the summons but i think the court can infer the evidence would be that showing that miss summons had intended to vacate that restraining order and i think the inference that the court could draw from the evidence  the motion to suppress hearing was that based upon the relative frequency of mr bayh's say in the summons house that he likely believed that there was no straining order in effect on july twenty nor the ever ever police know that mr begg was living or residing at that location they arrived to this summons home there were multiple police officers who came to her door the summons had a young child who was at the home and feeling coerced and pressured by the large presence of police we did not have an air search warrant but merely had an arrest warrant she felt compelled by their  presence in effect to involuntarily assented to their entry to the home they came in and immediately found mr berry in one of the bedrooms and a black backpack near but mr bad they didn't know whose backpack it was we resolution of this i don't necessarily agree with that i think it becomes a credibility issue and the court can determine whether or not it was credible to believe given the police officers at someone's store where they are housing a young child cannot be overstated under the circumstances i think that miss summons well in the sense was over borne by the presence of so many police officers who were clearly stating their goal to make entry into her home and she previously gone court and asked the court and law enforcement community to protect her from him and keep them away up i just want to be clear so i can respond correctly you're asking me whether or not it was reasonable for the police to have a belief that she was cooperating that is reasonable that you know that the police wasn't reasonable for the police given that she was cooperating she was having mr best stay at her apartment multiple times a week and that was her testimony that it that she would have a radical change of mind a radical change of heart when she saw the police she had every ability one can presume or infer that if mr bay was an unwanted guest given that she had the power of this the strain in order that she could have contacted the police on any that there were i think at least four or five police officers multiple cruisers that she could see on the street when she opened her door that she didn't felt that she had any possibility to say no so i would suggest to the court i just significant seemingly per se rule that when multiple police officers come to the home it's impossible to consent to their entry i think i i don't think that the court has to stop per se and i think that that was how he on this record how could we be doing anything other all we have is as i know it is in undisputed testimony by the officer that she signal down to come in and that there were a number of officers at the door and she had a child and you'd want to say in that suggesting the court should adopt a per se role i think that that would be i think each case has to be looked upon on the facts of the case and i think that you have to look at the totality of the evidence in the case of the testimony of the witnesses to see what had followed to make a determination as to whether or not it was credible that she could have been feeling that pressure and i would suggest that what happened next in fact lends credence to the argument that in this specific circumstance she was not only pressured to consent to entry but also pressure to consent to the search that i think that the district judge got it right when she opined that both mr barry and  this privacy interest in the backpack and the testimony by miss summons at that time was that the police had essentially already searched the backpack and that we're now looking for consent to essentially  backpack clearly both miss summons and mr bay had a privacy interest in the backpack the question was whether or not be police officers conversations with her essentially saying you know officers are mandated reporters to d c s that that was information that they were themselves where that was information they volunteered not because it was true but only because they know that they had the power to do that and put in should do that made sure she was aware that this was just this this was something they could or would do and i think the court can certainly draw an inference based upon those communications that the only reason that she gave consent and in fact indeed cooperated with law enforcement even five days later it was because the stigma and the fear of having the c f become involved with her family and the possibility of having her child removed was was significant and overpowering such that she had no choice but to agree and i would suggest that there is given that  law gathers they they were haven't you said i don't think so because there when you ask me if they're gathering information gathering information is merely gathering require is to make a report to d c if they have no obligation to do it unless they feel that the circumstances arise but those circumstances but only be a result of information that they gather summons perspective just to gather information because she was a president of the apartment and they needed to you know who was living there but specifically because they were gathering that information and concurrently mentioning d c summons could conclude nothing but that her cooperation and her consent was possibly going to so called keep the g c f dogs off and that is a very very powerful incentive to cause her to consent in voluntarily and i i think that one cannot again overstate the fear of parents in the likelihood of a child being removed from their  presence and certainly under the circumstances where she was had already in essence been feeling pressured to let the police in now acknowledging that she had some ownership of the backpack i think way during the time between when officers tell them said he was going to get a consent form and when he came back and gave it to her it was never opened or god through she did say something witness testimony that while she was outside the room she came back it looked like there's to report if they saw information there any other city while they were in the house this just seems to be that would have been ok for them to collect information but they couldn't say what they were collecting it for that seems to turn it on its head the idea that somehow they information and i don't know what value be served by saying that they're supposed to hide from the person they're asking the purpose of the inquiry and that said but i just look at the practical concern is you know if that's true there is a risk you could then use strategically which is not the purpose of right i mean to be mandated reporters i'm so tired of the reference to d c when you're going to do it right around the time that you need her consent to search to something that doesn't seem like it's a practice that you want the legal system to sanction right and that's i mean if there was some indication on this record that that's what happened one could raise the question even of a valid piece of information or information that should be given was just given a manipulative way that ultimately elation that the district rejected that specifically finding that because it was a different officer that raised this question in fact quite a while sometimes separated them and there was no attempt to link t time different person given the information it just wouldn't have been perceived as the kind of overpowering  plea here or there was a waiver of the p l o he was sentenced in fact to sixteen months not seventeen months which was recommended on and  therefore we should not get into the johnson issues songs and sing her argument is on johnson has some relationship to due process and once there is a constitutional allusion ada as to sentencing that that is sufficient to invalidate the waiver of the deal if you like to talk about that yes there are but i don't think there's any what we've pointed out is this is very much on a horse in terms of its actual impact with citizens so tarion case where they found that again it was a two level increase that was an abuse of position of trust increase properly applied it was clearly a properly applied it applied under circumstances in level increases exactly what the impact of the trouncing there was here and i guess the suggestion would be the somehow an error of the same magnitude having the same impact i guess to in similar ways somehow becomes differen sentencing you know whether any of the other circuits have directly with this question in johnson contacts to be honest i don't know i don't and i would be happy to look and see if anything i did not find anything police officers one of whom actually remarked upon the intertwining with the issue of the information gathering in the fact that it was a different attack that i would suggest a strategic effect to the fact that there were multiple officers there and that the officers were all privy to the same information the fact they were two different officers didn't necessarily negate the fact that there was like a  wenty five months as opposed to eighty four to one in five months so that was the difference but i suggest to the court that even under miscarriage of justice standard that the implications for mr pay were real in terms of the difference understand that the court was looking at those different that g s r base offense level and although there was a plea agreement of seventeen months the court still had the available information  r to inform her about the appropriate sentence yes the fact that he had a firearm at the location was a factor in her decision but even a reduction of sentence for a period of months would have