entrenched into the apartment the probation search and whether the appellant statements were properly admitted i like to focus this argument mostly on the first issue unless of course your honour's have specific questions about the other two some the inside the apartment was in danger or that the officers themselves are in danger and the defense argues that there was insufficient evidence that either from the nine one one call there was evidence that there was a man and a woman inside the apartment  but once the woman there's a little more evidence than that oh yes your honor and she saw a man dragging a woman by the hair and putting her in this particular apartment and then she heard a lot of banging noise inside yes around and the police are aware of that yes your honor and they thought they were coming to a family dispute yes your honor but once they got to the apartment there was no noise and the woman herself answered the door well the  forgot the man looked outside yes solves the cops and quickly closed the drapes and then she opened the door yes your honor and your brief said there was no blood on her face so there's no case no your honor  the argument is that since the woman is standing there in no apparent distress there's no reason to believe that there's anybody inside the apartment in danger such that they need to cross that threshold with well of course if they didn't have any evidence of what happened before you'd have a good argument but to the police the police have to this just regard that this person was violent pulling a woman along by their hair no your hon so they need to corroborate they can't only rely on the nine one one call before crossing that threshold into apartment ok they got the call but then they interviewed the witness who made the call and they could make a determination of whether she was telling the truth or not they can interview the witness they can interview woman the who answered the door the victim herself but they they left out the part of the they had more than a nine one one call they had a discussion with the person and drew determinations there with her was she was telling the truth and where there's a serious problem i don't i don't believe the record reflects that your honor i believe that they got the nine one one call they went to the apartment they went to the informant actually did say that they went to her first but but the police said not right the police testimony and she actually i think also said that she didn't even talk to them but she said you know i talked to him when they came right yes your honor so i don't believe that there was sufficient corroboration from there was any corroboration of the facts of the nine one one call before they got to the apartment or so they got to the apartment they had a nine one one call and they saw the man peek out the window  and then the woman herself opens the door at that point they have reason to believe that there is a man inside they have no reasonably that he's in danger they have the woman in front of them they have no reason to believe that she is in danger since she's standing there they so that was after they entered that was after they entered into the apartment and then they heard the banging coming from the kitchen and they turned and saw the defendant so before they cross that threshold they have the nine one one call and you get the window  suppose we thought that going into the of hartman the first place was justifiable given everything you know next before that but but then what happened was they did a quick look around they knew there was nobody sometime in fact exist to begin with i would i would think so i would think at some point they would need either to have a warrant once they know that nobody inside is in danger once they decide someone is dangerous they walk away and they can assume they don't they could assume that there's a chance this may go on there's been a vicious attack on a woman now she's a woman and standing there the police look and see she answered the door they turn around and walk away i guess there's no problem here she opened the door they can talk to her on or they can get her consent to enter they can confirm that an incident happened they can investigate there is precedent that says it's that officers don't  was doesn't it make some sense your honor i would disagree because every time that an officer response one nine one one call what is happening inside that apartment is going to be speculation they don't know that's  point they don't know so they're in there to protect people who may be in danger but there needs to be specific facts that can be pointed to you that the government can point to show that an exception applies that walk into the house and nine one one call alone is not sufficient to that would be my argument is that every time that an officer response when i when one call whatever is going on inside the apartment it's pure speculation they don't know  out of sight there's no because they have to check on they can talk to her as opposed to when brooks when the defendant opened the door and they talked to him we thought that you were right about this where's the raised below kind of to to hedge the argument that even if the entrance was allowed the officers could have done a probation search and west but i would argue in the there for two weeks that he had clothes there any i'd keys the apartment all of that only all that only came through evidence statement before the search took place what was actually found during the search we guy and never done any pro search but for the earlier incursion i'm sorry i don't know that they went have done that and i mean in other words i don't know why the problem search issue is relevant to anything in the sense the court good morning your honors christiane