the evidence seized in the ensuing search should be suppressed because the docs know by lated the fourth amendment under the test set forth by the united states supreme court in florida versus jodi but for three officers reasonably rely on then existing precedents to kentucky to conduct the dogs and they also rely on the warrant issued by the neutral magistrate to conduct a search and such as apartments but it only applies to the home and the courage the curtilage is an area so intimately connected both physically and psychologically to the home it is considered the home itself for purposes of the fourth amendment it is an area that harbors the intimate activities commonly associated with the sanctity of a person's home in the privacy of law in this case he  the property of so it cannot be curtilage of course it could be established that there was a recent expectation of privacy in an area that's not that's not the claim here is the claim is that there was a violation the fourth amendment will protect but apparently urban jewelers who don't live in single family homes have lesser protections and i'm not sure i see where that comes from from the ni the case itself doesn't seem to be saying only if there is ownership of it so how does it how does these ideas of what it means to have certainly a very high level it's not economy second in that in the case of a condominium there might be different questions about what what what area along to defend and of course in a condominium  there's a whole set of laws about what the unit on her own is what the association and there might be questions that would come up in that situation that is not the case this case the defendant didn't argue reason here and but that would be the question whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a particular common area or not that doesn't change the property that's it that's a separate now and it doesn't has nothing to do with the baseline protection property says so then that there would be we don't know how the other two would rule so what we do is we look back to prior cases and that brings us to the second reason why the this court should reverse deliberate reckless or grossly negligent disregard for fourth amendment rights and if the officers rely on existing press then existing presence for their conduct their conduct was not which they are but even if they weren't we can look to the cases of the meat diet since we're not searches that there was no expectation of privacy apartment building common areas and these were cases including other federal circuit courts and looking analysis and is your any aspect trespass that could be considered if we are looking at property looking at this was a property interest now since well your honor first the with respect and how does that factor into our analysis you know i mean well your honor there's no again that at it in terms of the reason the expectation of privacy so we have two issues one is the issue at the time and that's that really the relevant issue  prohibited and i think you talked about a lot of federal and other state authority that would be contrary to that i understand it but is it impacted in any way because the fourth district carries a fourth  movements that changes in fourth amendment law and so that trial was no longer the law even in the fourth district because of smith and certainly the officers that rely on the more recent to determine that the trial was not and the officers here also rely on the want that they secured from the neutral match so under leon evidence is not  as we were always liberty that's alexandria whether it is own lease rented or even just are privileged to serve anywhere outside that out he wants to make a difference between that when you can see the difference not much larger that this between the space for the dogs good and the door every dog sniff case came up in the context of the public whether it be a highway in a traffic stop or an airport lo or a train station and blowing the sniffs were of personal property  they were in a public place not  not the idea that you don't have a reasonable right of privacy in a locked apartment building why would one want to live in a building where the exterior door was secure you how at three twenty sergeant lotion and we don't know mr lotion extension of that but they both ride together on the same is it realistic for us to expect that a police officer would be as trying as was the attorney general in legal who has said what she said about you know we don't have anything as i understand throw them then you rely on the curtilage that this is the curtilage as close to being public i don't think that there's a difference but i don't believe it's probably it's simply not the case it's it's whether the land outside the apartment is the hurdle that was the question is that i keep reading your deans and there's lots of ideas i'm not sure see this as a search of the home they talk about a stranger comes to the front door of your home carrying super high powered binoculars he stands on the porch he uses binoculars to peer through your windows in your homes and then go on to ask has this been invasion of your home and their answer is yes it is so it is it is our concern whether or not there has been government intrusion onto it's conducted from the street from a public space and so it's a reasonable expectation of privacy defendant suggests defendant as well that's the difference between their moment and  different tack no you're on the majority of readings does not say that and that would be of course the next that the logical conclusion of that reasoning defendant's reasoning would be that it dives and if that occurs from the side from a public space property of us and so it's a search on it's a it's an unlicensed physical intrusion onto the home and followed by dogs so the concern there is that the it's a unless there are any further since we would ask thank you he's number one eight nine seven three people of the state of omar versus terrine are ron's will be taken under advisement his agenda number five on the smell move mr hayes thank you for your arguments this morning