[00:00:03] Speaker 04: Good afternoon, Your Honors. [00:00:05] Speaker 04: May it please the Court. [00:00:06] Speaker 04: Alexi Holler, I'm appearing on behalf of defendant appellant Ryan Barry. [00:00:11] Speaker 04: I would please like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal. [00:00:15] Speaker 04: I am prepared to answer any questions that the Court may have, but I would, if possible, like to start with a standard review. [00:00:24] Speaker 04: This case presents an unusual but not an unprecedented situation with regard to the standard review. [00:00:30] Speaker 04: The defendant below moved to suppress all evidence seized at the apartment by the Los Angeles Police Department during its warrantless search. [00:00:40] Speaker 04: But the government and not Mr. Berry raised the specific probable cause that she raised on appeal, namely whether the LAPD officers had probable cause to believe that Mr. Berry resided at the Emalita Avenue apartment. [00:00:53] Speaker 04: This issue was actually decided by the district court. [00:00:56] Speaker 04: And under these circumstances, review is de novo. [00:01:01] Speaker 04: This is perhaps most clear from the Tenth Circuit's decision in United States versus Hernandez-Rodriguez, which is cited in the reply brief. [00:01:08] Speaker 04: But this court's decisions in United States versus Magdarilla and United States versus Wayne, W-E-Y and E, also yield the same conclusion. [00:01:18] Speaker 04: It's a conclusion that makes sense, because the plain error rule is there to afford district courts the opportunity to resolve an issue in the first instance. [00:01:28] Speaker 04: Here, the district court not only had that opportunity, but actually did resolve the issue in the first instance. [00:01:34] Speaker 04: So the NOVA review is appropriate here. [00:01:36] Speaker 04: Now, the one case that the government cites in opposition to this is United States versus Santiago. [00:01:43] Speaker 04: But that case does not apply because it's not a search case. [00:01:46] Speaker 04: The government in that case did not raise the issue in the district court, and the district court did not resolve the issue. [00:01:52] Speaker 04: So it's inoppocite in our view. [00:01:53] Speaker 02: What are you saying is the de novo review, the question of whether or not there's probable cause? [00:01:58] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:01:59] Speaker 02: But the factual, the facts underlying that are clearer. [00:02:02] Speaker 04: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:02:03] Speaker 04: Correct. [00:02:03] Speaker 04: And I don't think there's any dispute about the facts on this record. [00:02:09] Speaker 04: Now, with regard to the merits, I wanted to note a couple things that were perhaps not as clear from the briefing. [00:02:17] Speaker 04: First, I would note that everybody below appears to have agreed that the reported address, the address reported to the probation department, was my client's parents' address in Santa Monica. [00:02:32] Speaker 04: So I just want to make that note. [00:02:33] Speaker 04: The district court referred to that on ER-96, and defense counsel referred to that on ER-212. [00:02:40] Speaker 04: And it's important to note that the reporting of this address as his address was not stale information. [00:02:47] Speaker 04: The record reflects that Mr. Berry signed the PRCS post-release community supervision conditions in mid-September 2018. [00:02:57] Speaker 04: That's at ER 172. [00:02:59] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:03:01] Speaker 01: Is it possible for a person to have more than one residence? [00:03:06] Speaker 01: For example, I have an adult child, but I think she still considers our house to be home, but she lives somewhere else, which is her usual residence most of the time. [00:03:20] Speaker 01: So are these two things even fatally inconsistent? [00:03:25] Speaker 04: I think, in theory, it might be possible for somebody to have two residences, but I think that they would have to be probable cause to believe that this second residence here in Van Nuys on Emelida Avenue was also his residence. [00:03:39] Speaker 04: And I do not believe that a cause exists here. [00:03:43] Speaker 02: Well, wasn't there some testimony that he recently moved into that apartment? [00:03:48] Speaker 04: That was after the search was over. [00:03:50] Speaker 04: So before the search, actually, if you look at all the information that the police had before December 10, 2018, all of that information points in the direction of him living in Santa Monica. [00:04:01] Speaker 04: The database searches that were conducted on December 4, 2018 showed that he lived in Santa Monica. [00:04:07] Speaker 04: The probation officer told the LAPD officer that he lived in Santa Monica or he was from the Santa Monica unit. [00:04:14] Speaker 04: that officer was. [00:04:15] Speaker 04: So really all indications prior to the search are that