that the trial court cheery picked one fact from that evidence and hung her hat for seeing there was no holocaust on that one lone tack without reaching many other issues of evidence  at the hearing and that fact being that it was highly unlikely that the officers could smell marijuana from their vantage point of the front door that was located in a closed container in the nd bedroom given there was such a small amount said it was highly unlikely highly unlikely and that pronouncement ignores a reasonable inference inferences from this record that there was a marijuana located in other portions of the trust that the number one crack she came from if there's that's correct i know but we also on the record defended miss that she knew that the police officers read the door while they were still outside and then her daughter testified that when she answered the door and saw that it was a peace officer she stepped outside and shut the door behind her so we don't know what happened in that house when this occurred we don't know how much marijuana if any was on the st floor of that the line she should have said that she should not exist cherry picked one piece of evidence from this record and said that it's highly unlikely when there's other inferences she denied a motion to reconsider that's true you're also she reconfirmed whatever findings she made correct that's correct and you're suggesting that there's not a real reaffirmation of her credibility determination that she did not believe the officers could smell of marijuana from the outside that both the defendant and her daughter details there's no recent transactions there's no details at all with regard to transactions whether they occurred in the home or not there's they don't even say in the warrant the transactions occur at the home these people could be having their to store it in some remote location which is not unusual conductor transactions elsewhere and just live in the home so we have no details whatsoever the whole case falls on whether or not tip at minimum and so like i said our argument is based on your honor's agreeing that the circuit court's decision that there was no probable cause is against memphis where the evidence and like i've been trying to  that's the gateway to the search i could three hundred in this is what makes it so untenable in this situation what if there were forty three pounds of marijuana in there because it was a police it doesn't matter whether there's five grams or five pounds the issue is whether or not in this case given these facts is the trial of course the termination that she did not believe she did not credit the officer's testimony that he could smell the marijuana from outside the residence but that's the case rises or falls on him and why should we reverse the trial court's finding that it's quote one highly unlikely or not credible testimony that the weight cannot be the spicy factor and it would be under this truck or really whether this i don't hear you put a lot of speculation here the issue is whether what are the facts in this case right you know obviously the heat out of marijuana the stronger the likelihood that there's going to be an order this is a very small on relatively speaking you know those container upstairs decision the judge actually on a fact it's not known at the time the police officers entered it it's not known until later right no that's not true because she well essentially is because she's saying i'm making this decision based on the fact that they recovered cannabis here is the fact that it's sealed here now that is known at the time they make their injury that's exactly right there are i agree that it's like i said it if if from if your position is that the affidavit for the search were provides false information which is i think your position right as the troposphere terminations know that your position is that whether or not the officer had probable cause before they entered and the court properly determined here that they did secure in our houses from unreasonable searches and seizures is to prevent situations like this the whole point of the solution or rules prevent police misconduct to not allow them to just enter our houses because they think it smells funny and the whole bit later on they can get  time and further he only step three or four feet into the house at this point in time i think if he was trying to prevent the destruction of narcotics upstairs he would have quickly proceeded to that location to prevent that you know he said three or four feet in the house michigan looking around well that's where she came over eventually but we don't know where she was in the interim we have no idea who they showed if they willingly show them around correct according to the officers yes and no credibility their weapons and so i'm not sure if there was a direct reference i mean are we actually conceded in that circumstance of argument that there was no indication that he would be armed but that doesn't mean that they don't pose a danger to the officers in this backpack that was on the st floor that to defend it denies even exist how how can that be testimony in a hearing in the trial court not render an opinion that when she's hanging her hat on the fact that marijuana was hung on the nd i think she just ignored it i think she might have forgotten i think she didn't she came from the upstairs we don't know do we know where the back containers that were sealed i don't know if they were sealed or not that that's not in the record but to the extent that defended presenting the office with the backpack i would suggest that she's saying this backpack smells like what you're smelling