to try them both he didn't have to guess which one was right of any wasn't hears from a sheriff go back out there execute his arrest warrant and what did the recordset as is the sheriff told him that officer bowman from the night before had seen items to see if those items are still there it does not say and there's nothing in the record that says that vanderbilt was specifically told there is something on the back porch or specifically told anything about the beaker the other items that were seen were seen on the even where the officer parked on their walk to the house the cup is encountered the bottles the coleman fuel bottle and the two b and they did this knowing and having background that this individual was involved with  manufacturing and that is enough so it could be the case that those were the items that were referred to the record doesn't say it's a vendor felt isn't completely independent going in the morning completely independent purpose for  going out to that house to serve the arrest warrant anything you could possibly be tainted with is very immoral fist while there are items to look for he's not specifically told go to the back porch and look for a beaker that's not in the record the district court didn't find it there beaker i think the way to best put your honor is if you put the officer who was in fourth amendment on the back porch in the swab in the beakers ok the reason is every be in that location and then you see something in plain view if it's incriminating nature is readily apparent then you have the probable cause to seize that item and so in this case they didn't physically seize it instead they did a limited search but if the officers are able to be on the back porch and by the next morning they clearly are able to be on the back porch because vander vander felt says i saw his truck there to roam a location i thought he was there i knocked on the front door repeatedly i tried the windows i tried the back door and so this was all you know just a legitimate execution of an arrest warrant and i also want to take some issue with the claim that about the ops are having to know that the person was and if you're trying to actually arrest warrant i don't think there's this added requirement that you have to have something that you can point to and say well i was given a tip that he was hong to go and i know it's reasonable suspicion your opponent says it's reasonable suspicion that the suspect resides in is currently present at the dwelling i think is just a normal fourth of memories when this was this reasonable well you think it's reasonable suspicion to counsel we don't need to i think reasonable suspicion as in the terry standard i think was is too high a standard here i don't think that they need to have specific pretty felt there's nothing in the record that what the record says is that he was told there were items there and it doesn't say which particular item and as the record shows there were a lot of items there the only one that gets you knows even there's even an argument can be problematic and it's not but there's even an argument as to be here i don't think there's any real argument that seen the key bottles the coleman fuel can or the two beat is or cement problematic at the war on space has probable cause but it certainly does not is not so lack of probable cause or based upon any advocate of digital role or based upon any attempt by the officers to provide false information that would take it was regardless of the other information in the warrant i think the claim is that some of the tipster information was not corroborated and again that's contradicted by the record the officers had again they've been hearing they've been hearing chatter to small  employees pointed that out to the officers in addition it was corroborated by the fact that they got a very specific tip now we say anonymous the officers knew who it was they didn't put the name in the warrant weren't required to but a concern citizen gave it's very specific chip that reid was manufacturing on his residence and that type of citizenship this court has as reflected has a certain added reliability because it's not informant who's trying to make a deal i trying to get paid it's a concerned citizen who comes in and that alone concert contains an added degree of reliability within those tips for further corroborated by the fact what the officer saw when they got to the residence and they saw that he bottles they saw the tubing they saw the coleman fuel can and again it further corroborates the tips of the show to say these were uncorroborated tips is just simply incorrect and in this record it was it was absolutely appropriate information for the officers to put into the warrant for the  probably more appropriately should have said several weeks that that was not the type of false statement that would cause any concern for this warrant and i think the district responding is sound and certainly not clear when you turn that page that second paragraph last sentence house or but when then not to what appeared as the possible front door the residence but no one answered and then the next paragraph when he returned later in the early morning hours this temper  store employees mentioning mr rat mr reid bought heat you cannot use that your honor to backdoor the the the tips here because they did not include that information in the search warrant the search warrant is completely texted the next morning felt called officer parrish down to show him what he had seen officer parrish with around the back porch it what you did there for two hours before mystery to eventually came out on our saucer parish cannot claim that he had good faith and once you excise out that provided to the court and the briefing that has been given to the court in this case and will take it under