good morning your honour's counsel may it please the court my name is chris to heart i represent mr atlas a worthy appellant in this case and my goal here is to reserve three minutes for rebuttal the first question i will address is whether the initial entry into mr le source home earlier in the day without a warrant was excused by the emergency aid doctrine and the second question to address would be if in fact it was not excused and the presence of the firearm was excised from the affidavit in support of the search warrant was there probable cause to support a search later in the day so regarding the first question the first prong of the sn test is whether the officers had an objectively reasonable basis to enter the home under the emergency a doctrine that is there were that whether there was an immediate need to protect others or themselves from serious harm and as the supreme court put it in brigham city versus stewart officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury play so they had had some that had some prior contact the police had knowledge that a twenty day domestic violence protective order also protected e l from having any contact will assure the police knew that was sure his condition separately from a previous criminal case perscribe him from entering the home shaffer's understanding that it all previously had been suicidal had mental issues and suffered from bouts of depression and after the officers knocked on the door and identified themselves in response to lister's question mr and e l went silent when iall met with the officers that the dorner bathrobes she appeared to be very uneasy scared and kind of skittish according to the officers and made real quick hand movements and had movements and seemed reluctant to answer questions so they have all that when they go to the door right but they have some of that i'm not entirely sure that's one hundred percent accurate so the history that we know that's part of the record is that the officer shaffer who had been to the house was familiar with the couple we know that sometime in early january mr the store was arrested on january seventeenth he was released on conditions of release according to those conditions of release which are in the supplemental excerpts of record at page fifteen he was ordered that the seventeenth essentially to give miss list for about twenty four hours to get out of the home so he was to stay away from the home until seven pm the following day january eighteenth and she was to find a new place to live a week later on january twenty fourth missler is back at the home  violation of although it's the order a condition of release against mr lewis or she according to the record was present in the courtroom and that order was issued and she made the choice to go to mr  she assaulted mr le sore at her home at his home on that day he called the police the police came but seeing no visible injury to mr le sor did not arrest  went and got a domestic violence restraining order against miss list or i'm january twenty fourth and that was granted on the basis of mr lister is live testimony under oath before a judge in alaska  that was served on mr sor then later she is again back at the home now yes she contacted her mother who being held hostage  was being held hostage it's not enough for officers to go to the house and even if she looks like she's ok to check it out it's ok for them to go to the house they knocked on the door mr list or didn't open the door but he virtually answered he asked who is it so that's the place please knock again and then this list or answers the door so mr lister is inside the house he is not stopping this list or from answering the door he's not stopping this list or from interacting with the police or leaving the house apparently the police seem asleep for they interact with her at the door she has no visible signs of injury there she skittish she seems reluctant to answer questions but at that point then it's the officer's obligation to undertake to determine what is happening instead they just went in to get to the bottom of what was going on what's wrong with it and in the sense of let's say you've got a hostage situation somebody comes the door they're skittish they don't have any injuries but there might be somebody with a gun in the next room saying don't tell them anything so what's wrong with the officers going on under that scenario and checking it out but do you don't have to show injury at all it's like to invoke the emergency doctrine no indeed you do not but you had to have to have an objective objective or reasonable leaf that the person is about to be injured there is no evidence that the even asked her if she wanted to leave there's no evidence that they had any kind of other than the quote unquote she was from a lot of us are in danger and a volatile situation there could be other people in the house that could be someone else with that gun that if they don't secure or if they don't keep their eyes on the people someone could go i mean domestic violence things go upside down all the time they do go on and on the people that are they are they have murder suicides they shoot officers they do all sorts of things and so it's it's it's you know it's they're very volatile situations they can be but here officer shaffer the officer who testified at the evidence rehearing indicated that he had been to the house a number of times before and that they had never been confrontational with him there had never been any kind of as a culture cation or any kind of resistance with the officers they said he said they had a hard time getting to the bottom of what was going on but they never ever had any kind of confrontation and so at least according to officer shaffer he did not have that type of fear that you might have in other domestic violence cases and i see i'm down to two minutes now to reserve twenty seven seconds yes thank you familiar my name is well taylor and i represent a government in this appeal so i want to start off by it's an objective analysis but that trooper i'm sorry officer shaffer testified over and over again th entered to make sure she was safe and it was based on on his history with the couple as well as the information he had when he went to the scene so i mean he knew he'd been out there before that they have some sort of volatile relationship  contact with mr lister before e mail had been reported missing and he was so concerned he actually called out the homicide detectives and as he said he later