proceed with the next case on the docket anthony wayne hardy grey versus mark often matthew herbert bennett is here for appellate lofton william j atkins is here is a pretty common practice to understand that the goal of the investigation would be to identify where the judges are the main facts are where they're going to be located how they're being sold and to stop the operation and this operation on the investigation are similar to pulling a thread on a on a sweater you're pulling it slowly to to be able to find out how far and how deep this goes he said his sister owned the house and he would just go and ask her for permission for them to enter the house there were no drugs in plain view i how does this record support probable cause to enter the home or exigent circumstances based on those facts and circumstances there's one of us go back to how the officers actually got to the house they got to the minutes away when the officers were able to locate his vehicle he was actually understand valence by the barrel county sheriff's office and when they located mr rogers vehicle he was seen at investigate whether or not those drugs were provided from that house or were those drugs being tested it was a more going investigation to determine whether or not that house the home security there was an officer in the back by the back door right in the back door your honor in this case is actually kind of the front door and we were there talking about the actual car that mr rogers was strikes me that to the extent what you are seeking to do here is to resist a summary judgment granted in heart agrees favor over your qualified immunity objection you might be allowing yourself to record he didn't sparano he walked calmly away he was cooperative with the officers according to judge stories order and he said i'm going to ask my sister who owns the home if it would be permissible for you to come in and search the home and at that point the officers ran through the door and taste him in the groin is that not what the district court correct me if i'm wrong one is you challenge the district so it's grant partial summary judgment in favor of hard agree and two you are challenging the district though it's denial  back but with respect to your own summary judgment on whether you can get out before going to trial qualified immunity we would assume that the mail and welcome back in favor provided that would allow the officers to be able to continue their investigation into judge story said there was reasonable suspicion for the investigation for the knock and t alk but he relied on our decision in united states versus santa that the mere fact that there is probable cause that drugs are inside a home the light most favorable to the officer yes your honor i believe that you do judge newsome and when you do you have to look at the actual facts not the facts that have been represented to you both in argument  appeal and i'd like to give you a couple of good examples of that first of all let's start with what the officers knew about this black bag we would direct the court to take a look at the video of guymon who is the officer who actually spoke to mr rogers neither of the other officers spoke directly with him prior to entering the house what she said and this is a the actual  time stamp not the time of the day but the time of the tape at two thousand three hundred and twenty she says when i started to drive by he was coming out of the house of this house gaiman yeah and when he was getting in the car and i threw it in reverse and backed in both both mr loft and mr norris the two officers at the door when they went in admitted in their depositions that they didn't know whether he had a knowledge is that not true that's true your honor although in that context judge anderson what the court's look to is whether that collective knowledge was actually known to the officers or communicated in some form or fashion and there's no indication was created by the defendant's actual violation of the th amendment and that is the attempt to detain mr part of me inside his home without either probable cause or we submit reasonable articulable suspicion exigent circumstances that of course occurred earlier in a conversation but for both of those things to i mean right for the legality of the detention whether it's reasonable suspicion probable cause because it's inside the home don't we also have to be the fact in the light most favorable to law yes you do your honor and and and we don't get a little hard for me to imagine with a laundry list of things that your adversary kind of marks through the thick with the event that there's not at least for purposes of this claim arguable probable cause to back the detention even inside the home if it is inside the home i'm not sure that it is frankly we've got to kind of metaphysical star wars tell you you know sort of one person inside one person outside but if it is inside the home why isn't that long list of considerations sufficient for all of you will probably let me start with that last point just knew some we don't think there's anything metaphysical about this at all i think the court s agree feet were firmly planted inside his house he wasn't standing you know half in and half out he was inside his house and let me turn to the laundry list for a moment the defense to have defended as an admirable job  extrapolating lots of facts from whatever effectively to fact the the the investigation itself and the rogers doesn't help the defendant what we know about that investigation roger's house was under surveillance it was under surveillance because the officers knew that his modus operandi was to sell drugs from his house because the parking lot was invisible was not visible from the street so people who go when they couldn't be seen do their business and leave they began to tail mr rogers lost him and it wasn't two minutes we don't even know if he went directly to hard to reach home because the officers lost him when you watch the video you'll see both and lost and driving around trying to find them the even pass each other i believe at one point the point being that if you'll hear in the audio that the plan was to stop him it doesn't even appear that the officers