one involved the right of privacy the other involve the property rights i think before i get into into the issues themselves it is necessary to describe the property in question it was a an apartment complex in grand rapids it's sad on a triangular piece of property on the one side the views into the apartment complex were blocked by a six foot privacy fence on the other side views were brocken and just a story or two of the apartment buildings themselves on the front norman  street most of the norman street was blocked from visibility inside with the backs of the carports that existed inside the complex there were rows you could see  st serve you've got to use it it is important to note in the exhibits reflect this the corporate head the identification number of the apartment number of the apartment that he lived in with his girlfriend that same number of the apartment was on the carport ok so that was his designated space the police officer in question is testified at the motion to suppress that he parked in this same spot frequently so yes he did have the right to use that spot and did use it free with that mind i'll take up the issue relating to the legend the dog sniff  what happened was there was a standard surveillance on this property through the use of a pill camera then i'll get to a minute and based upon that surveillance the police decided they would come onto the proximity of the area claim to the home that is the proximity of the carport to the home and it is clearly very close very proximate to the  was numerous i can say that this was the closest one to his front door and it was very it was a very quick walk from the front door to the core board so i think that lived in whether or not he frequently parked his car there so i think i would be hesitant to say that about all the car ports relating to the that being currently just on the apartments ports may be a little bit further away than this one was this one was the most proximate to the to the apartment we're talking about  the areas included whether the area is included with an enclosure surrounding the home well this property clearly was enclosed with the whole variety of privacy fences and buildings in addition to that the carport itself is closed on three sides so there was seems to me an enclosure surrounding the home especially the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by i would simply say that anybody passing by on norman street from the apartment building could hardly see the core point in the back and certainly the entrance of the carport so there wasn't a concern to what was the carport and in the pathway for any other residents of the park apartment complex to reach their apartment the carport involved spaces it seems to me to park two or three cars so i think  i'd say that true and mr may shall only use one of the spaces yes that's correct and that's the one that had his apartment number is there any evidence on the record of any other resident using any of the other on the somewhere on the carport that's correct was there any other apartment number you know on the carport and that this search was conducted by the police without a warrant a warrant that was very easily could have been obtained police and wasn't and and therefore we i mean taking that the order kidded that the police could not conduct a search of courage without a warrant and certainly the police did not have a warrant and to conduct one here now the nd issue that i raised  relates to a privacy great that is the we take issue with the lower court's order finding that the ongoing surveillance of the police that was conducted from a spanned over into the core point that that violated the th amendment right to privacy and we are i understand i am aware of the used in case that held in similar certainly have the same look as a twenty foot high and you can tell from the reviewing the exhibits in the case certainly didn't have those views from the street if we were to determine though that the houston case controlled here and that the surveillance photographs are were permissible wouldn't that when those photographs given up evidence to support the warrant of search the house or the apartment ultimately without excising out all the drug sniffing portion your honor if one reviews the the affidavit in this case it is says i don't believe that those surveillance photographs provide sufficient probable cause to justify a warrant of any time it wasn't until the officers conduct will footage from the pool camera and the talks and if in this case we're not in violation of the th amendment i'd like to start with the dog snafu by pointing out that the only issue in apartment building not his individual unit now the officer was asked during the during the suppression hearing are there numbers on top of the individual spaces and he said he did not know that was on that space itself is there anything in the record as to how many apartments are in this apartment building with the who is not although i believe that there is it's either four or eight that enter through the same in the government's brief we have some photographs and you can see it on page ok is there any evidence that will fight it is there any evidence of anyone other than mr may show using the car port to park a car the entire carport or that particular space any part of the carport yes no i don't have the site here but the her defense exhibits that were admitted during the suppression hearing they were la filed believe it might be docket entry one hundred and nineteen dollars but i would have to double check for the court and there's basically the camera log is what it was and so there's a series of just photographs in there and it does show believe other car port spots being used i'm not sure if there are any photographs there of the one directly next to mr may shots being used but there definitely were other spaces in there being here  there's no evidence in the record though that anyone