thank you honors good morning chris and therefore opponent up i'd like to reserve two minutes for a bottle and i'll watch my time if it's acceptable to the court to focus on the suppression issues and i think that's a critical error in this case the district court erred by finding the emergency aid scuse me exception met the nine one one call in this case was that someone was outside yelling across the street and threatening someone's life that is all the officers knew when they walked into the scene when they arrived they saw mr d n standing outside of his home and he confirms yes i've been yelling outside of my house letting off steam completely consistent with the nine one hundred call that he was consistent if he if there was more to their call it said he was yelling and threatening someone's life not just that he was standing outside letting off steam right isn't that two different things it could be i'm letting it's unclear because there is no evidentiary hearing on this but the letting off steam could include yelling threats into the night that's there's no indication that there was ever any of any else involved with mr d and yelling outside well yes there was because the caller said he's threatening someone's life usually someone else has to be involved for that the caller said she heard that but that she did not hear anybody else and didn't know if anybody else was outside that could be death there but when officers arrived mr gans the only one that's outside there's nobody else outside but isn't that why they don't they wonder at that point he's outside yelling and threatening someone's life we better worry about whether someone's dead in the house or about to be done in the house no because the caller the deputies report deputy durb your one eighty six states that the subject was standing outside and yelling while the person who was doing the threats but that doesn't mean we know where the person he was threatening is yes but if the if the threatening is happening outside then that would be where the alleged incident is occurring and when they arrive they see a stable scene where there is no indication of a fight disarray blood like in other cases where there was actual blood outside trail leading into the house that's the type of evidence that this court in the united states supreme court require to enter someone's home without a warrant there's no disarray there's no indication there was a fight outside and there's no evidence to indicate there was a fight inside because the call was always about someone standing outside yelling threats into the night and i understand the court's concern about death threats yes that could be concerning if there was any other fact to support but there had been a fight outside or or so i did and if i had a happy to be outside i mean why can't they be worried legitimately that maybe the fight was inside and now he's still yelling outside are gonna go back in there and kill him i couldn't i couldn't be yelling that that's a threat and it doesn't mean it's going to happen outside it could be i'm going to go back and kill him that could be what he's someone yelling can't tell if he's inside or outside does not hear anyone else and he's yelling at the top of his lungs threatening somebody at that point is because throughout the call it's a little bit hard to understand some of the things that i'm one caller's saying but states so if he's threatening someone's life do you know i think that's when she says do you know if anyone else is there and she says no i don't know if anyone else is and he didn't say his life she said threatening somebody so i was talking about what the officers believed it's not what she says something to the dispatcher the dispatchers call the officers the officers are the one going to the scene so they're the ones who have the information from the dispatcher right there they don't they didn't get to talk to the person who made the call they officers or not we do know yes they did not try to go and talk to this woman she was across the street they could have confirmed with her what was really going on and obtained more specific facts about the threats but the only facts we know that they had is what the dispatcher told  was we don't know what the dispatcher told him we don't have the dispatch we only have the nine one one call interaction with dispatch i talked to said to the police i thought you just said that the dispatcher said you do have the dispatch to the police and the dispatcher said to the p she saying that there is threatening someone's life so when she dispatched the police she said threatening someone's life i polish your and i misspoke we have the dispatch off's off the dispatch person speaking to the nine one one caller saying do you hear anyone else when the so is that you are one fifth down to one fifty two it says can hear a male yelling and screaming and threatening someone's life that's i mean do they type what the person says on the phone or or you're saying that's their paraphrase of what was said on the phone this is some kind of detailed history of police event it looks like a dispatch i'm not sure what this is exactly i believe that is th yes before and that seems so when i listen to the name one call i hear her say the caller say he's threatening somebody and then the dispatch call or types and threatening someone's life and repeats that back to my mom one call to the c have to be but i mean what what is the closest in case that you have there in support but also that's closest in and found that there was an emergency for for so many purposes the government has an identified a case that is comparable here and every case at the the reply of pages five and six go through and the facts of the emergency aid cases addressed by the parties and all of them  evidence that would lead to a reasonably fit someone needs help seeing a frack us inside of a house where someone spitting blood because they were just hit responding to a call in tonight there was a response to a call of a very hysterical sounding male who screamed get the police over here now the responding officer arrives lives down the street so he knows this area sees a stranger going in in the home and a car he doesn't recognize and all the lights on so that was enough to get in because that reporting officer confirmed even more additional concerning facts when he showed up on the scene and i would say that i think the crucial difference in this case this hopkins be the chino this court's decision states when the officers arrived and it's unclear if there's an emergency or there's questions they need to take quote additional steps to either dispel or confirm or obtain at least if it's a little bit more to ask him whether there was somebody in the hell yes and he said my roommate's inside sleeping right so they didn't simply i mean if he said then just go barging into the house without knowing there was actually another person and they did not but as hopkins vivaan chino says that case that this court offered that additional steps could have been attempting to call the person in the house you can knock on the door there's numerous cases where they've looked through the windows and they have confirmed something else that