had any intention to see if there was a traffic violation st so the point is the drugs were exactly where they expected to find them as part of their investigation on mr rogers in his car there's absolutely nothing in this record that drew the officers attention to the house other than rogers his mere presence outside the home and the fact that he had been seen by an officer as she pulled by leaving the house the cases are  legion and then judge wilson referred to the court's opinion united states v santa which the district court relied on their legion that the mere presence of contraband in santa by the way they had probable cause that the contract was inside the house probabl called really was an issue and what the court said there is the mere presence of contraband does not give rise to extant circumstances that's a quote directly from the opinion don't we i mean but don't we have more here on officer law in fact you know maybe we have the mere presence of drugs but don't we also have a maybe you were going to address with the don't we also have the what the defendant characterized as the sudden flight into the house your honor let's assume for purpose of the question that in fact the court were to decide it was sudden flight assuming his facts to be true and just help me with that of as a descriptive matter is that his best does often say touch on there is that he doesn't just say run he also says that that running was meaningful to him because he didn't tell him where he was going and that's flatly contradicted by the  i believe the course referring to what we hear at eight minutes and forty five seconds a guy means video and while it is admittedly unclear the dialogue that i heard understand it to be is is this where you stay guymon mr rogers no i just drove by with my girl there was in fact a girl in the car now you know that as a matter of her patient it is admitted leon clear video nonetheless the conflict isn't a significant one and ultimately doesn't matter because we were here to knock and talk and at best at best you can a life in his favor when the officers approached the doorway they had reasonable suspicion what norris said was they had exactly one fact that rogers was seen leaving the house that fact alone whether we look at homes you cinda talks about a person's near pretty and presence at the scene of a crime not being sufficient to support probable  cause or any number of other opinions that fact alone certainly doesn't arise probable cause and in and that's what they have when they got to the doorway whether that additional fact the conflict that you raise further rouse suspicion doesn't change the fact that mr hart agreeing that voluntary encounter had a right at that moment long before he fled from the doorstep had a right to do exactly what he did which was to say i'm going to close my runner st of all with regard to more of the pederson the holding in that case is as to whether reasonable articulable suspicion would ever justify entering the home the court's quote is we cannot see how law enforcement could enter a home to detain a person on reasonable articulable suspicion much lower than probable cause without exigent circumstances that just makes no sense to us we submit that at the time that this incident occurred right at the moment when he says i'm going to i'm going to follow your command essentially and go call my kid sister is words are oh yeah call it in that moment they say well stay right there our position would be that in that moment based on the limited information they had and what they didn't know that there was no reasonable articulable suspicion how the house had never been the target of investigation no occupant was unknown to the defendants or been ever involved in drugs far as they knew the behavior was inconsistent with rogers known modus operandi they didn't there were no drugs in plain view there was no odor of drugs he was did not appear to be under the influence and he was trying to cooperate with the officers while firmly asserting his rights not to give we know from the record whether or not the home was searched for drugs after the fact yes it was wrong or were any drugs found there was a baggie found with what appeared to be residue it was never formally but putting that aside i think the officers can reasonably believe that the drugs at some point were inside the backpack i note that the record is actually indicates that when the drugs were found in the car according to the incident report that was filled out they were found in plastic baggies they were outside of the black bag again your honor opening that we don't think that that disputed fact if in fact that's what it is ultimately makes a difference here because all that is the officers is the mere presence of contraband on the scene and united states v santa two thousand is crystal clear that that alone might give them reasonable suspicion but it doesn't give them probable cause to enter the home  was it was a mr rogers car let me finish by saying this even if the court were to determine that under mr loft and facts that there's a dispute as to whether the action was legitimate the best outcome for him is this goes to trial and that's were cases like this involving the sanctity of the home belongs in front of a jury let them decide thank you ron thank home the reason why there was no accident circumstances was because of suspects inside the home that no idea that they were under so they and in fact in this case once they go to the door and they do their knocking talk which is perfectly acceptable up happening is as they have their inconsistency and they have the reasonable suspicion they are now allowed to do that terry stop to be able to finish their which was preserve the status quo but take it to a judge if we can and as already warned what mr hartley did was he took that avenue away from the officers when the at that point rather than go back and ask his sister if they can consent to a search of the home what should he have done instead what he should have done your honor would be dan there at the door or step outside that protective privacy we're not but he didn't give the officers consent to search the home you're right he did not give consent but the