he resided in Santa Monica. [00:04:22] Speaker 01: Well, all indications up until the time of the tip that a person named Ryan driving a red Mustang convertible was selling drugs out of a particular apartment unit on Amelita Avenue. [00:04:35] Speaker 01: And so things evolved from there. [00:04:38] Speaker 01: So would you talk about that? [00:04:40] Speaker 04: Well, with all due respect, Your Honor, I don't believe that that does show that he was a resident there. [00:04:45] Speaker 04: The tip says that he was selling drugs out of there. [00:04:48] Speaker 01: Oh, but more happened after that when they saw him and they asked, they told him they wanted to search his apartment. [00:04:58] Speaker 01: And he didn't say, I have no idea, or that's not my apartment. [00:05:02] Speaker 01: I'm visiting a friend or anything. [00:05:05] Speaker 01: I just have difficulties seeing that that conversation didn't, in and of itself, give them probable cause. [00:05:14] Speaker 04: Well, again, I think if you look here, all the evidence before that interaction was showing that he lives in Santa Monica. [00:05:21] Speaker 04: and then you have this interaction where he gives at best really a non-response to that statement. [00:05:27] Speaker 04: And I think that this is on all fours with the Granbury case, this court's decision in Granbury, where they basically told him, they told the defendant in that case, we're gonna search your place now, and the defendant responded, do what you gotta do. [00:05:38] Speaker 01: Right, which is not how this defendant responded. [00:05:42] Speaker 01: It seems to me quite different to say, do whatever you're gonna do, which is a non-response, and when somebody says, [00:05:50] Speaker 01: does anyone else live there? [00:05:52] Speaker 01: If they're pointing to my house, I might say, you know, my husband and my dog. [00:05:57] Speaker 01: If they're pointing to my neighbor's house, I would likely say, not my house, or I don't know who lives there, or, you know, Jane and Sam live there. [00:06:07] Speaker 01: It wasn't a non-response. [00:06:11] Speaker 04: Well, that was as to where the girlfriend lived. [00:06:14] Speaker 04: And he didn't say, she also lives there with me, or I live there with her. [00:06:20] Speaker 04: He said that she lives there. [00:06:21] Speaker 01: No, but he responded to a question, who else lives there? [00:06:24] Speaker 01: And using a little common sense, if someone says about your house, who else lives there? [00:06:29] Speaker 01: You might say, my wife, my husband, my child. [00:06:34] Speaker 01: I have a person renting a room. [00:06:38] Speaker 01: But that is a response that is implicitly agreeing, is it not, with the premise of the question that you live there and the else is someone else in addition. [00:06:50] Speaker 04: I think we're parsing words of this interaction that was right after his arrest, and I think that it's a step back, it's a step back, and you have to look again at, I think, what the officers knew, which is that he, before that interaction, all the information that they had was that he lived in Santa Monica. [00:07:04] Speaker 04: They didn't do any investigation of whether or not that was true. [00:07:07] Speaker 04: And the officer in this situation, during this interaction with Mr. Berry could have said, [00:07:11] Speaker 04: Well, how about this address in Santa Monica? [00:07:13] Speaker 04: Don't you live there? [00:07:15] Speaker 01: They didn't have to say anything different, but just looking at it from a common sense point of view, how people speak to each other, it seems... [00:07:27] Speaker 01: that he lived there, even before he gave them a key to the front door that worked on the front door. [00:07:34] Speaker 01: But the fact that, that's why I started by saying, you can have more than one residence, I think. [00:07:39] Speaker 01: So if they had, even if they had confirmed that he was still living with his parents some of the time, most of the time, I don't know how that necessarily detracts from probable cause here. [00:07:55] Speaker 04: Well I do think that you have to look at the totality of the circumstances and to me the totality of the circumstances include all the information that they had that he was living in Santa Monica and this court's decision in Granbury is very clear that the officers have to investigate that. [00:08:10] Speaker 04: They can't just sit back and then say have this [00:08:14] Speaker 02: what i consider to be an ambiguous interactions that will now we have probably cost believe you look at the result of the why wasn't all the questions he asked the improper investigation why isn't that so if he asked him with weapons in the apartment is your is there dogs in the apartment you where's the key to apartment that's an investigation [00:08:31] Speaker 04: But those are questions and answers that are consistent with him selling drugs out of the apartment. [00:08:36] Speaker 04: They don't mean he resided