learned that he had actually just run away and did not want to be found by mr l r and again they give that nine one one call so the mother is out of state shows she sends a message to someone who's in state and they call nine one one then police are dispatched and so the information they have you know at the time is they know there's these kind of competing domestic orders conditions of release so you know from the officers perspective the understand that there is a volatile ongoing relationship ok let's fast forward because as i understand the circumstances they finally arrest them both take them out correct or they put him in handcuffs a rebuttal from the house and then they find the guy so what justifies the search after everything's been secured and there's a subsequent search of the house and then cover the gun so i try to cover some point the emergency is over thirty so when the defendant initially filed his motion to suppress when he put in his factual basis he said  went into the bedroom with the female so she could to make sure there was no weapons so she could get her clothes and leave the house and he said she was dressed and then the officers left the house the officers there's no real evidence presented on the s and because everyone agreed that that was the course of events and the defendant specifically said officers left the house and attend a search warrant return the next day so that that's not what happened the officers didn't go in and start rooting around for evidence and then the officer claim that he had to secure the property and that's where he found the gun right so what do you mean secure the property the two persons are already outside of the property is no one else there what's to secure it secure to make sure no one else goes in and either you can do that by closing the door well that is what happened he was he wasn't hearing it from the outside of those secure the property by looking round before you close the door and just walk in close the door but and that's what i cover that is not what happened he was not looking around inside the house but how do these who got he saw that he saw the gun laying on the floor of the bedroom when he had to go into the back bedroom with e l so she could retrieve her clothing suggests that he was there after the two of them had been removed and then he looks around and sees the gun and to me it's kind of a big difference that would be a big difference for that is that that's not what happened that's not i will be confident that because it's at what he says affidavit he was securing the residence and he had sort of the victim cell phone and gun and d v r camera in the residence now maybe that's two separate things maybe it's not a it wasn't entirely clear to me that he didn't go back have been saved by an immediate police response and you know the reasonableness of the officers action is is judged by a reasonable officer at the scene rather than twenty twenty hindsight understanding that they have on certain incomplete and rapidly evolving information setting aside the initial entry even if the evidence that a gun was seen was removed from the affidavit there are still more than sufficient probable cause to go in and search the residen assault she for vides a timeline of when it happened she said what act occurred to her how they occurred to her that a weapon was used that she was strangled she fits her fired at a specific make and model of the gun she has a specific account of how the gun was obtained where it was obtained and when it was attained she also told there's also information on where evidence could be found that would corroborate her account of the sexual assault she had agreed to undergo the start examination process and specifically she says there's a camera system inside that will have evidence of this so that alone if you have  have been sexually assaulted there is a camera system that is going to verify that that would be enough to get a search warrant you know the argument that well she could be lying it's not enough to defeat a fair probability th search warrant the thirteen subs to pair graphs that don't include the one sentence observation from inside the house would have been enough to issue even if this court finds that the police shouldn't have entered on to the emergency exception the only thing that was corroborated of mis statement that was included within the f a a david is that there was a d v r camera system nothing else is corroborated her that what they argue is a specific description of assault there's no evidence to support that that he picked her up and brought her to the house there's no evidence to support that that he asked her to go buy the fire there's no evidence to support that so far have to be yes because she's not a witness who's witnessed a crime she is one she's there in violation of the divestiture violence restraining order she was in there she was there a week or two weeks earlier again in violation of the order so what's your  that cited in my brief says that citizen witnesses versus cia's are treated differently and mr is neither a citizen witness nor is she a c i she is part and parcel of what's been going on she is also herself a domestic abuser and she is at the residence in violation of the restraining order and the officer in question knew that she had mental health issues and that she had previously law and put any citizen what ness can be impeached  and i don't know why she's not a citizen witness it was i guess because of all the things that i just said that she's aka she's an impeachable one and i know all that nits now but so then then they need to corroborate at least some of what she said and they did not do that and so here as to the initial entry into the home it is not clear when our how or or why they searched the home they apparently according to what the government has said and what was written in the defendant's motion to suppress an officer escorted miss listener into the bedroom to get some belongings but then she didn't get her cell phone which would have had the evidence that they say w i and there is no specific holding that says there is a spectrum but that the court this court does discuss what appears to be a spectrum of different types of witnesses excuse me and whether you're if you're a citizen witnesses witness and have no interest in what's happening and you just provide information to an officer sure but when there is a long and storied history between the two parties at issue then there needs to be some