please the court there is researchers in this case and i need you then the kansas city police officers are entitled to qualified immunity for each search there is probable cause and an exception to the worst requirement and each searcher turned up a legal contraband drugs i'll start with each search in order to go through them for the first search we believe there was a parent authority that officers reasonably they had to search suite two zero one even if the landlord the building manager said nothing and merely opened the door in response to being asked to do so during the search of the building in that case there had been a reasonable belief that he had authority to do so he'd been asked by other tenants to show the police around and it was reasonable or well once the door was opened at that point in time the dangerous chemicals in the lab were apparent and in plain view and then at that point the plain view exception to the war acquirement would have taken over and allowed them to enter the lab and secure it to make sure that none of these chemicals were actually going to ignite it was a danger so you're saying that that in order to examine the first search we just ignore some of the evidence regarding what the landlord long silent and open the doors of course investigation i don't i don't know that that's what briggs is saying that it was he's just saying whatever happened i didn't give him i didn't i don't he's saying i didn't give them permission that's just not true and there was an additional assertion that there was a potentially falsely created consent form does that add into the mix in terms of whether or not there was authority to open the door with a factual dispute  not consent to have the door open that in both cases he never told long go ahead and do this and that was just acting on his own as a rogue actor so to speak that's the factual situation i'm assuming that all sides that's what that's what he asked for in taking the hallway you get this other one mr riggs the officer barber would have asked to go in there says nothing just unlocks the door and opens it up in that case it was reasonable or at least arguable that long by that he had apparent authority to do so what about if if the exception that the assertion that there was a falsified consent form does that go to whether or not to believe the officer as to whether or not that they felt they needed to falsify a consent form later does that when you toss that into the mix regardless of how it all to me comes out does that make it a  facts well i guess what i'm saying is my question then we can move on to your next searches i'm just questioning whether an after the fact statement that was a falsified allegedly purportedly false statement consent form i'm sorry created by the officer involved does that get into the mix in terms of the credibility of what happened that's the that's factual you're saying no i mean that's why we're setting aside anything the officer said we're only looking at the facts accepted by the be disputing the fact finding of the district court and i wasn't until your reply brief that you were then willing to i think apply the appropriate standard which is to take the plaintiff's facts as alleged argument we think it's enough to preserve the issue clarified they also did want to preserve the ability so that we weren't back on remand they said well you abandoned your claim but we agree it was not written as well be think if you look at age thirty one thirty two we did make no for the question about the first one to the second search this search was happening at the same time in the same building on the same day downstairs at the coffee where the counter was searched the parking garage other area was searched for the we think that this search was lawful because first you did have actual consent on the search and then the investigation and the search to find them and then later the plainview exception to the war requirement to go over when they had probable cause now and doing the broader doing the search and following the trail we think that the key point in time is that they had the probable cause before there before there's any suggestion that the right to search w revoked before that point and you also didn't have you know anything that the terminated their lawful right to be there and like since i've been in the parking garage and other places but i just i guess i'm curious about  whether it was immediately apparent twenty first looked at these packets that it was contraband so the plainview doctor and you have to be there lawfully i think nobody has contested that he was there he was out he was there to investigate this robbery but then for a plain view to kick in it has to be immediately apparent that it's contraband that is what is your position that it was immediately apparent is it seemed like he had to go back and get my understanding of the record is he didn't know whether it was contraband until he got that information from the chemist i'm wondering how that fits in or whether it matters you know i think the record doesn't talk about what's in his mind the exact moment that  i think it's unclear because the record speaks as to the search of the whole the officers are adamant as to the search of the hole which is still ongoing before that search concluded they had probable cause at that time because he had been going up and down from the garage where people say what been going on what  he was there initially for the robbery investigation there's no question about that so he was legitimately behind the counter but he didn't know what the betrayals weren't told later and time was in their dispute as to whether there was consent for further looks  counter we think that taking the record as it is is reasonable to think that the search was still ongoing and that the search itself had not ceased and