t christopher french i would like to fly with the court's permission to reserve three minutes provides that a person having been served with this notice by a law enforcement officer may not engage in a course of conduct without reasonable cause but the attempt to harass torment or threaten another person the this is that this is a statute that actually works in conjunction with other statues to protection from abuse statute and the protection from harassment statute both of which require initiating court proceedings and can result in the imposition of a no contact order he's perhaps noticed  not have that authority at all as he's harassment notice actually is notable for the vast area of conduct that is not covered by the statute and i believe this is a legislative intent to ensure that people who end up in the situations have an opportunity that the law wants them to have the opportunity working within the confines of the limitations of the notice to work out their differences without further law enforcement involved in this case morning he began trying he realized i think is a message just shows he realized that he had been very badly any attempted to patch things up at the same time he was working under the at no time to mr french ever violate that no trespass notice in fact his efforts to find his friends but given his mom don't have other places were fully consistent with his observance of that notice so here the officers aired him that they treated just cease arrest notice as a no contact order and you can see that in the way in which they reviewed the messages the there in fact really is very little evidence they did review the messages individual to try to figure out what exactly mr french was saying most striking among this commissions is that mr french was told the night before by the police officer for a min and then twenty three perhaps four officers come back and there is another very specifically describe what happened and what was the interval between the two episodes thank you rhonda for that invitation yes i think your honor the the most detailed rendition of this comes from the report officer christopher gray and officer gray the court recalled did not have a body camera and so there is no recording of the initial knocking talk although often morse did have a camera he did not activate it so the initial marking tarr which occurred about five in the morning occurred under circumstances where they approached the front door they knocked on the door they announced themselves and no one came to the door they didn't notice lights were on they could even look t check on his nardone and her roommates and then he came back but when you say he stayed on the scene you mean state in the early now i frankly don't know where exactly he was i believe he hi there but across the street or went to his cruiser but i don't believe he was in of the house and but he left his my understanding he left and waited for officer morse to return and serve the house from or from a position outside the  was that period of kauai there these are very limited periods of time i think we're talking a period of perhaps about twenty minutes altogether maybe less ok it's such a twenty minutes he's pulled back from the house he's just observing at and then the other officers come out now it's not just this is actually captured on video recording and as the court will recall off the gray did not have a camera so we don't have his body camera footage but we do have officer morse and none of the other two officers had cameras by the way  officer morse and detect if iran who was from an education police department they went to a window which they believe to be christopher french is window which was on the ground level stood in a narrow strip of land that would fall within the curtilage and ban repeatedly on the frame of the window which sounds like a metal frame and makes quite a lot of noise and as they were doing so i detect a fear on the one hand was inviting mr french to come to the door  both from both of the front door and that room window so that was the that was what was going on as they tried to get their attention and i do think it's important for the court to understand the fear is a contrast here between the initial effort to rouse the inhabitants the occupants where lights were on windows were uncovered and in the meantime after this initial effort the windows signs that the people have actually understood that police are coming to the door and want them to come to the door and they are rejecting that invitation and here is where i think the language of charity really comes into play for there the the court did talk in terms of the country it really would be i think difficult to imagine any other circumstance of life where just coming to and from a door a house that you do know where you don't know the occupants but you want to get their attention there is a real custom here we all understand what it is and i think injured in the court understood two things st they understood and we're talking here not about council please you're well over other factual questions from my colleagues against the combined effect legal point but could you isolate the factual circumstances that you think violate the clearly established principle of law is it approach to the window and the banging on the window is the window plus banging on the facts are what facts are there that yes i think that standard just tell me which one you know maybe others that also but one of the ones that most clearly i think make the case for you that they went too far under stealth of the the house i think that's really the clear violation within the meaning of the th amendment here we're talking about the permissible scope of a knock and talk and argue did not address the many factors that are of play here including those identified by your honour's of the baron here there's unusual circumstances permit for one the building that mr french troops i did in thirteen park street is not a single family residence it is more akin to an apartment an officer morse knew where french was living at the time and officers and i'm talking about the latter not can talk officers walk down the neighboring driveway which is fully exposed to the public and knocks zero near the makes the point that when the police officers go up on the porch and are going to do or they're doing nothing more than a private citizen quite up to on the porch and knocking that sort of baseline justice scalia used in jardins is not really applicable that the police they do have special rights because of their positions police license was not sufficient to give every reasonable officer notice that the conduct here vajra the th amendment and even that is present license because of unique circumstances of this case particularly  language for a dis different last which is that a private individual especially say the brother or the father or of the young woman who's just had her house broken into and her cell phone stolen and indeed the guy comes back and they scream at him and they report that they are  there is no answer at something