case it was decided by the u s supreme court on monday the opinion was issued january twenty two twenty eighteen it's district of columbia versus west b there's two points made four eight five it was decided monday and if you advise opposing counsel here i just discovered it myself basically two points to be drawn from it because it's not specifically factually on point with this of the of the circumstances they reiterate that course that's a familiar principle rather than individual facts and i think in this case there's been a tendency for the police mr pelton to look at individual facts the dogs the cars out front the light on the porch you need to look at the totality of the circumstances and i think in our brief when i was writing my argument i said you know i reset everything in my reply brief i don't know why i'm rewriting it in my argument notes but we need to focus on the overall picture if any case cries for out for a noble review it's this one the comment by the district court judge and i want to get it right they were looking for anyone that had brandished a gun that's exactly what these officers were looking for now they went to the wrong house they had the wrong people but the circumstances that they had gave every appearance in in the exigency of the situation where they had to respond to a life threatening situation and there's no denial that there was a life threatening situation of another house nearby they had to make a decision both officer said we intended to matter because there is a list of items that had been a fan of the home and it seems to me that the totality of the circumstance would be selling when you walk up to that place what is the indication that you are confirmed in the right location and those individual datapoints matter to say that you know what kind of cars were in the drive what was it what was described about mr  or was it the worse singular they and that was a different color or their dogs about the location did the gentleman have had a certain color on and i guess what i'm struggling with is when the answer to the connection between what you've been told and all of those data points are missing from the location at which the police officers arrive at what point do they need to a value hate or reevaluating their impression that that's the right but there's two responses that first the the time for evaluation was cut short on the officers because suddenly they were confronted by the woman of the man that came out of the house to the rose thompson pelton doesn't that also matter because the the report was that a man is holding a woman with a gun two or hated and when up there's the woman standing on the front porch that's right but the question is when you would get a you got who turns out to be a somewhat angry woman followed by a obviously angry man and as officer p pointed out this is kind of what one expects to encounter a domestic violence situation and there's often resistance from the victim you that circumstance and so that wasn't anything that would dissuade him or dispel his suspicions is that part of the totality of this circumstance that they could have and absolutely did not answer the guys the old guys question about why were they there if they were focused on trying to get the man of the woman separated to make sure that neither of them especially the man was in fact the guy with the gun the member there had been a report of a gun there's no question that the existence of a gun of another location in that neighborhood is undisputed and their focus was on we've got to find out where if there's this gun here or the they weren't i mean could they give an explanation i suppose sure they could have but they weren't looking to give explanations they were looking to get everybody in place and under control and is that the best technique you know you can debate that after the fact we can debate the law and officers at the time don't have the opted for debate they just want to get safety control as piper pointed out if he had huge i don't know why they should have because you can debate back and forth with the should he should or should not but the question was had the two people simply stopped in response the offer saying please put your hands up and let us ask you you know clarify what the situation is that was their focus that was the focus they chose to have i think it's reasonable a reasonable choice among the alternatives given the gun situation  mentioned the various factors the dogs the hat the situation with those is that they're all transitory items the dogs of course they said their dogs outside but arturo cooper so they're taking the dogs inside so there's no expectation there's still be dogs outside of the time a hat is easily taken off the porch light it was a question of perspective arturo cooper said i see a light on well how do we know can you see that from the front of your house are turtle what window or us he's back in his bedroom so all these were transitory things that could have the important circumstance as well as we've gone to a domestic lead to a call in of a domestic dispute with a gun we encounter rushing out to us before we can talk clear from your brief and your opposing counsel very what the officers of those items that mr cook are related did he did they hear everything from the nine one one call i can't be absolutely certain i had the same question as i was reading through materials did they absolutely hear everything in his deposition produce that he pretty much had heard each of the things  counsel who through them questioning him so for the purpose of the argument i'm kind of making the assumption that they heard all those things the dispatcher was talking and i think but again all the things were transitory so it doesn't change the ultimate result the other thing as far as the angry woman and the angry man coming out of the house being the first thing the encounter when suddenly as most play for said i've got to keep my attention to what i'm being confronted with that new case from the supreme court also says it all reminds us this is been said before but reminds us that officers can make common sense inferences based on their experience peiffer and purdue especially had testified that he been in a situation where a domestic violence expert had exploded in violence when the police were there and so the officers can make the commonsense inference from their experience that if i go to a house was been reported domestic violence and i find an angry woman suppose of the victim to still angry that's not unusual and if i find the angry man that's also not unusual i've been covering a woman angry man where i think there's  violence into the incident that's really in my common sense inference based on my experience this is pretty much what i expect to find all these other transitory factors they're interesting to think about but i've already found confronting me the exact thing that i expect to find at the site and you know if they had answered the questions there wouldn't have been any