in the apartment. [00:08:38] Speaker 04: Those are two different things. [00:08:39] Speaker 04: And again, I think the court in Granbury made that distinction very clearly. [00:08:42] Speaker 04: It said that just because you have probable cause to believe that he was selling drugs out of the apartment, [00:08:47] Speaker 04: does not mean that you have probable cause to believe that he resided in the apartment. [00:08:50] Speaker 04: Now, I don't know if I only have one minute left out of the seven minutes, or is it? [00:08:54] Speaker 04: Okay, thank you. [00:08:56] Speaker 03: Can I ask a question? [00:08:57] Speaker 03: Maybe they'll put a little time on for you. [00:09:00] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:09:00] Speaker 03: It seems to me that the Granberry is the problem here. [00:09:04] Speaker 03: It's a straight case. [00:09:05] Speaker 03: There isn't any other case like it. [00:09:07] Speaker 03: And it's counterproductive. [00:09:11] Speaker 03: to what we usually do. [00:09:14] Speaker 03: I was a district court judge, and when these people come out of jail, we let them out a little early. [00:09:19] Speaker 03: We have to keep that string on them or they're going to find some way to get away. [00:09:24] Speaker 03: Granbury interferes with that process, so it is kind of a stray case. [00:09:32] Speaker 03: If that's true, wouldn't we have some reason to re-examine Granbury? [00:09:41] Speaker 04: Well, I believe that Granbury is, as I said in my brief, I believe it is controlling here. [00:09:46] Speaker 04: I believe that it's as on point as a case. [00:09:49] Speaker 03: I understand that. [00:09:50] Speaker 04: I understand that. [00:09:51] Speaker 03: And I think Granbury... It's a little different. [00:09:56] Speaker 03: Can we in some fashion say it's really an outrider and it's interfering with our administration of justice, so we should look at it again? [00:10:06] Speaker 04: Well, my understanding is that that would have to come from the en banc court, right? [00:10:11] Speaker 04: But whether or not Granbury is worth revisiting, I think is beyond the question here. [00:10:16] Speaker 04: I think the question here is whether Granbury is controlling, and I do believe Granbury is controlling here. [00:10:21] Speaker 04: I think it's rare that you have a case that on point in appellate practice, and it was one of those situations where [00:10:29] Speaker 04: Well, you're surprised to find a case that close. [00:10:32] Speaker 04: And so I think it would be very tough to distinguish this case from Granbury. [00:10:36] Speaker 04: And it's very close on several, you know, several matters, not only the failure to investigate the reported house, but also the failure to investigate the Amelita Avenue house. [00:10:47] Speaker 04: I mean, they didn't do any surveillance, very minimal surveillance. [00:10:50] Speaker 04: They didn't check to see if he was taking out the trash, getting the mail, and all those things that are mentioned in Granbury. [00:10:55] Speaker 04: So I do think that Granbury is controlling here. [00:10:58] Speaker 02: We'll give you two minutes on rebuttal. [00:11:07] Speaker 00: Good afternoon. [00:11:09] Speaker 00: May it please the court, Jenna Long, appearing on behalf of the United States. [00:11:13] Speaker 00: I want to pick up right where you left off, which is Granbury. [00:11:17] Speaker 00: And one of the important things here, though, is I first want to re-characterize and rather clarify something that's a little bit of an inflation. [00:11:25] Speaker 00: When my colleague is saying that there were repeatedly information about the Santa Monica address, that's not what the record bears out. [00:11:32] Speaker 00: Yes, it is true that the officers were aware that he had reported a Santa Monica address to his parole or probation officer, but there weren't the official and consistent reporting that Granbury speaks about. [00:11:46] Speaker 00: In Granbury, not only was it the parole address and repeatedly the parole address, it was also his DMV address in Granbury. [00:11:53] Speaker 00: We don't have that here. [00:11:55] Speaker 00: Instead, we have a single iterance of it being the reported address, and then we have on the day of the observations, which was, yes, limited because there was only one day of observations, that every other thing indicated that the Van Nuys or the Emelida address, that search department, was actually where the defendant was residing. [00:12:15] Speaker 00: And there's other significant differences from Granbury as well, one of which is the conversation that you've already gone into a little bit. [00:12:22] Speaker 00: It wasn't just a single question, and it's important to go back to exactly what Granbury says, which is that you're to consider the totality of the circumstances and the context and all of the things together. [00:12:35] Speaker 00: And that conversation alone would be sufficient because of how many different elements