is enclosed on two sides by a brick wall about the height of a car then the sure third side by house here we've got a driveway which extends past the front door past the back door  juncture being next to the back yard correct that's right the second part of your first point was that they went to the officers went to that location to do a search what what portions of the record ar relying on for purposes of what the officers were doing when they got to the end of the driveway so in this case the officers decided knocking at the front door which is what jardin so we just checked those were both closed so we went right past officer guzman testified at appendix one twenty four when asked a great goalie did you go to the front door he said no when asked where did you go and actually llance did witness that none of the three officers that testified at the hearing had eyes on the house so they were relying on the test reports that were coming over the radio and  door there's an implicit license to do that because that's no more than a delivery person or girl scout would still do what we need to do if there was no answer then the officers would have exceeded their applied license they can leave and they can get a warrant but they cannot venture into their back yard with officers did here was really no different than if the front door had been open they had received no answer and they walked right into the house and started looking around and there bright line rule and charging you cannot past the front path but that's exactly what the officers did here so they entered the part of the driveway that's private and protected by the fourth amendment and they started looking around and intrusion we just assume for purposes of argument the joint team does not mean answer the question here definitively but collins does under those circumstances the government is relying on davis french are really only dealing with whether there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in a driveway they're not dealing with the trespass theory that we're asking this court to apply here and i see that i am want to get some sense of the role of the friskies here because i understood your argument to be that this intrusion was actually you know considerably more intrusive than a terry stop would be on a public way since we've got officers coming in to a backyard private space surprise the residents whose litter and then frisk asking any permission and it confiscated his cell phones because mr chavez was alone on his property were really the only way that he could have communicated with another person and the district court in if it's given in a public park then it is if it's given in a person's own living room and error follow up on that consent issue the scope of the consent when our instructor guzman is testifying at the suppression hearing he's talking about this distinction between the word property written in english on the spanish side of the form and he indicates that he used the spanish version of the word property he admits that he does not list the shed although we list vehicle and garage but then apparently he does some sweeping arm movement when he's testifying and he confirms that that's what he did in front of  that he either points to verbal e announced or end writing announce that they plan to search the sad this is an area where there are four structures officers knew of all four because they conducted a protective of all four but when it came time to ask for mr chavez this be sent to search they named three of those structures there were tens of structures on the property there were four and they named three of them so any reasonable person in that case would have understood they only wanted to search the three that were specifically named this court and lemon stated that general consent form does not make a search any broader if there conversation about the consent form was quote possibly the minutes and officer who's been testified that mr chavez reviewed the form for quote a couple seconds before signing it and again in this case because of the pat down because the officers were standing around on his property because they had already conducted a protective sweep mr chavez felt at that point that objecting to the search despite the written directly motorcycle was surrounded in an enclosure has two sides or three sides of the house came on the sides and that enclosure was directly outside the side entrance to the house was clearly a tab and a material way to the house and that that is very distinct difference here in this case there was there were no gate no fences and the wall that we floated in terms of civility and francis that's not conclusive that's correct but confident that those things are not conclusive not that they were relevant the the wall that we've been talking about on the side of the driveway that actually separates the two driveways is actually a retaining wall that the obvious testified that the house next to the house in question here was about two and a half feet elevated part of the property was elevated from the property  upon which forty five or five new bricks and to the retaining wall was basically like a it i'm not saying it was the bench i'm just saying it was in fact used by the defendant as a bench and that was about the height so it wasn't something that front door appeared to be shot they had seen no entry or exit from the from the house between the time of the of the advance that they were investigating and the time that they entered the side door which which is approach by the way the front door is approached by the driver brake the both the front door and the side door approach by the driveway if what happens is you go up the driveway and then you either can turn off onto some little steps that make a small front porch on the were surprised to see him when there's a difference between being surprised to see him in a hammock on the side as they come as they just pass the perimeter of the house and they purely walk to the back of the house and just beyond that you could see the defendant and a hand just like with your eyes you could see it if you're standing at the corner of the house i think there's a difference between being surprised and shocked to see him there where everything is quiet as they walk up then being completely shocked to just see that the defendant is anywhere in the area i don't think that that was what they were intending that let me take you to pitch twenty one of your brief about halfway down here right when the officer saw defendant last he had exited the garage towards the back yard observing but their collective knowledge based on the radio reports were that that's where he