seen some sort of facts that confirmed maybe there was a fight inside or someone is injured because there's blood they can see those are really the type of facts that are always present in the cases where this court affirms emergency aid and where the supreme court affirms we don't have those facts here so i the government is asking the court to stretch the boundaries of the emergency exception because there's no case that is comparable to the facts here thank you thank you reasonable belief under mark vs beard's test they had a nine one one call saying so and screaming this is three forty in the morning so screaming on the porch on the scene and they find defendant who is blowing off steam by screaming threatening someone's life and then say that with they did not say that he was trying someone's life when they arrive and i know that's correct but he's the person out there and they talk to him they ask him he gives his answer they say is there anybody inside and he says yes my roommate sleeping the police at that point are in there did you we're respectfully suggest two things the police in this case in hopkins in bonn of heard there he have to respond to what's in front of them at the moment this is what they know and they ask you with nothing front of them that anybody was hurt when they was was hurt or that way but it was about to get hurt because this guy was outside that's correct your honor but asking if they can go talk to a potential victim is something that police it's just that relying on consent to the asking is the poll i understand maybe we should've gotten to the consent question on and had a hearing and so on but that's by the boards right now correct we have to some there was no consent if there was no consent the entry the initial entry is still valid as an emergency aid exception because the police are entitled to go in and make contact with the roommate this is why this is not like the bond of hurt case you think characterized this is a welfare check you know and whether in that and you know makes his finding less adequate you know is a question  that's sort of what you're saying you're basically saying they were concerned that something could have happened so they went to check but the question is you know how much is that enough i would respectfully suggest yes asks and the police ask is there anyone inside and he says yes he's sleeping this is something police see all the time your honor this and they're somebody who police know that there may well be somebody it back there often it's not a man the victim as got your teeth knocked out in your i punched and swollen shot and she's just praying for the cops to come in and help her and the cops know that if they don't go in and make contact with the person that that person die they don't know this they don't have trails of blood they don't have broken windows they don't have screaming in moaning but they know from their experience that this is what often happens in this country when you get called out at three forty in the morning on a threatening somebodies life  call are there any further questions from the court regarding i believe the answering brief covered the other issues i agree with the defense counsel that the the propriety and constitutionality of the initial entry is the principal inquiry here but if there are any further questions would be happy to answer them do you think there's any concerns about the later the finding that the discussion about him roaming around the house and finding the marijuana bong do you have any concerns about the search that actually occurred later no biggie is that even if all of that is except from the subsequently submitted search warrant application what you're still left with is the victim scott who had been beaten and they took him away in an ambulance they had the victim scott saying two officer the third one durham i came out after he beat me he loaded a shotgun and said just in case you want to try your luck so if if they if i'm not conceding that it was improvident to walk around with him and see the rod in the marijuana pipe your honors i'd agree that that what judge a person highlighted about the just court's order this welfare check analysis the district court in gaijin and the government is asking you to affirm is a lesser standard then the emergency  exception the district court cited quoted one case of an emergency aid at the very end of a long discussion about consent rules the consent centers of the law but then analyzed the emergency exception is basically a general welfare check that you can go into someone's home just to make sure everyone's ok that's not what the emergency exception is it's very narrow it's regular rigorously guarded by this court ok but isn't this you don't see the facts any different whether when you have it's three something in the morning he's been outside yelling the officers come up he may not at that time be threatening anybody but i believe the officers indicate he's still highly agitated they then get from him that there is somebody inside whether we go with the idea i think the officer said he gave consent but let's assume he didn't give consent it's your position then they should just walk away with somebody who's highly agitated three in the morning and there's somebody inside there if this point th all we will we don't see anything we're going to walk away is that what they should have done no they should have done what this course told them to do in hopkins cino which is try to make contact with the roommate by knocking on the door trying to call them figuring out the roommate say maybe go and talk to the nine one one caller who is just right across the street and could confirm maybe provide more details as this court would like to know what were the actual nature of the threats what was what were the specific words that this one caller was hearing all of those things are reasonable arrived and they heard somebody screaming from inside the house i think that yes that probably would meet the emergency exception where the this essentially there was no protective aspect of this whatever i mean there was no need to fear that he was going to continue to do anything no your honor and no indication that anything in the house had occurred and i just don't understand that so if they if we take as given that someone is threatening someone's life and you think it matters whether they're inside or outside you think if they're inside threatening someone's life they can go in why are we just as concerned if they're outside that there's someone bleeding to death inside i don't really understand why it matters of the person is it inside or outside for a concern that maybe someone is dying in the house i think because there's no connection between what is concerning is what's happening outside the screaming outside i think because at that moment there is no danger to the person in the house so that which leads to the question of whether they inside yelling i'm sorry as i understand what you read is she didn't say he was outside heeling she said it was inside or outside she said he was inside or outside but then the officers report said we were we were responding to a report of a subject standing outside and yelling