in going into that house without a warrant now the second point for how long what does the record show about the amount of time that expired between the time when mr crane shop reportedly saw someone forcefully enter the residence and when officer randleman first approached the house after talking to me this happened beginning at two o'clock in the afternoon on january twenty fifth two o'clock was when officer ra dispatched to the house around the corner on tension street on his way driving to that house he asked the house at one forty six now that was about five minutes before mr  crenshaw came i reported to him now that five minutes before was when he saw the two women coming down the threat steps and leaving five minutes later mr crenshaw speaks to him about having seen someone force his way through the door now that would have whether they knew it or not and third what they reasonably should have known then what was common common knowledge within this small town and small base department that we can begin with what they did know they  this police department had kicked in the door to go in and arrest someone who was in the bathtub in violation of a restraining order second for us to say mr weintraub that these particular officers do or certainly should have done everything that reviewing that one now we're looking at what a reasonable officer should have done i believe it's fair to take that into account that's like to move around briefly just inside the house because let's let's take  there and he said yes they did not ask him interestingly enough whether he was the one who can see him going through the front door or next to mr conley on a table right by the naturist with a note  with predicate offenses and an immigration context or as this case in involves predicate offenses in connection with a felony possession of a firearm what's the correlation i believe that the underlying standard is is the same were at least an oregon knowingly is defined as an awareness of one's conduct so clearly it's a greater standard of proof for man's real purposes than recklessly and therefore the issue mr weintraub attempts to raise i don't think is a good one under that regard intentional or annoying conduct and mr weintraub the argument is you can consider this reckless well as not been charged that way so assuming you get to that question assuming he's preserve the issue the government would submit that it's really a non issue here properly raised in some respects but i want to deal with that first then we have the issue that the court says in time with mr weintraub as the judge hogan and that is what we have here that indicates the officers had sufficient action in circumstances to go through that door well what were sisters circumstances well what you have here is judge miss pointed out judge goodwin is the situation where you have a citizen reporting a crime immediately occurring and ironically enough the officer the young officer your experience is standing taking a report from another victim of a recent burglary a shed in the back yard i actually saw on the property our house had been broken into an air compressor taken so i stand there citizen drives by and says someone just kicked in or told the officer an excerpt of record forty three yeah i told him referring the officer he went through the front door either broken down or kicked in i'm not sure which counsel can i just sure follow up on something  point is among others that the zapatero is we're part of a small police department everybody kind of knows what's going on in a small town certainly in a small town police department and he's saying that the knowledge sergeant martine is an officer randleman they should have imputed to them the knowledge that the police department had that it was in fact the police themselves that they kicked in the door if you take away the door of violence to the door is this kind of eats away at the circumstances a little bit don't you think that we spent quite a bit of time with this hearing as you go through the excerpts of record i made a point of going through that in my only seem to judge hogan i said we have officer kept man with a size ten foot who kicked open the door a few weeks earlier ok and we're willing to go ahead and show the court prove to the court that these two officers have no knowledge about the other thing is that mr crenshaw testified that the door had been broken in a couple times i mean i don't want to court think this was the only time this is somewhat a recurring event this residence which is considered a drug house and the home of burglars and thieves you are in that very point though if that was a regular event of them regularly kick in and they do it would battered how could they then rely upon the fact that this had happened even though the neighbor told them that to think that there was an emergency going on in the house the time when we look at exigent circumstances the timing and the have made it very clear that if you've got an accident circumstance in your police officer any way around four or five hours and then go into the house and say gee we didn't need a warrant we had actions circumstances that doesn't cut it however in this instance the officer standing there or broken at the door that home now that's not how you normally in our house and most of us after our home doors and kick in whether it be for emergency personnel helping us get someone through i am going to not fix the door at least hammer it back out and if you look at the photographs you can see that ribbon efforts in the past to repair the door by using nails rather than screws on the hinges were trying to go ahead now shut in fact i think even ms robles testified that one went so simply say because been kicked in before and he stands on the corner he calls the sergeant the sergeant arrives at the minute we verify the door looks like it's been kicked in and then judge fisher made a point that makes it really interesting is that when they go to the door the doors cockeye you can look into the residence and someone had a recliner up against that co operates the tip that you just received the background the house of course helps you understand why this home is someplace where you might be concerned about your personal safety and more importantly from just what judge fisher talked about an earlier decision that he wrote in by the supreme court and rely upon his dissent the officers not there now they said why they were there they did it twice according to sergeant martinez is testimony isn't where the police come charging in trying to use a pretext he did it like you should he even had a procedure that he'd been trained to do unlike the young officer who was smart enough to get the sergeant there they go inside with their guns drawn even inside before he goes down the hallway he says it again loudly announcing we're go show your arm what about the search that's the more interesting one and that's the one that i want to finish up with because sergeant martinez talks about i accept your record page one forty two the sergeant goes into the bedroom and made a point of saying you know if you're in a courtroom like this one and maybe i would probably say to the op assert you know you shouldn't look there but you should we're not in a courtroom we're going into a home where someone has kicked open the door has not and i made a point of saying i wasn't saying whether she's credible or not that was the court's call but the point here judge fisher is that when the officer reached over to the closet he just reached a feel someone was under the clothing and it's a judgment call that anyone can make but i think according to what i understand a lot of the we look at it whether or not there was a basis from the officers point of view in the circumstances and we're not taking a lot of time to go ahead and say that we went into the rooms which they later did by the way i think we have we oh i would say this i believe the court is focusing on the correct issues i would focus on once the police are in the house first because i really believe the critical point is once they identify mr conley on the mattress and conceive he tells them and they can see that he has permission to be there that it should have stopped there ok i want to follow up just so if you've got a little bit of time here that we talked to the before about the timing here once they got in the house one of the issues about the photograph and so on is the timing if this happened very quickly our ability to look at this in the calm of the courtroom is little different than the officers with the guns drawn took you know what i'm being a rookie  how long did it take according to the record mr white house from the time that the officers spoke to connally one around and checked in the closet is there anything in the record that just because it was it could have literally been as little as research he wasn't under arrest or at least he shouldn't have them he hadn't thought anything wrong at least as far as all that sort of seriously what the point was made by counsel for the government that you don't know who else is in the house and they don't know who's there they check  the check in the closet feel around there if that all happened within a minute does that change anything i think the key word in mr hackneys presentation was the word maybe he said maybe there was somebody else there the police had no