that is a multi person with their front door you can go knock on the window of the person you are after to get his attention to have him come to the door i find that perfect plausible that a private individual would do that under those circumstances  that still leaves the argument that they had made clear that they did not want to come to the door by their actions in turning off the lights at five in the morning so by the time the officers come back at fifty two thousand five hundred and twenty five and the morning they are faced with a different situation that question one question is whether and i thought you had answered this already saying you agreed that it was clearly established that the authority to do it not can talk us to be pursuant to an implied license i understood the actions of law enforcement should be measured as to whether they're consistent with the implied license so long as it's reasonable to think a private individual would have it acted the same way default what i'm asking  reality of how people who are not the homeowner act when they want to get in touch with someone and they might do just you know many things like i'm kind of upset and you're not answering i need to get in touch if you saw me looking in the door that doesn't necessarily mean it's within the implied license it just means that's what most people would be realistically speaking do but they may be trespassing so i guess what i'm asking is i thought you were agreeing with me it contempt you versus king judge dean's tell us we have to look at it from the perspective of what the homeowner has implicitly licensed people to do and what basis is there for concluding that i have impliedly licensed anybody if i'm in the of the country given that qualified immunity has to be applied at a particular life level of the facts here it just wasn't good signal to every single reasonable officer or this congress exceeded that  license and i think that's my right colonel here is that in the shoes of a reasonable officer juglans would not signal that given that it was a canine case that brought the dog to the front court of conducted a search and  initial approach to the building and the way in which the individuals inside responded making clear mr wood talk would argue that they did not want to talk to the p nevertheless the police come back maybe twenty minutes later and repeat some of the same conduct why isn't that determination to come back a nd time that he was going to go back to the police station to try to get a ping on the cell phone and apply for a search and at that point detective fearon suggested doing another knock on top and i think regardless of whether there is an implied license to do another not one talk i think there's case law suggesting that it's not entirely clear that there is a limit on how many not kentucky can do in a given period of time so i don't think it's clearly establish i don't think that the general language from dr deans is sufficient to deny these officers qualified immunity under the facts of this case unless there's anything further  points st there is no argument of exigent circumstances here that has not been raised so that should not be considered nd this is not a multi unit apartment building it's a single family dwelling that's been turned over to college kids who are running it together it's much like a single family dwelling in that respect what i think really is critical here is the license that we're talking about here i think there's a couple of aspects there is the customary license that we're all familiar with and that is a general standing license to approach a house however it is in the nature of any license to just read a couple and the person occupying the house has complete authority to revoke the license both for the police and for the and for the public at large and in this case the objective evidence that the own officers had presented after their st effort to conduct a knocking talk is that the occupant did not wish to engage with them and made that as possible by not simply not coming to the door but turning out the lights and covering the windows that is a revote that's a revocation of the license to justice scalia was talking about and i do believe i do believe in that case the supreme court really was trying to torah bright line and i think it's both in the nature of the home where we're not talking here about a reasonable expectation of privacy test we're talking about the home and a bright line for the home if we thought if we thought the replication issue was unclear as to what manifests revocation i understand you think it was it was revoked we thought that was there did you make an argument below about the banging on the bedroom window itself exceeding the license yes i you've given instruction the staff amazon when you for ordered a package not to leave it on the doorstep to be sure somebody takes the package the amazon guy something more at the hour when people are actually getting up there are i would say that in a situation like this any delivery person would go to a door some kind of  under which somebody would go knock on a bedroom window i really said they're supposed to go around to the back and knock on the back door rather than knocking on the window which is close to the front door if you look at the photograph of this house the driveway is to the right of the house and there's a side door on that side of the house not on the bedroom window side on the other side of the house you know and frankly in new england it's traditional for a lot of people go to the side door st that's sort of an oddity i think of our region but i've never seen any circumstance under which somebody is going to a bedroom window and i might add that there is no evidence that the light was on in this bedroom window with the possible exception of the kitchen all the lights were areas where our human interactions are really quite customary and without trying to distinguish all those other cases i would know this court recently decided the case of irish versus fowler and in that and there was a consensus in the circuits it does not rely on this shany is giving adequate notice i appreciate that unless you added a state has said here you have not license we are dealing with nd the occupant has the absolute right to revoke for any reason a good reason a bad reason or no reason and the objective evidence is a tad license was affirmed only revoked  you have to go home you have to leave and that's what you are doing says you don't get an answer you must leave i don't know how more clear it could be so just to get more specific your argument is when the four officers returned the revocation had been complete at that point and they could not do anything including go and knock on the door that's correct your honor the  i judge baron your muted i just want to clarify one thing about your argument you did raise below that even if that would you tell me where i can find it if the revocation argument ok thank you very much counsel thank you thank you you counsel attorney woodcock and attorney park they leave the meeting at this time