and the government argues that that is that is an absolute requirement if the randolph rule is to be applied in any case and certainly in this case and of course mr ms thompson was not at the doorstep  very embarrassing i should know the record better than that if the court would like i will try to inform the record is there none of the jury of that came out of the whole tell room search was put into evidence entirely on the evidence that had been seized from mr thompson's handbag at the time of her arrest however the government had obtained a ruling from the district court before trial that at least some of the evidence that was taken from the hotel room would be admissible should it choose to introduce that evidence and before mr thompson testified the government obtained a later ruling from the district court permitting it introduce a larger more incriminating category of evidence that had also been seized from the hotel room which offended introduced during its cross examination of mr thompson but if they're for the thomson was scheduled to testify and while it's true that if mr thompson had then decided not to testify that the evidence would not have been would not have been introduced unless the government because the the the evidence to was found by the district court to be admissible just as a general rule without any kind of limitation on if mr thompson testifies to x then the mean you could certainly characterize it as rebutting it or you could characterizing it you could characterize it as casting doubt on the essential truthfulness of that statement so why is that   identity theft or that this that the that this challenge evidence constituted evidence of a very better very broad level of identity theft and that presenting that writing someone else's name on a credit card convenience check was also a form of identity theft that at this very broad level pretending that you you know that a document is legitimate when it's not is the same as making a document list of the evidence that came in the government's case in chief pushes the slide anything taken from the hotel room and the credit card checks whole package of information about kimberly nelson yes she admitted for the officers it was a made up name yes checks that had been made to pay for a public story to her and the yes  list kind of goes on the point of my question is even if there is a problem with its use as impeachment wasn't there are substantial relevance even without the hotel room contents to satisfy the conviction and therefore why isn't it harmless or that there was sufficient evidence without it i think is a slightly different question your honor with respect and i wouldn't you know i would i wouldn't disagree that there was documents and so forth those sort of went to mr thompson personally that she had made up this name that she had bought a cell phone in this name that she or that she had near this name she had a car in this name and so forth but the information and the documents that was seized from the hotel room showed her in a completely other light not as someone who had assumed something of herself on her own behalf but someone who was doing things that would have played into all of the fears that you know ordinary jurors you know normal members of society would have about their personal information i mean when you lose when someone steals one of your checks and try and put on the defense that she was putting on which was lack of intent lack of knowledge was by testifying herself and i mean i think that it meeting that evidence it for the purposes of the government's cross examination really put her in a tight spot that either she could put on her defense and go go forward with it or she could not put on her defense and not face this evidence i mean look at th inappropriate i don't know of any your honor however i would point the court to the derrington case where there was a misdemeanor conviction that came in against the defendant i presume on cross examination to show that it was more likely that he had committed the crime with which he was charged they each crime with which he was charged was stealing timber essentially from a national forest and he had had a state to harvest timber and steal it from the national forest but it also exceeded the limits of his permit as to the private land which was a misdemeanor i mean i can't i mean i would have to look at the case again and i don't want to you know mislead the court very high level of generality there the same thing assault against protected timber i believe that's how the court phrased it that the they're really not the same thing and you need a closer connection between other act please the court my name's elaine lou i represent the government in the subpoena i'd like to start before i start i'd like to just clarify one point that defendant devote some of her reply grief and i think this would help narrow the issues for the fourth amendment issues that are before the court the senate has spent some time in her reply brief arguing that the incriminating nature of the documents could not have been apparent from the doorway and based on the record before the court the government is not arguing otherwise so we do have to supply it goes against the rationale of randolph it runs counter to the social expectations that inform the randolph opinion randolph discussed the social behavior of the guests standing at the door confronted with two tenants that changes when one of the objects in tennant is not at the door by virtue of the fact that the took co tenants have joint and equal access to the premises and they need to fully they have mutual not exclusive use of the other property when one tenants rights have to take priority because they're there shared their shared tenancy assumes the risk one of them will admit a guest whose presence would be of noxious to another in the absence of that get the children's consent and it wasn't on the books when during suppression hearing and i think that that is a very good reason why this court should not disturb the district court factual finding that the purpose for the officers going up to the room was not to conduct a search but to check on the wellbeing of the children because that's it under the case law at the time within this circuit yasser had no reason to fabricate a different reason for going into the room  well there is a reference to a parent and child hierarchy in randolph but here is why i don't think that that hierarchy governs or changes the outcome in this case first the courts consider the context in the randalls where there is that reference to the parent hierarchy that reference happens when the ran off court is discussing the special guest at the door a disputed invitation at the door so i would submit that a reasonable interpretation of that reference is not so much that it creates an exception to the presence requirement such that an absent parent trumps the consent of a present child but that it instead creates an exception to the general rule that one present objecting  tenants objection suffices to exclude entry so that if you have a president parent who consents and a present child who objects be present parent's consent should trump but even if the court were to disagree with that reading of the reference to the parent child hierarchy in this case factually the children were sixteen and seventeen years old very near the age of majority and by the defendant's own testimony this is that excerpt one twenty eight the children had a key to the room and they weren't they were permitted free access within the room and to the officers who were standing at the door they were clearly occupying the room the daughter answered the door and the son was sleeping on the floor next to the next to the door so the children who were near the gave the right to enter rather than right yes that's an that's another reason why the hierarchy doesn't affect the outcome here the mother of the defendant denied consent to search but the officers when they when they got to the door they got a different type of consent from the daughter they got consent to enter and speak with a daughter about their mothers about their mother's arrest i just want to go back and also touch on some examples that illustrate why it makes a difference that a energex or be at the door it c ports with so ordinary every day social expectations that somebody who is not at the door and objecting cannot bar entry for guests take for example a wife and a husband who live together with their children in a home and the husband does not get along with his mother in law he makes clear to his wife and he makes clear to his mother in law he tells his mother in law i hate you i hate you i do not ever want you coming to my house well if the present husband is present at the house he can enforce that rule and he can bar his mother in law from entering but when he leaves when he leaves the home the wife and out of affection for her mother or her own reasons can invite her mother for a visit with her and her grandchildren and as because the right the  honor i think that when you look at the randolph case you're looking at a case it's all about social expectation and it's briefing the government did a count of how often the court says at the door physically present but if you do a computing count for things like social expectation ordinary custom what is usual and so forth you'll get a count that's actually higher and furthermore that's that's the principle that underlies the fourth amendment analysis the whole rationale the base the constitutional basis of the decision and i mean i think that functionally functionally that the circumstances in this case are precisely what the randolph court had in mind in saying that the refusal of consent one cannot even cheated by the matter of concern by another and i think we put all of what we mean in our briefing and so i don't want to take any more of the court's time unless it has further questions i don't see what was the name of the office