that conversation had. [00:12:43] Speaker 00: It started with the officers making it clear that they believed that he lived at the Amelita Avenue apartment because they said we're going to search your apartment. [00:12:53] Speaker 00: That's different from Granbury where they said your place which actually could have referred to the garage that wasn't even a residence at issue in Granbury. [00:13:02] Speaker 00: The next part was who else lived there and Your Honor you already went into the significance of that. [00:13:07] Speaker 00: But the courts have already told us, including this court, we shouldn't look at conversations like legal technicians. [00:13:13] Speaker 00: We should use our common sense. [00:13:15] Speaker 00: And a regular person with regular caution would understand that exchange to mean that Mr. Barry lived there and that he lived there with his girlfriend. [00:13:26] Speaker 00: And the fact that he lived there with his girlfriend weighs against any finding that that Emelida Avenue apartment was just a drug stash house. [00:13:34] Speaker 00: Another fact that weighs against finding that that Emelida Avenue apartment was anything other than his residence is the fact that he specifically said his girlfriend was asleep on the couch. [00:13:46] Speaker 00: Not only is that a fact that the officers confirmed the moment they were inside the apartment before they went and searched the rest of the apartment, it also is a pretty common thing. [00:13:56] Speaker 00: It was 1 p.m. [00:13:58] Speaker 00: It's a person taking a nap on their couch, a couch that she shared in a residence with Mr. Berry. [00:14:04] Speaker 00: Beyond that, Mr. Berry demonstrated additional familiarity about no weapons and no dogs. [00:14:11] Speaker 00: This would have been another natural time. [00:14:13] Speaker 00: If a person who really wasn't sure about that apartment, if it was just, for example, say, his girlfriend's apartment, he might have said that then. [00:14:21] Speaker 00: He might have said, I don't know. [00:14:22] Speaker 00: It's my girlfriend's place. [00:14:24] Speaker 00: I'm not sure. [00:14:24] Speaker 00: We're just staying there. [00:14:26] Speaker 00: And Your Honor, I do want to address your question of, can you live in two places at once? [00:14:31] Speaker 00: And I think it's, again, there isn't a bright line rule. [00:14:33] Speaker 00: And it's a fair and reasonableness question here. [00:14:36] Speaker 00: But if you think about that, while there's no question under this court's precedent, you cannot just be an overnight guest. [00:14:43] Speaker 00: It's clear that Mr. Berry was treating this as his residence and that he felt that it was actually his residence. [00:14:50] Speaker 00: And I remind this court exactly what the court in Granbury told us. [00:14:55] Speaker 00: You can't cross-check factors. [00:14:57] Speaker 00: So we can't put the factors from Granbury up next to this case. [00:15:01] Speaker 00: and just cross-check them for an answer, because that's not what we're supposed to do in these. [00:15:06] Speaker 00: It's supposed to be a fact-intensive review. [00:15:09] Speaker 00: And a really good illustration of the importance of a fact-intensive review and the fact that just going one factor to another factor, one factor to the same, isn't good enough is actually a case that was unpublished but recent with this court in 2020, which is United States versus Hopkins. [00:15:28] Speaker 00: And in that case, specifically, [00:15:30] Speaker 00: there were no observations of the defendant at the searched premises. [00:15:35] Speaker 00: There was consistent connections to a prior residence, not only of him previously living there, but his motor home, which could in and of itself be a residence, also registered at that prior address. [00:15:48] Speaker 00: In fact, when they went to the searched premises, a woman opened the door and denied that defendant living there. [00:15:56] Speaker 00: Those are all very significant things. [00:15:58] Speaker 00: That defendant didn't have keys that the officers were aware of to that residence. [00:16:02] Speaker 00: And yet, even under Granbury, the court in Hopkins found that the differences and the facts were significantly different enough that that still satisfied probable cause. [00:16:13] Speaker 01: Do you agree with opposing counsel that we are not free to overrule or change Granbury as a three-judge panel? [00:16:27] Speaker 00: I do, Your Honor. [00:16:28] Speaker 00: And so I think the important thing for Granbury is to do what it requires you to do, which is that totality of circumstances approach to make that fact-intensive [00:16:38] Speaker 00: review of this case, because just this three-judge panel is not free to deviate or overrule Granbury. [00:16:44] Speaker 02: Well, even if we are bound by Granbury, do you think it was rightly decided? [00:16:49] Speaker 00: Your Honor, I would say that the facts in Granbury, because of their