t the order that the state court issued does not authorize a search seizure of any kind it's a court order was based entirely on relief that was thought by the property owner not the government the government never asked seized so under the constitutional requirements for a warrant even if it was given orally from the bench it doesn't meet the particular had asked for the court to allow it to do but it ultimately done did the defect in that procedure would have been that it was bypassing all of the notice requirements and everything else in the correctly if you will at least they followed the ordinance or try to up to that point the only step they failed to take to ultimately satisfy everything that you say is lacking n instead the property owner if you will beat him to the punch by saying we're going to the court that i think you should go to before you touch my automobile going there first and i'm going to get an order telling you the county it can't do what the commissioners has said it can do and all the court said is everything the county did was on the up and before that or at least on the record anyway that gave that court the authorization issue a warrant a warrant can't be implicit has to be explicit it has to state the items that are going to be seized the  public nuisance but it wasn't labeled warrant still be ok with it but it didn't say that i know it didn't but it would have been ok even without the label warrant would it not and so whatever the courts at least up until the time the automobile's was were removed now if it is different from that one is because of judicial involvement right now i want to be sure if you feel we understand your case and i don't want to occupy all of your time here they came from the district court is so vague it doesn't provide any authorization any affirmative authorization for the government to go into these these vehicles in fact the written order then even come down as i even find until three days after the search took place in stark position that there is no there is no warrant and there isn't the red that nevada and the las vegas metropolitan police department i will be addressing the issues of taking the process of the fourth amendment mr peter angle representing the individual named defendants or you have a total of ten minutes between us so job so to speak that could be on the premises and the promises themselves are you arguing this is the entire premises was a nuisance and therefore the fourth amendment doesn't there more importantly if he wanted to challenge that the nuisance determination because of the condition of the vehicles he should have appealed in about a supreme court instead of bringing this up in federal court well before that happens assume that the police department at least has the duty if there is value to at least told a way and have it protected subject to whatever rules there are to get it back and to the extent that was possible that was done through  they submitted it to to us and i'm not sure exactly where it comes from is it in the records i didn't see it but is it in the record of his i don't recall whether it's in the record but i would like to bring up a point about something that isn't a record  landowner the converse is true if saying yes to the county now i didn't go so far as to say yes to the count you have simply said no to the landowner well i think that's true but it's a little bit more complicated that the nothing to nothing if you will given given the procedures that did take place a warrant would have provided no incremental benefit as far as fourth amendment protections the functional equivalen here there was a judge involved but there was no legitimate privacy interests as you can see from the photographs this property of the property where they store their junk feels with an open field about a half acre packed with about sixty vehicles separated from the home by  zone in a line of trees invisible to the public that's not the type of area where you can harbor the intimacies of home life so no one should be required in first place complaint arguing that what he was here was a public nuisance not some valuable restoration property not something of private interest so it was that was an offense to the community as a whole and the court agreed and granted based on the substantial evidence was before the you i couldn't find or at least i wasn't aware of any appraisal of one hundred thousand dollars in this record where does that come from of first of all it is it in the record or not believes in it is in the record all right so we can't entertain th t it was part is there any valuation in the record at all no there's no information there as far as the valuation vehicles are concerned if you only first with the issue of this being an open field that this was not an open field