kind or at least just stop and put their hands up like they were told repeatedly five times from purdue to thompson and then again from don't know if that happened i see my time is up if the panel has no questions also i think we do not thank you counsel thank you very much your question since i was part of it and i also want to discuss some of the issues that were just raised the first thing i'd like to discuss is just the phantom fibers quote a page fifty one of his deposition we did not have time to figure out where chavez was one ninety read that was the only point of reference that they had was one ninety reads now both parties have attached the dash cam you can see as they come into the park they get right out of their car there's no effort by them to try to determine to try to drive down read street they're not even i don't retreat there  content when they come and there's no after by them to drive down real street and try to figure out which house is mr cooper's so that they have a point of reference or there's no chatter that you can hear where they're trying to through the dispatcher communicate with mr cooper to determine that they have an appropriate point of reference now opposing counsel has also mentioned this transitory items or that there is data points or transitory well i would like to just and partly answer your question and also address that what it is our officers know at what point when we watch the dash cam we know that as they are driving in lights and sirens towards the they're driving into the entrance of the park it's when they're told that there are dogs on the premises and that this man is trying to bring the darvon to the house when their vehicle is parked you then hear reference to the white it on the video also he makes a statement while the man and woman they're very angry while there they come out there are oblique confused as you mentioned transfer like why are you here what are you doing here they only become angry once they once the woman who was only wearing a nightgown is ordered down under her front yard and the man who has a submachine gun pointed at his head submachine gun and even harper to side and his deposition given everything that happened that night her or her reaction to what she came out to was understandable and mr pelham comes out his girlfriend in her nightgown is being a generally personal injury malpractise lawyer i'm learning in this area but the focus and all the jurisprudence seems to be reasonable miss what was the officer's actions a reasonable under the circumstances apparently have better speakers on my laptop when they're listening to it you actually hear a point where he tells somebody else to go back in their house before you then hear the altercation and say with the palin home so it's especially when they're break down the street from her house it's totally reasonable that you're going to be curious especially in this case where meghan taps and had been coming home from work and she was walking into the house which is another fact that's different from what they were told there's a woman walking into the house magen times and instead of a man with dogs walking into the house there's no sound of dogs and where mr palin doesn't own a dog so when you ask was there stock reasonable was there reasonable suspicion no there wasn't and was there reasonable suspicion for them to then tackle him no they had no reason to believe that this was a house of the domestic choose the time in which think this is an emergency situation and they think someone may be killed doesn't that play into the totality of the circumstances it may be a factor but the case that he was talking about i believe that i had cited in my brief was the prey case and that was a raid that the court was very specific to know that that also involved a situation where it was i think it was like in a park at night it was darker and it was a raid and it was a duplex and so you know there's two doors at the front they actually went into the wrong door and in that case of course that under those circumstances maybe going into the wrong door was reason was you know a topic of qualified immunity but once you got in there you surely knew that this was not a joe pass and therefore your actions of responding to that i cited it's a rate two and those are also very high stressful situations in place work by its very genesis is stressful situations but that's why it is officers are taught the techniques at the time and they're also taught to can to in the case of requires them to continually assassin situation and be mindful of the fact that you have to be running these things through your head you have submachine guns pointed at people you know there you can hear the audio there they're terrified they're a little children in this house they're just absolutely terrified and part of your obligation to the law enforcement officers officer is to make sure that you are at the right place at the break time and you have to do that by establishing facts they didn't have to get out of that car that point when they did they could have easily called back to dispatch and try to confirm which house was mr cooper's so that they could then look to the right then they would have seen the back porch light at the newbury address there was no trailer blocking it there it was open and i think it was like two or three open lines so that would have been visible to during one of the depositions if you look between if you look from mr cooper's house the newbery house was visible as being between i think that was discussed mr pans deposition but no the number of empty lots i don't believe  i would just say this in the circumstance where you've got situation a call a gun to a woman's head and you already had the time to drive to the scene there really isn't a lot of time to make a lot of debate that's why we have qualified immunity because officers you here's the problem for me if they've gotten this call and they think a woman is near that area with a gun to her head isn't the most important thing that they can do is figure out where that woman one not just their he recorded information about getting confused once they drove by stopping at a place that wasn't the right place that woman could die so isn't the make sure they don't waste time at the wrong spot they got there they get out of that they got there in their first impulse was to get out of the car and get to the house it was to the right of cooper's address there's no question they were to the right they were at the wrong turns out the correct house was actually not only to the right of cooper's house but slightly behind you in your trailer park or mobile home communities are pretty tight and a little the thought always that you know where you're at their impetus is  time wars we've got a woman to a gun to her head i'm sure that woman at that other house was eager to be aided as quickly as possible and they just made the choice to rush to the scene and as they get out of the car there's the people that looks like they maybe