differences, don't dictate whether or not it was wrong or rightly decided in this instance, because it isn't a direct... Well, the one question I always had, why would the parolee have standing, Fourth Amendment standing, if he doesn't live there? [00:17:08] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, a person can create standing by being an overnight guest. [00:17:11] Speaker 00: And it's my recollection, if it serves me well, that in Granbury, the later declarations by that defendant said that he had been an overnight guest of his girlfriend, that that was maybe his girlfriend's apartment. [00:17:22] Speaker 00: He had been staying there briefly and temporarily. [00:17:25] Speaker 02: And the parolee rules don't go to extend to wherever you stay overnight. [00:17:29] Speaker 00: Correct because specifically in California this kind of works like contract law right so in California you actually sign conditions and you're agreeing to those conditions when you get released early and that condition is written by California is that it's your residence and so you need to reside there in order for that to be within. [00:17:48] Speaker 00: There is another caveat. [00:17:49] Speaker 00: The other caveat is property under your control. [00:17:52] Speaker 00: But it's my understanding that this court has not found that that applies to residences. [00:17:57] Speaker 00: So really here what we're talking about is, did they have probable cause to believe that he resided there? [00:18:02] Speaker 00: But that's another difference between Granbury and here. [00:18:05] Speaker 00: Mr. Barrie maintains that it's his apartment, and in his post-arrest and post-search statement, in which he was also given his Miranda rights, he said as much, which he referred to actually when my colleague was speaking, that he said he had just moved in there, which also explains why there weren't that many database searches or other things connecting him to it. [00:18:24] Speaker 00: But those database searches and the surveillance of another address aren't required when it wasn't officially and consistently, specifically that consistently part reported. [00:18:35] Speaker 00: And they aren't required when the evidence of his current residence is much more significant. [00:18:41] Speaker 02: Well, in Granbury, I think they said that even having a key is not evidence of residence. [00:18:46] Speaker 02: Do you agree with that part? [00:18:47] Speaker 00: If I may be a little more precise, Your Honor, Granbury specifically said that a key alone, without anything additional, is not enough. [00:18:55] Speaker 00: And I agree with that contention. [00:18:57] Speaker 00: Saying just that you have a key isn't enough. [00:18:59] Speaker 00: But let's look at what we actually have here. [00:19:02] Speaker 00: He showed them the key, and he showed them the key after the officer said, so I don't damage the door. [00:19:07] Speaker 00: That not only is significant for his knowledge of the key, the possession of the key, [00:19:11] Speaker 00: one of many keys on the rest of his keychain. [00:19:14] Speaker 00: It's actually significant because it shows that he cared about that door not being damaged, which is frankly not consistent with your drug stash house. [00:19:22] Speaker 00: If the police search your drug stash house, do you really mind if that door gets broken down when you've just potentially found even more things? [00:19:30] Speaker 00: And facts like that, right? [00:19:32] Speaker 00: So the fact that he showed them the key, that the key was on his keychain doesn't stand alone. [00:19:37] Speaker 00: It stands in the context and with that bigger conversation. [00:19:41] Speaker 00: It also stands in the context of those confirmatory details and taken together all of those facts, none of which are disputed. [00:19:48] Speaker 00: As my colleague even got up here and said in his argument before me, none of the facts are disputed. [00:19:56] Speaker 00: That's why there was no evidentiary hearing. [00:19:58] Speaker 00: That's why there's no evidentiary hearing needed now, despite the fact that my colleague has requested one, because there isn't a factual dispute here. [00:20:06] Speaker 00: And part of the reason there isn't a factual dispute is because this was completely ignored by Mr. Barry and his defense counsel in the district court when this was first actually talked about. [00:20:17] Speaker 03: We ultimately disagree with the government [00:20:23] Speaker 03: present record established probable cause, and we remand, can Officer Ipponiza testify to any additional information that might support the case? [00:20:39] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, me answering that wouldn't necessarily help you since there isn't anything in the record that says that there are additional things. [00:20:46] Speaker 00: But I will say this, if there were additional facts that weren't actually part of the court's review, if something didn't get gotten