that consent hadn't been revoked if you look at the you're correct your honor i haven't made a motion of this but yes the appeal should be dismissed for lack of first action and the reason is because this court has held repeatedly and has since has consistently and so is the supreme court that limited to purely legal questions in this court cannot reassess factual disputes in the context of an unlocked door appeal now there were three searches and each time the court found that there is a dispute of genuine fact with respect to the search for search to  one the court found that there's a genuine dispute about what mr long said and did start opening the door counsel what relevance does that have to what the officers knew or at the time the this conversation between mr riggs they didn't know about this so what relevance does it have to what they reasonably believed at the time the entry yes your honor i think it's important to recognize that the defendants have the burden of proof to establish the predicate predicate facts  establish qualified immunity the only evidence that they presented is the testimony of officer barb or an officer bob or specifically said that mr long told me that my career's wanted me to check on suite two a one riggs didn't say that to preserve long so it's a reasonable inference that mr long didn't say that to officer barber if you didn't say that officer barber officer barber is lying and if he's lying then his overall credibility is called  to question and they simply haven't established the facts that would that could lead a officer to reasonable believe reasonably believe that mr long had a parent already so it really goes down to a credibility issue and also your honor you're asking about the forged consent so they eventually forged mr riggs signature on a consent to suite two a one was a little bit more complicated that he signed one search which he believed was for walk exchange down the street but later the officers added suite to a one to the form that he actually did sign and if the officers had apparent authority to actually search suite to a wind why would they go to such lengths literally forging his signature to get a consent to search on suite two of one so basically there's a credibility issue and the court decided that it's unclear what happened prior to the opening of the door so i'm not suggesting that mr longdon say anything i'm suggesting that we simply don't know what happened and if we don't know what happened then and summary judgment is inappropriate and specifically this court doesn't have jurisdiction when the district or it has said we don't know what happened so for the search of coffee want that happened later the district court found that there's a dispute of fact over whether mr riggs consented to that search or revoked any previous consent and your honor was asking about the timeline or the search and how did it happen and i think it's very important because the district court didn't find in the defendants never argued they don't argue now th toigo had probable cause when he made his first observation so toigo is there doing a robbery investigation he goes behind the counter and he sees packets of incense and then he leaves and testified that his robbery investigation was over and that the incense was not part of the robbery investigation he then left and called the drug enforcement unit and called officers acton and taylor and acton and taylor arrive on the an investigation and they talk to a map that in the court finds that there's arguable probable cause a point in time they go back in the coffee wong once again after the initial search is over there's no real suggestion the search was ongoing so you're in your assertion is that it's to search searches absolutely your honor so is it in the record how many officers remained after toigo left and gathered this information are there still is the record tell us whether there are still officers there that suggest it's a continuous search or whether the place is that everybody leaves and then everybody comes back again is that in the record i don't believe there's any indication in the record that there are officers that remained inside coffee want there certainly no officers there remain behind the counter that much is in the record but you know if that's not in the record i believe taking the facts  favorable to mr riggs you would have to assume that there were no officers left inside the coffee i want that that left is the record say how much time between the two contested points no i don't believe the record indicates  amount of time but what the record does indicate is the officers came back inside and they said in this is mr ricks testimony it was in his affirmation or his affidavit in our reply brief he says that the officers came back to the counter the officers even if a search had been going on the time when continuing at the time which it hadn't revoked and sent are to them going back in season now so how does it apply to officer taylor well officer taylor was one of the officers who went behind the counter to search for the instance that he was not part of the original robbery investigation was correct i think that's an important point your honor that so the original robbery offered investigation was i believe the original officer on the scene was an officer hamill but he's not really important to this officer who did the robbery investigation was detective toigo he came by himself and taylor and acton were not there yet there was nobody from the drug enforcement unit akaash you want to while that search was going on that happened at a later point in time by the time officer taylor arrived there were already officers behind the counter so you have to look at the situation from his eyes what did he see when he right it's not in the record that is inaccurate he does not see officers