stopping what happened in this particular case is that they're completely trying to circumvent nevada law which has a strict very strict knock and announce requirement there's even testimony in the records that the police officer stated that they intentionally brought this case in the federal court for that particular reason so what happened to the silver platter doctrine is that still alive and well is that your argument it is judge but in addition to that they can't they can do it basically right they i mean not very many hours before and the behavior that he exhibited that you know i didn't think that people that have been experienced in criminal endeavors you know don't usually answer the door that way absolutely and there's it's just a thing for him actually in the first transaction which appears on january twenty second riginal drug transaction the gun is actually sitting on the kitchen table this time he has his clothes on and then we're at ted workforce party next transaction this is another undercover buy on the confidential informants and this particular occasion your honor there's no gun present at all and now we fast forward again another couple of weeks almost a one month from the time in which they knew that magistrate and that's when we should have been getting the proper search warrant because if you look at that judge throws findings his findings focused on the emergency next instant terms of drugs being conduct an ongoing drug trafficking investigation and choose for legitimate tactical reasons to wait until some later time in the investigation before they're ready to execute search warrant know i'm not absolutely you're absolutely correct or are they there's no reason why they can't continue on with with these types of investigations and in fact there's legitimate police reasons why they do that well then but then in regard to the exigency analysis doesn't the case  us that as i guess the supreme court recently reminded us in banks that we've got to look at the facts basically pertaining to the execution of the warrant at the time it was executed in order to determine whether exigent circumstances behind but if you look at the circumstances of what happened in banks it's completely different in that case if there was a knock in that case he's in the shower he says yes fifteen or twenty seconds later they're going into the they're going into the residence in fact they knocked so loudly that you could hear the knocks at the back door the officers testify to i believe our case we have no knock at all whatsoever plus we have the but in my case we don't have any indication that the tenant was routinely selling drugs you have to look at both of those factors in determining whether and inspect everything that's the other not just exigency i don't think you should dispel one over the other but when you look at the at the findings the way i read judge approach findings he didn't give a lot of explanation as to how the gun worked in his determination of the accident say he just he relied apparently more on the drug aspect as well i mean how much more does the court have to find other than than the fact that we have this behavior that can only be characterize entry so the question is are they may they lawfully dispense with the knock and the prior warning that they're about to enter no because i think you have to look at that as a factor you have to  the citing whether or not they can abandon the prior notice which is the purpose of knocking before they answer don't we stop at that point and asked what facts did the police know when they made the determination to enter without knocking and announcing well maybe we're both saying the same thing in different ways your i agree it's a court in terms of you have to look at what facts they knew at the time about whether or not they should dispel if they're not going to announce but in doing so you have to look at that all of the police conduct starting from january twenty second and right up to that day which would include your honor the fact that if they're going to be so concerned about this presence of this weapon and the  destroyed why don't we secure the premises why do they wait seven hours and get a written search warrant when they can get a telephonic search warrant and well thirty minutes let's attaining search warrants you and i both know it takes time even if it's a telephonic mor secure the premises by securing the premises so you're talking about basically putting surveillance on it to see whether or not i mean you can't do anything more than that without a warrant that's correct ok so let's go back to my earlier question which is once judge bro determines that this guy had sold drugs as recently as seven hours before that he was using or in possession of a loaded weapon during at least two of the three prior drug transactions what more does he need in order to support legal conclusion that there were exit circumstances and a legitimate threat to the safety of the searching officers to dispense with the not going to announce requir would just like to highlight a few things that were that were mentioned to you first off with regard to the banks case that was mentioned earlier i would point out the banks did state that there was no reason to treat a no kno further state to the court that in the extras to record of the supplemental excerpts of record i believe it's on page six when it costs about that paper where you forth purchase we have three purchases of cocaine from this defendant january twenty second f female comes back out with shorts still holding that semiautomatic in his hand then conducts that crack cocaine transaction but does he stop there no he then follows the undercover officer outside holding the gun looking at him doing counter surveillance to see if the police are in the area and i submit to the court that that that conduct of holding that handgun to his side can be interpreted as a non verbal threat at that point a threat not to do in any way impose your will on this particular individual or he will respond with force and that force is in his right knee and the cases that were pointed out in the defendant's br come across other items that are incriminating in nature they may then seize those on the plain view doctrine and nowhere in the record does it indicate that the officers did not have a right to look at accounts with a handgun was found or in the closet where and as i understand it your client then entered a conditional guilty plea in order to challenge the court's ruling after this question hearing and the only ruling that was extended at that point was with regard to the