was last seen and then you go on it was reasonable based on these really are observations for the officers to approach the back of the house where they blasted one of their primary concern was that there would be multiple people with your safety that there be multiple people in that general area that would would potentially endanger officers were there intrud i mean you've got a man lying in a hammock in his back yard police head don't have a warrant they're not in hot pursuit there are dogs are in circumstances and they walk situation than a knock and talk let's say that that goes through a back door or follows walks into a driveway or whether please proceed into the driveway we recognize that collins rais together though it's pretty hard to see why you go past the front door in this case i would say judge that that actually all of these cases are limited by their facts and the reality of property location or whether it constituted courage and also the officers purpose for being there and i think that here there's no there's no dog there's no there's no evidence the evidence does not support the notion that the officers were flooding the backyard in order to turn it over and looked at everything they could what they were it's obvious from their conduct there what they were intending to do was just to meet with the defendant and plainly every officer is going to see sense i mean we're not saying that that wasn't part of it but that that that's very different thing than saying that they just marched into the back yard and started ripping everything apart they didn't start ripping a really apart that's going on until they got the privacy in a driveway and have permitted officers to to it to conduct searches and to and to approach houses beyond the front door if that's what we're going to say and really up to and including the garage i mean there are cases that permit that and i think that that would be the narrowest way to decide this case that way it's not necessary to determine here case had a good faith basis for believing that they could remain on the driveway they did remain on the driveway and i think that's that's that's the narrowest rate at this court to decide it wouldn't the officer already know when they with they knew they knew they had reasonable or probable cause to believe that a drug transaction had occurred in the driveway or that drugs were drugged up or that their narcotics that's the van traveled all the way to rockford and went to this house backed up into the driveway only back at through the driveway into the garage but was too big to fit into the garage and so it did something weird and then left i believe that i mean that's that's what i believe too but your question i thought was even more specific than that which was it was just before the officers you know set foot on the driveway was that it was a poor they got out of their cars an walk up there they intended to confront or meet or talk to the defendant was their goal they attempted to do that in a manner that w for the officers in the sense that there might have been other people back there although no one had been seen the door to the front and the door the side were closed and nobody had come in or out so they had no reason to believe that there was that  matter of routine i would not say that they have said that it's perfectly fine to conduct a frisk as a matter of routine i do think that in and the context of a interchange with a with somebody who is believed to be and there aren't business that officers will and should protect themselves by doing a protective sweep recall that they did not even ask airport where the person is free to walk away or in his own backyard or at the front door at some point ms but i mean she does that suppression hearing testimony talking about officers that end up walking down the driveway my understanding and i think it's my understanding is that that was that was what was seen by officers who were  conveyed by radio so there was a collective knowledge of the officers appollo those facts my understanding so the officers when they're walking down the driveway they're aware that there may be a person in the house the  or that property they also know that the individual who would have driven the van from midway midway area to rockford is now left is that correct correct that's correct they would have known that there was that someone may have entered the back of the back entrance of the house or they or that someone might be in the backyard i don't know that they actually expected someone to be in the actual yard chavez when they got to the side door they were not able to see him until they passed the rear of the house officer weary testified that they got all the way down quotes a corner of the house where i could see the back yard area and that's when he made visual contact with the defendant it's not that they were standing at the side door when he was able to see them second the government attempts to distinguish collins by  fourth amendment protections because it was visible to the street and any person could walk down that area but as according current said quote the ability to observe inside curtilage from a lawful vantage point is not the same as the right to enter curtilage without a warrant for the purpose of conducting a search for exactly what the officers did here they walked into the curtilage past the bright line rule set forth by turkey and the government's contention that the fourth school limited by the facts is just completely wrong in the face of their sports president and the supreme court's precedent the fourth amendment is all about bright line rules officers need to know where they can and cannot go charging while the search was happening at the concrete wall officer weary testified that he was able to see the garage and the residence but that his view was blocked because one of the buildings and so it's not clear from the testimony whether officer we're here and there by mr chavez we're actually able to see the shard and so that goes against the district court's point and the government's point that excuse me please stop searching my shed at that point his consent was already involuntary officers were already at an unlawful to interview no person would have refused consent or attempt to stop the officers at that point and here again to the government's point that if there was perhaps reasonable suspicion or probable cause that may somehow justify what the officers did here that goes completely against  attempted to get around that little by walking down the driveway past the back of the house and conducting what they called a cursory search of the area before meeting mr chavez in his backyard