behind the counter when he arrives they arrive here arrives with acton toigo is gone there's no officers behind the counter at the time and then they asked acton tailor toigo they said can we go behind the counter or take your incense mr it says no and they go behind anyway so there was nobody and missed this is mr ricks testimony there was nobody behind the counter at the time when they asked for a second search that had already happened early in the morning it's unclear how much time had passed that's not in the record but there is a clear demarcation i mean testified that his search was complete it was over and none of the other officers had any that we're discussing these hotly contested facts because the district court already decided this district court said well there's a question of fact about what happened whether that consent was revoked and the fact that we're going through the record talking about this highlights the fact that this is counsel admitted that it was poorly drafted it was so poorly drafted that i couldn't form any sort of a response to the arguments that are in the reply brief and so they've completely waived that they had no opportunity to reply to the arguments in the reply brief so those arguments  there's a suggestion that this was a dual purpose administrative search but the district court held that there is a genuine dispute a fact whether it is in fact a dual purpose search or is merely a pretext or subterfuge for a criminal investigat defendants suggest that there is no evidence in the record suggesting that this is a pretextual search but that is simply not the case there's a lot of evidence indicating that this was not an administrative search at all the original briefing for this search two officers testified that there was no mention of a tavern check there's no mention of a liquor license nobody knew about it so  the reasonable inference when they say they don't remember it is that it didn't happen there was no discussion of a tavern check or a liquor license part of performing the search multiple officers have said specifically said the purpose of the search was to look for k t that's not the other purported justification which was to go in and check for a liquor license which if you want that they caused the officers constantly refer to the search bus and gives this is important gives testified at deposition that if the buy portion of the buy bust hadn't gone through if wally had been unable to purchase any alleged narcotics they would have gone and done the search that's a simple pretext they weren't going to go in and do a liquor license check unless they found evidence of a crime he also said that if there hadn't been a liquor license we would 've done the same thing a liquor license is just a complete subterfuge there's no real indication there's no evidence that there's actually an administrative search aside from gibbs saying that it was that's the only evidence the police report that gives fog afterwards doesn't mention it being a tavern check he says there's a liquor license and that he received a complaint but he doesn't mention it being a tavern check he doesn't mention looking for a liquor license he simply says they went in they searched for the drugs and then they left it's also testified in his deposition about what a normal check would have entailed he said that there would be a liquor check form and it be logged in a weekly activity any questions about that search well and once again the district court found that all of that created a genuine dispute of fact with respect to whether it was truly a dual purpose search or not and this court once again doesn't have jurisdiction  to change that finding the last point i want to me is that now there are two more points i want to make one is that the district court also found that there's a the mistaken belief that coffee want had a liquor license may in fact not be reasonable because when gibbs walked into the coffee long he said he testified that he realized that there was sort of bottles no liquor being sold he  any liquor licenses so it's some point in time that the believe does become unreasonable in the belief that there's a liquor license there becomes unreasonable and there's no reason to believe that he could perform a liquor check their offended seem to suggest that there's not a single set of circumstances that change whether that's a reasonable and that's not the case at some point in time that that belief just simply becomes unreasonable no reasonable person walks into a starbucks and orders a whisky and the court held that that is a question of fact for the jury so whether that mistake a fact is reasonable and whether actually believes actually had a mistaken belief about the state of the liquor license is not able by this court to question the jury and the final point i want to make is with respect e all because they didn't have that information they testified that briefing they didn't receive that information so in their eyes they're just going in and performing a search with a warrant i think i'm running low on time so the search exception they're choir's specific forms or things to be reported on so long as they had a valid basis under law to do the administrative search and here it is a valid reason under the city ordinances to go into a license permits and see if they're discretion whether to do administrative search or not and if they think that their purpose of the administrative search is met even if that's the same purpose as a criminal search that's plainly lawful and that's the case in thousands of person that fourth amendment  to many of the other points i think that the record will simply speak for itself as to how much of this is assertion by counsel and how much of it is actually borne out by the facts found by the district and that were actually found in the different