enter a a premise the subject of a warrant merely without reasonable belief that the person lives there or that the person is present at the apartment at the time of the execution of the war  the court below found that the reasonable belief that would have satisfied painting was was satisfied by five essentially five facts one being that detective leahy search multiple databases find the subjects address and that the most recent address that he found was from a warrant that was issued from criminal court six months earlier and that contained information the address of which th information was at least a year old we submit that was stale and that's an issue for the jury to decide the court also found the second fact that the sorry the third fact that the woman who answered the door my client ms  quote not home that's what my client testified to below and that when the officers and then that all forces heard a male voice those are the facts that the  district judge judge kogan found satisfied payton that that was sufficient for the officers to form a reasonable belief that the subject of the bench warrant was in the premises and lived there that the mother who answered the door said he's not there and that he heard a male voice what i wanted why wasn't that enough the bench warrant was six months old you said yes to six months earlier his address was listed a particular address i mean i'm not even looking at all the evidence in the record but the knock on the door and it woman answers and says yes i'm his mother i'm his mother doesn't mean that he lives there is a twenty three year old he could have moved out are cases where you  is very clear ah good when it's very early you expect somebody to be there then leave aside whether she said he's not hold me leave aside the question of whether he heard a male voice isn't a wrist plent different about this i don't believe so judge i believe that pain requires more a reasonable belief that he is present at that time is not found the song merely him being listed on a warrant that address being listed on a warrant that's six months old and that warrant that address was a year old so there they can take information a police officer can form a reasonable belief that somebody is present based and based merely on the fact that their address the earlier was there if and and this is early in the morning isn't that enough to say it's good you don't like leave it to somebody who's been there at least you know i would say directly but at least we're qualified  know judge i believe there's more there was no absolutely no additional investigation many of the second circuit cases require that the police officers at least do some investigation ask other tenants whether or not they've seen the individual they didn't even ask his mother if he was there and are was if he was home if that was his home that they call the experience for people to look in their address books if i want to know a friend address i look in my address book and i see an address that was written hardly ever was written two days ago it was usually written a year ago four years ago ten years ago i look at it and i say i know his address and that's where he lives that's correct and that you know and that was written there six eight ten years ago so it could be wrong they could have moved that's correct and that would you know allow the officers to perhaps begin their investigation but once they get there does it rise to the level of forming a reasonable belief i don't believe it does i think they do need to do more we're not talking about proof beyond reasonable doubt that's where he lives we're talking about a reasonable belief it's not reasonable to think that someone lives where they  you have documentary evidence that they lived a year ago especially when it's supplemented by information that this being a young person it turns out when you knock on the door that it's his mother's apartment it's still it's now his mother's apartment i believe judge that the information that it being that old and him being that young there is reason believe that he could have been elsewhere he could have so yes does it or by them you believe that he would be there that's correct and if somebody tells me this is somebodies address and i go over there and a time when people who live there are likely to be viewers seven am in the morning was well depends on how all that information is judge someone told you ten years ago that an individual lived a certain location you went there and would you have a reason would you then have a reasonable belief where is the line drawn under this rationale you could be sure information that you live there on an information of any vintage twenty years earlier it hasn't any use i mean maybe difficult to figure out where to draw the line it wasn't twenty years here sure and it wasn't six months and walking about an eighty five year old like me and be information used twenty years from now there is unlikely that i would still be there but if you're talking about a kid like this it looks very different a young man judge who may be in the prime of his i understand that's not that can be considered i respectfully i do think that and i'll wait for rebuttal in this that the other question reasonably believe that he's present is more pressing court my name is elizabeth friedman and i'm appearing for the defendants are police your honor in this case certainly the police investigated adequately investigated and formed a reasonable belief that in fact kedar harper the subject of the bench warrant was not only lived at the premises but they also reasonably believe that he was present at the premises i'll go directly to what plaintiff is disputing here and basically  she said that he she told the officers the detective leahy testified or submitted an affidavit that the plaintiff told him when she answered the door that kids are harper was not home she later disputed that and tried to say well i really said he was not there whether or not she said he was not there he was not home she did acknowledge that she was his mother and that cater harper was in fact her son and in fact she never disputed that there towards his residence and that he lived there so in fact the court need not even consider whether or not the court may not really need need to reach that alleged disputed fact because in fact the police had other ample other evidence to show including the fact that plaintiffs admitted that she was a kid or harper's mother and that the bench warrant was in fact for her son i also want to point out that plaintiffs cannot later dispute something that she explicitly said at her deposition to raise an issue of fact that was stated in her deposition those exact words that he was not at home was used at the deposition the plaintiff also claims that the bench warrant was stale i'd like to point out that there is nothing what what amount of time would make a bench warrant stale that bench warrant was issued six months before detective leahy started to investigate it in addition plaintiff does not come forward with anything to refute the fact that there was not only an eye card an investigation card the detective leahy looked at and also came up with that address but two other confirmatory id car i card but also born of that address in fact in the numerous searchers that detective leahy engaged in numerous computer searches there was not a single other residential address that came up for this particular subject for kate or harper so i would submit that in fact there was in fact due diligence done here in fact not only in his affidavit detective leahy outlined the due diligence and the numerous computer searches that he undertook which the district court also acknowledged but on page two eighteen of the record the a d d five in which detective leahy lays out all of the all of the information that he gathered and all of the computer for that he did that's a pitch to eighteen of the record and he talks about in there he outlines all of the computer searches that he did so he basically described those in his affidavit and there's nothing the plaintiff does to refute all of the computer searches were done three confirmatory i cards not just  initial one the detective leahy was assigned but he came up with two additional i cards that also bore this particular address for the person the only address that came up in the searches was miss one there was an address from nine forty can't never knew from two thousand and nine but that came up as part of an investigation no indication that that was a residential address in addition plaintiff never denied that in fact this was  plaintiff now is trying to dispute that detective leahy heard a male voice inside the apartment that male the detective did state in his affidavit that he heard a male voice inside of the apartment again the court need not even reach that argument because there are so many other indications here in terms of the early morning hour and in fact the plaintiff doesn't dispute that the detective heard the male voice there doesn't have to be the officers reasonable resides in the premises and if in fact there at that early hour that a reasonable belief the detectives can go in and they have a right to enter the apartment to search they do not have to take into harper's mother's word for it and that would allow any roommate any romantic partner to deny entry to police officers when they are seeking to search for a subject of an arrest warrant so certainly just as in people it's actually united states versus lovel the officers did not need to take her word for it and they cannot bar the offer she cannot bar the officers from going in and searching the premises the court properly granted the motion for summary judgment and unless of course any further question miss harper did not deny that that was his home because she was never asked if it was his home and more importantly however if this court allows this decision to be upheld what that means is that the police can go to any relative's home where the subject lived in the past and enter despite what evidence to the contrary there may be that he that he is present the  there is no line judge and i believe that that is the key here that requires a jury to find whether or not that warrant was stale a mother saying home a mother will always say that her child that her home where her she raised her child is the home she's not going to you know that is not an indication that he that it's currently his home and that he is present there and that doesn't give a reasonable belief that he is present there especially when she says that he's not so i don't believe that the court can take an affirmative representation that he is not there as a representation that he is there despite the early hour morning thank you and let's take the case under advisement that's the last case on the calendar this morning