so there can be no testimony in regards to that from that point where the judge trial judge found that he could see the fifty five gallon drums to fifty five gallon drums that he was in a position to view those two  there was no testimony down it's these drums can be observed anywhere from any other arsenal probably outside of this fifty acre track the exhibit three which is in the appendix at age in plain view at the entrance to the fifty eight which tracked so all the point is that there is no evidence that none of the witnesses testified that they observed the fifty five gallon drums from outside the property refuse it was always i'm here in the state i have a right to be here so do you think that he had a right to be on the business premises because customers at the rate to be on the business and that because there's go to the business office which was i think about a mile away typically that's what was done there may have been some rare occasions where our customer had a big item they had to be dropped off but other than that's the test morning trial mr handed he was incorrect when he said i have a right to be me so what what was the search when he was there the day your client gave him that sure what did he you once you have the huge issue of the state arriving in a parcel you know a person is a business and the person says i have a right to be here you know i think a normal person would say would want to cooperate room where you are present yourself as an officer of the state and that you have a right to do it then that's a little bit different than coming to the door and asking for permission in the sense of  are it would be our position that it would still be in violation as mr immunity did not ask consent to do a subsequent investigation and there's nothing in the state statute  authorizes the and violent right action act to inspect the arrows of property you're not licensed there is no specific statute that gives notice to anyone in the sandblasting industry that they have to keep records for the on yea or that they're going to be inspected at regular intervals this was i'm going to inspect it at a regular and rebels only because of the fact that mr hart you followed landscape truck the court counsel and this is an attorney general steven sold his idea on behalf of the people the defendants fourth amendment claim in this court fails for three independent reasons first i had no reasonable expectation of case where there are no law enforcement agent agents involved and i'm going to focus on the first of these that erroll had no reasonable expectation of privacy and it seemed less than say although course a few more than happy to answer questions about the other two and for the reasons stated in our brief we think they support the judgment regulate it right i think because it's closely regulated by the provisions in the environmental environmental protection act specifically the ones that apply here the open dumping there's there are i believe in so in the allegations in the complaint on are are far broader than i think the circuit court's ultimate judgment so the circuit court ultimately says references the testimony of the inspectors but also two sets of photographs one was a set of photographs taken by inspector harkey at his initial inspection i believe in june two thousand and seven and then a second set of photographs taken by inspector the charges were based on refuse scene at multiple inspections and the evidence there was evidence from us once veterans evidence of their non and their violation of statute and the circuit court by own evidence from these are even within the retaining walls or is this concrete wall the walls only fourteen are in many places that mr hark you can see over the wall to the ground on the inside there's no roof there's no door business and circuit court the factual findings that this was an urban wilderness where the public was likely to wander and to explore and for that reason it found it was no reasonable expectation of privacy here there was a pants apparently on the perimeter according to mr newman's testimony at least now that's not here as land that's ridgeview trust land so the fact that there's a fence there wouldn't be relevant anyway the name then in these open fields dodging cases the court said that that didn't mean that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in this land you can't create an expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable just by putting a fence around the land the question is what's the character of the area search so you just can he and both inspectors consistently testified that they didn't have to open any doors open any gates and the site was open and covered with low walls and there is no testimony that mr hannity or mr archy actually looked over that concrete while see the items inside the complaint itself here's the shell there was no evidence that they approached the concrete structure and actually looked all right there is testimony that they believe that euclid do it it's like you know there's a window to a belly and they are looking through a window believe a fair reading of the play is that the open dumping comes from the items that this business generated and did not remove in a timely fashion it's two fifty five gallon drums on the outside there is no testimony closed otherwise that would have been a violation if it was open to the atmosphere so but mr r l well if everything is that those are your grounds we're not a part of the open dumping so it's our position there adds the mr there especially did have a right an expectation of privacy in iran that's exactly what the inspectors did here was they believe that they had a right to go where they want and it's our position that they did not and that the constitution requires that they are to you know warrantless searches particular please and they did not and the actual items that were he looked for the property owner and then you went to various locations on the property went north and then came all the way down south and that's where his office the five gallon drums and then from there he took his vehicle into the entryway into the property he did not know we won't operate between on the street and the trust property the last public road and he didn't know it was a mile from the last public road a five miles he did not know any distance  somebody objects you think he was there in a bad way when he made that i believe he believed that so you believe that you have the right to do it the argument was that the statute sad is that you have a right to be on private or public property and i don't believe that that's