into by the lower court at that level, it's because there was no challenge to this. [00:20:58] Speaker 00: It's because the defense had no questions about this issue. [00:21:01] Speaker 00: The defense didn't raise a single contention against any of the five factors that the government forwarded at the district court that supported probable cause. [00:21:09] Speaker 00: and they were invited to and even though they were invited to by the district court they still didn't address it and I do see that I'm out of time or rather just about no I'm a couple seconds over yeah so if there's any questions otherwise thank you thank you for your time thank you it's gonna be tough to do in two minutes that I'll try so in terms of not official and consistent reporting of his address in Santa Monica that's [00:21:38] Speaker 04: Incorrect. [00:21:39] Speaker 04: It wasn't a single time. [00:21:40] Speaker 04: He said it to the probation officer, and also it appears twice on the database. [00:21:45] Speaker 04: So it was consistent. [00:21:46] Speaker 04: It was always Santa Monica. [00:21:48] Speaker 04: The difference between your apartment and your place, I don't particularly see a difference there. [00:21:53] Speaker 04: I think your place logically refers to your apartment. [00:21:56] Speaker 04: And in Granbury, I'm not going to read it, but on page 977, the court did refer to the garage, but then made it clear that it said moreover, and then made it clear that even if it was referring to the apartment, [00:22:07] Speaker 04: that it was an ambiguous response. [00:22:10] Speaker 04: And I think that applies here. [00:22:12] Speaker 04: Lived there with a girlfriend. [00:22:13] Speaker 04: Again, I think, in my view, the interaction was ambiguous, especially given the inconsistent statement or the statements in the path that he lived in Santa Monica. [00:22:25] Speaker 04: The girlfriend being a... Inconsistent if it was historical. [00:22:29] Speaker 04: The statements in the path that he was living in Santa Monica, I think that has to be taken with the statements at the time of the arrest. [00:22:35] Speaker 04: And I think at best it becomes a contradictory and ambiguous record that the police officer has to investigate. [00:22:40] Speaker 04: In terms of the girlfriend being asleep on the couch, [00:22:43] Speaker 04: I think that shows the best that the girlfriend lived there. [00:22:45] Speaker 04: That's Watts and Howard. [00:22:47] Speaker 04: That's not enough. [00:22:49] Speaker 04: Addition of familiarity with the weapons and the dogs. [00:22:52] Speaker 04: Again, that's consistent with them selling drugs out of the apartment, which is what the tip says. [00:22:56] Speaker 04: That doesn't go to residents. [00:22:59] Speaker 04: Can't cross-check factors. [00:23:01] Speaker 04: Well, that's exactly here. [00:23:02] Speaker 04: We've got all the facts basically lined up with Granbury. [00:23:06] Speaker 04: So the totality of the circumstances, it's not [00:23:08] Speaker 04: picking and choosing. [00:23:09] Speaker 04: It's all of them pointing in one direction. [00:23:12] Speaker 04: The Hopkins case is unpublished, and it was a tip from a credible informant, the person's nephew. [00:23:18] Speaker 04: And the car was found in front of the house, and it was registered to DMV. [00:23:22] Speaker 04: It says here that the key was shown to the officers, and Granbury was thrown. [00:23:27] Speaker 04: I don't really see the distinction there. [00:23:29] Speaker 04: And regarding the door not being damaged, that was not the case. [00:23:34] Speaker 04: There was nothing in the record that [00:23:35] Speaker 04: My client was concerned about the door being damaged or not. [00:23:38] Speaker 04: He was concerned about his girlfriend not being woken up. [00:23:41] Speaker 04: And to answer Your Honor's question, I do think that an evidentiary hearing could shed more light on this particular issue on appeal. [00:23:48] Speaker 04: And that's why we believe that evidentiary hearing is more important. [00:23:51] Speaker 03: But why? [00:23:52] Speaker 03: Could I ask a question imposing upon your time that's already gone? [00:23:57] Speaker 03: I'm just thinking ahead of what we might have to run into, and I wanted to get your thoughts, if you wouldn't mind. [00:24:07] Speaker 03: Do you think our court's probable cause analysis and ground barrier is consistent with Supreme Court precedent? [00:24:15] Speaker 04: I do, Your Honor. [00:24:17] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:24:20] Speaker 03: Are you in a position to brief that if we need it? [00:24:23] Speaker 04: I would be happy to provide a supplemental briefing on that question, Your Honor, yes. [00:24:28] Speaker 03: Okay, thank you. [00:24:29] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:24:29] Speaker 02: I think that's it. [00:24:31] Speaker 02: Thank you very much, counsel. [00:24:33] Speaker 02: This case is submitted and we are in recess for today.