no response and then the window opens and mr will look or looked out and the officer says i asked her to open the door so we could speak to her they calm out and then importantly they take mr cr might that on both of the issues before the court that is whether the encounter is consensual and whether the subsequent statements and consent to search are voluntary are controlled by the clearly stand and i think whatever one might say just around findings that is i believe my position as of course that the findings are completely supported by the record and that those factual findings support her legal conclusions but even if this court were to have some question about any of those facts i don't think that it can be said that her findings are are clearly erroneous both with respect to the issue of the consensual encounter and then secondly with respect to the issue of the voluntar mr kraft or wasn't there and was involved in methamphetamine and was with ms summer i don't think they used the last name so then officer shane discovers the warran for mr jordan that is a probation violator war indicating don't confuse gun or grass and i think there was some testimony from the oxer that perhaps mr jordan had used better craft or maybe mr craft or had used the name george but in any event the warrant did indicate no confusion the next thing in the chronology happens just officer shanks summoned some aid from some of the colleagues they go to the motel one of the when they say they can hear movement inside but they don't do it another would say don't holler they don't say they come out they don't decide that they've got some action circumstances and begin being and  knocking down doors they basically wait for them and in about two minutes both they defend them and their pastor and some are twelve or come out of the of the motel they are it's not  in this range in his view based upon his experience was methamphetamine one of the one of the things i'd like to do is just a little bit about i'm seeing in terms of the duration and the intensity of this cont hard said no that's probably not the case it probably was done to indicate at least that he had his hand on his hip was firemen then telling the defendant in that case we don't need a warrant when the defendant is the threshold of his some rather oppressive rather authoritative display of force in the forty five police to a case like this where i think what the officers did was perfectly reasonable i don't think they displayed they did nothing to demonstrate their authority will force and i think judge brown's factual times that regard cannot be said to be clearly erroneous and i think they support the view that this is the kind of encounter which this force and the army in other cases has characterized as legitimate encounter escalates beyond what is legitimize just as an afterthought because of a show of authority which is that use force or some other on toward activity by the police which just doesn't exist back out of the equation the just the arrest then i would still submit that what these officers did that the trial court would not have found and this court should not time objectionable clear that what they were doing was conducting an archetype that they wanted a way to try to be and search and get consent and search so the government has not advocated has never taken a position that there was reasonable it presents a bit of a different situation but still i think you're in a realm where you have turned whether