it's very quickly the they get there and they see two people running from the residence they see a gun on the dining table they see four cellphones maybe they each belong to a different individual who knows so late they get there and they observe things to suggest that there might be other people on the premises but the they might be armed so why doesn't what they actually see no firearm had been discovered no drugs he went after the people had left the house the hot pursuit was not in the house outside of the house and they tried to use that are to justify going everywhere in this house speculation you want but what was she was to people leaving the house not not anyone hiding in the house and the open door and then you go into the carport you know she anyone there would need is there there at five thirty in the morning and they left at ten thirty eleven this is a case where there was no views of the of arrest warrant and the security history quickly about the role of the dog which you talk about a fair amount in your briefing the so i understand the way it is played out of the scene that when they first entered the house and the judge thompson's pointed out the door had been locked we had to break a window to get in and the dog did not go in at that point the dog came in if i understand the the record correctly the dog came in subsequently when they began to search the rest of the house for as they would have to see if other people were there and they pointed out that the dog could be used to detect contraband but also to to detect the presence of other humans so what what does the presence of the dog support your assertion that this was and there was an intent to conduct an invalid search from very beginning to the dark tradin other people ran out of the house the first thing they did was try to cast the people that ran out of the house that does not mean that the dog was not being used to conduct  morning they saw that the lights were on and they saw movement indicating quote that several individuals may have been inside once they punched a hole in the fiberglass of the front door and they look through that limited view that's officers were inside the home they notice that right next to the dining table where mr and as was seated in his wheelchair there were four seven forms and within ten feet of that your honor on the kitchen counter top there was a motorcycle was in an area that protected area two which the officers did not have a right to intrude and second of all the court in collins made a distinction between portions of the driveway that are more  open and areas i can to open fields and those portions of the garage of the driveway that are that have certain that are or have a certain structure are certain elements that demonstrate that it is more a private area and for instance in collins the portion of the garage where the motorcycle was at the moment it was searched that area was beyond the front per emitter of the home and it was part and part partially enclosed and that's why they found that that was part of the credible it's proper in this case around is the minivan if we look at the pictures in the exhibits in the defendant's appendix it's clear that that part of the driveway was completely open car the government merely has to establish that there was probable cause to believe that contraband could be found the exigency doesn't matter extra in the sense that the car probability that there is contraband or other evidence of crime inside and your own is in this case like the cargo van inside the garage the minivan in the driveway the lower part was  salt water mud sand the hood was hot at that point that already seen the other van with these characteristics that seven hundred kilograms of cocaine inside this all stemmed from a operation called operation beach break at since the view of the fire in the kitchen and i believe that this war and the men i'm hoping this court might make the same mistake of ignoring the fact that from the inception these agents wanted to search the house and if you have a purpose and a legal purpose because if you want to search your house you have to get a search warrant so from  and if you look at what happened after the scene the need to basically break into the house discovery seeing people run away you seen a gun on the table in the kitchen before cellphones if the judge were dismayed it was object to be reasonable for them to think there might be other people here and we're in danger we're going to we're going to do this protective sweep doesn't overcome any concerns about what their original purpose might have been even if you think it was a legitimate i wasn't that was i would disagree because the test is totality of circumstances if you want to divorce if you want to reverse the fact