just give us a minute so that i thought they were heard if you don't take it personally to the federal and state constitutions as well as state statutes for bid to police from season people with in property from their homes without a court order without a doctor's certification without any exit circumstances and without a can said but that is exactly what happened here and that is the action that the district court puppet held and which we are appealing moreover the police may not require a person to have a psychological evaluation at significant personal expense simply because his rife may have a concern about his well be rather that the constitution requires that the police have probable cause to seize the person for a psychological evaluation which they did not have here and never dial in mental health or ra requires that defendant's hea an imminent risk as opposed to a psychologist after the fact tells them was not a risk except in this case the police head one day added their own general orders which in the words of their of their personnel is their bible which they did not follow but they had their own craning and mental health issues which included numerous risk factors for suicide which they did not consult with anyone he read i'm quoting his experience to that point which is a purely subjective criteria and for that reason it is not reasonable here clearly nobody could reasonably say he was going to shoot himself with an unloaded gun no did not right at that moment right but if he wanted to he couldn't she had a magazine for the gun he could have put the magazine in the gun and it was stored in the same location so if in fact he was suicidal at that moment that's what he would have bet he would have put the magazine in the gun but he was the reverse making a dramatic comment in the same sense that you might say sho would certainly that might be considered different in this case he didn't actually make a suicide a comment he said shoot me now he didn't mean he didn't say i'm going to shoot me he's headed is ready for pushing towards her  it as a dramatic point during the argument he was having with his wife but he did not make a suicidal comment in fact the police officers bad admit he never threatened to shoot himself would never have threatened to shoot himself he had no history of suicide or friends he had no history of suicidal attempts there is no basis here no reasonable basis here to go for the evaluation was because they said otherwise they would season and then they seized his guns anyway so that was a the firearms which resulted in him having this psychological unnecessary completely unnecessary psychological evaluation that cost him emerson one thousand dollars moreover that community care to can function does not apply here and it does not apply here for several reasons the st is either the u s supreme court heard the rhode island supreme court or have ever said it applies would not permit dead in our point is that if it's a community care to can function then the laws of the community part to control which means that if rhode island says we're going to have more restrictions on what the police can do that and some other jurisdiction then in fact that limits the scope of the community caretaking function and that setting that aside the state of play is there any reason why beyond the automobile circumstance oh the update is willing to allow for the caretaking to extend well that the u s supreme court has made clear that they grow life between automobiles and houses with respect to the right to privacy what we that they were going to seize mr camillia and seize the firearms without a court order without a doctor's certification without any exit should circumstances and whatever consent there is no reason under any of the cases u s supreme court heard on supreme court which would say that the police committed truth on the privacy of the home and that matter but isn't the shouldn't the criteri the scope of community kid taking a look to whether or not there is a situation in which the police are in what could we would want to spend the night there anymore whereas on the on the other side they they are indeed going into what i say house without a warrant but that isn't that the same kind of situation with higher stakes than the situation in which you know they're they're out on the highway somewhere and you know they've got to do something about the person they've just arrested if they leave it on the be taken into custody there's a there's a th amendment claim against them and we in that same kind of a word they say here in that same kind of situation now and the reason is house to check on her husband's wellbeing they went far beyond that in fact they called him before they went to the house and told mrs camillia quote she was five then they were wet they spoke with her on the back deck and by all accounts their own he was fine he was not suicidal he was normal he was cooperative but there was no indication from their conversation with advocate for two separate holdings today the st holding is generally that the community caretaking function definitively applies to  i'd like to go back to the mcdonald case judge tell you because in the in that case you granted qualified immunity and i think judge barrett you've indicated that that would not exonerate cranston here so we need a ruling this court to definitively determine that the community care taking problem should applies to residents and i think if rainham looks at it from a public policy as to who does what does it mean in which the seizures are not even just a typical seizure seizures to force the person to have a mental evaluation which is a particularly intrusive type of caesar so what does it mean to say there's a community caretaking function to do that type of community care taking function wherever it's applied has to be applied in the realm of reason and it has to be reasonable so i understand that when you're already intruding in someone's home there's a higher standard and so what's reasonable in an automobile may not be reasonable in the home but that's a decision that the court makes on a case by case basis and that's all we're looking for here well and if you're looking for the more you want to apply your property in a protected property item in particular in it from the house what is the threshold that the gov the police officer needs to have met in order to be able to do that without any court approval or anything more to qualify as acting reasonably in pursuit of a community care taking for the officer has a good reasonable basis to determine that there is in him and in a threat of harm to anybody i think that is that's what occurred in this case that the officers in this case based on the cross facts the material facts determined that there was some basic that this person had a weapon in the house that he put it on the table that he said to his wife why do you just end it and shoot me that they knew she was so impacted by that that she when he left the house she hid the gun and the magazine in a different spot that when he came back she left the house you went to her hotel room and that she said that he was depressed i think those core facts allow an officer to use her community caretaking responsibilities to make that judgment call and i want to highlight that it doesn't and this was said in rodriguez st as morale which i hope to quote many times in this short argument it doesn't have to be the least intrusive means it has to be reasonable and i think here it was reasonable to do that really is a difference between circumstances but if we if this was a voluntary commitment case what would be the constitutional standards that would limit the ability to do an involuntary commitment well i have to go back i think if i between a rock and a hard place if we if we just leave and then seek an involuntary commitment through the regulatory means is that it's going to be too late and i think that's where the community caretaking function comes here and it has to be centered on reasonable miss and i think here it was centered around reasonable less if i can just go back to one it's into related to this  i know my colleagues say look it violated state law and whether it does or not and we've argued in the brief that it doesn't if you go back to a bit deeper origin of this k t versus du they say that the community care taking function has its origin in state law all there are sound police procedure and this court has identified sound police procedure i reasonable this and then we go to this case i think based upon the core facts here it was more than reasonable to do with the officers did here and that they ought to have that ability if i can just add the real issue in this case the actual issue is whether or not there was an efficient means to return those weapons and the district court down the wall found  because the officer said we will leave the guns if you call that number one judge the judge and me to lower court judge mcconnell determined in his decision that the record didn't show that the seizure was not voluntary can that that there were no facts to show that he openly or outwardly were suppose to that but if i could if i could just go beyond that i'm not looking for the quarter to to get caught up in bad because i think the seizure was reasonable under the community if you don't the two of us argue that their contention that the district court was wrong in so far as it found it was consensual because of trickery you don't make any argument that you defeat that the only argument i make is that i think judge mcconnell was right but i but i don't want to get into questions of fact about i know that the plaintiff claims that he did that he was told he could keep his guns and that's why i don't want to go down that ro we have to decide the only argument as you understand it that's made as to why it was not consensual was one of trickery not a contention that the c z the conditionality of seizing the guns not appealing is if the cities and towns of rhode island and we're working on it have an efficient means to return the gods then then i think situations like this where guns  become more reasonable because there's an effective means to return them we didn't have it we acknowledge that we're working on it other than that unless there are any questions i will thankfully sit