besides mr may shot was parking in that particular spot but i wouldn't i was there anything to partition that spot from the other spots on the carport  there's also a photograph there's also a photograph in our brief that shows the view up into the carport from the entry area and you can see that kind of two of the spots somehow set off a little bit from the other two so there appears to be the kind of the carport is split in half i can't tell from the photograph if there's a wall there but there's two spots that are together and the other two spots that are together there are under the same roof and they are not  enclosed is it possible to see his spot from that from another spot what's going on in his spot yes sure yes and you can actually see from the entrance you can see fully into the exclude other people from using his space where his car was there is nothing in the record and that should be the defendant's burden to prove that as part of his standing his reasonable expectation of privacy in that spot there is nothing in the record that that  even assigned to that apartment or that he had any right to park there or to exclude others from parking there now i do not think that's a dispositive fact though even if this quote were to find that he could exclude others from cracking that what we have indication that mr maisha had any rights to store things there are they rise bring his life from his apartment out into that spot oh it's it's a roof with some poles holding the roof that not appear to be a wall anywhere else so there's no here any indication that he's able to use this spot to say store his barbecue grill or to come out and picnic in the spot if he's not the landlord for the police to be on the property the record is that the police officers asked the managing company the person who managed the apartment that they were given permission and that was both admitted by the officer at the hearing and there was also a affidavit from the management company that government contending that the officers had consent from the landlord to go into the carport there's nothing specific about that in the record we would not make that we would not make that representation rights our business that is no different from any other area within the parking lot it was all part of the open fields and it's not  there's no reason why expectation of privacy is there to prevent the officers from going inside and i think the final final down factor would be the steps to protect from observation  simply nothing here that mr may shot did to protect this spot from others being able to see it or walk through it in a person getting into the car next to us in the car port would be able to walk right through houston we have not even in houston we had a programmer that could look into the curtilage and this court found that that was acceptable there was no th minute violation there because it was the same view it could be seen from the street here we have even less of an intrusion then there was in houston because we do not have a camera that is looking into the curtilage the camera is looking at the parking lot it's looking at the car price is looking at the front door that is the common  door not the door to mr may shows individual unit and the district court did find that it was the same view that could be seen from the street and the parking lot which again is to open fields so the officers were committed by the open fields doctrine to be in the parking lot and to be observing these areas they also had to be in the area in the parking lot looking at these areas and in fact there was another there was other surveillance that took place in the parking lot and thief and it has not sought to exclude that or object to that so if the officers could be in the parking lot doing these areas they were certainly able to put up a camera and do the area where the photos alone and to support the affidavit taking out the dog sniffing evidence yes your honor i wouldn't say that is why was the dog why did it take place that the belt and suspenders approach your honor i officers are deciding you know should we do one more thing before we ask him magistrate judge to approve our warrants the officer testified at the hearing that the reason the detectives were on site that day was that they were there in anticipation of the search more so the search warrant was already planned at the time they decided to do the docs now they did it they had additional evidence to put that there was no violation in the docs now and that is a strong indication that this is close to the line if it's not as we would assert on the correct side of the th amendment line so for all of those reasons we asked this court to was set forth on one with all closest to the apartment complex though they and the numbers for the apartment complex as a whole the building as a whole not his particular apartment cracked the right just just see them there wasn't any place to put those numbers because you have the one with the face of the apartment complex the other wall was away from the apartment complex and then above it was just over the roof so i  don't believe in you could look at the photos themselves all this talk about people could walk around the corner of people could walk  property right in so if you look at the have on the record that this is our property right mr may show all for me what you have on the record that parking in this slot was a property right of may shot do you have a lease that says he has the exclusive right to use the space he lived the unit with the permission the police would rather where he was living there and then used the facilities like any any other inhabited so he didn't have a lease but he certainly had the rights to someone who was permitted everyone who lived in the apartment complex with that number have the right to use the one spot all the time and i think that's clear from so the fact that anyone can see the visibility doesn't mean that the