i spent on behalf of the united states the officers of the in this case acted reasonably in responding to a volatile and fast moving domestic violence case they made an on the spot i don't understand how is the fact that the guy looked at them through it and the window relevant and there are a couple of reasons for its relevance first and i never had anybody in my house without looking through a window i didn't catch the last part i never saw anybody in my house the nine one one caller said there's a man involved second of all he is the man it opens the window blinds closes the window blinds and then retreats he doesn't open he doesn't open the door he retreats back into the house for fifteen to twenty seconds that's a significant amount of time given that we've got a domestic violence call reporting that a woman had been dragged by her hair and then that there had been once that the two parties went up to the house that there had been loud banging sounds here or anything they just go in house this is a volatile situation because of the domestic violence context because of the call of the officers it is not dispositive that she wasn't bleeding or that she wasn't crying she always present with obvious physical harm i mean they're going to come in the house and they one of them goes quickly through to see if there's anybody else there there is and then they put the guy in handcuffs so acting we are not cooperative and what happens is they go into the apartment the moment the first officer that's officer candidate enters the apartment he hears a thought coming to his left from the kitchen he thinks it's a weapon he looks over he sees mr harris crouching by a corner by a gap between the stove in the wall at that moment these officers have several concerns that there's a concern for a weapon in that gap there's a concern for whether or not the victim is hurt whether or not the himself we know that because harris him self runts i mean he could have gone back to the gun and gotten it but moreover and comes he was in handcuffs absolutely your honor nonetheless we know that he still ran he ran but he ran to the door he could have run for also potentially could access the gun they don't want their husband to be put in you know have no objective reason to think this guy had a gun they do have an objective reason to believe that a gun was within easy access  inside they go into that situation they have experience with domestic violence situations they have experience responding to these very volatile situations how would it be unreasonable to make sure that there was no gun there i mean there's a gun in a small apartment near a victim who's not secured and a suspect who's been acting in an agitated fashion who has been refusing to answer questions of basic questions what's your name what's your probation parole status the scene was not secure and we know that because the defendant ran but also because the victim at that point was not that certainly could have access the gun so the government's contention that the scene was not secure and it was a very limited sweep he didn't go sweep he didn't open anything he just went right to where he thought the thug was in a short period of time after he entered the house he goes overseas where the thought is looks down just to confirm that there's a weapon or no weapon there to make sure that the apartment is  so under these circumstances it was entirely reasonable to very briefly sweep for people and weapons after the thought and the district court was correct in concluding both that the officers testimony was very credible that they were extremely believable and therefore ruling that they acted reasonably under these circumstances  told the officers she and mr harris were husband and wife they had broken up they had gotten back together recently mr harris slept there every single night for the past two weeks mr harris drove her to work mr harris look after her son she gave mr harris a set  you've got a nine one one call where you have a domestic violence situation they don't have time to check the suspects parole status but there would be a reason there is an inevitable discovery issue because they could simply have run you thank you your honors the district court decided below as the government stated that the officers the officers acted reasonably given the circumstances but the defense's position is that the circumstances simply for there to show that an exception existed to allow them to enter into the apartment we heard a lot of generalities about what happens  insufficient even given all the other circumstances it's what they did know that there was a violent scene between these two b before it was there was a man or woman in the apartment yes that's what they know yes there was pick up the window so they knew that the man inside was aware of their presence but to raise that to an deal of time between them and when the door opens and the woman is there and he's over someplace else yes your honor does more than just to peek out of the window yes your honor and a pa so what happens during that part is sheer speculation of so they have to make judgement calls and so the district judge who reviewed it and listened to the police officers thought they were very credible and they were acting reasonably under the circumstances so that still doesn't excuse the government from pointing from the man and he yanked her back with her hair and then together they walked up to the apartment all right thank you very much the crack cocaine was found in the apartment she one co have her statement alone simply is insufficient  witnesses or ten witnesses is whether you have an instance there well my argument is that it's only one piece of evidence because it's only happened and i understand your argument but it does make an awful lot