[00:00:00] Speaker 03: I've only done this a few hundred times, so. [00:00:07] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:00:09] Speaker 03: So now we're here, United States versus Watkins, 23-62-10. [00:00:13] Speaker 03: Mr. I'm not going to pronounce it, Rapucci? [00:00:21] Speaker 03: Wow. [00:00:22] Speaker 03: Okay, good. [00:00:40] Speaker 04: Good morning. [00:00:41] Speaker 04: May I please the court? [00:00:42] Speaker 04: My name is Jonathan Ripucci. [00:00:43] Speaker 04: I'm appearing on behalf of Cameron Watkins, the appellant in this case. [00:00:49] Speaker 04: I'd like to start with just the very basic fundamental realities of what happened on the night when police went to Mr. Watkins' motel suite. [00:00:58] Speaker 04: Unequivocally, they were searching for someone who matched a carjacking victim's description of a suspect. [00:01:05] Speaker 04: So I believe it's important to begin with the basic premises [00:01:09] Speaker 04: The search was, in every practical sense of the word, occurring. [00:01:15] Speaker 04: The question presented is whether the search of Mr. Watkins' motel bedroom was illegal when it involved the officer entering a dead space area without any outlet to peer through a very small gap and drawing curtains into a bedroom in the middle of the night. [00:01:32] Speaker 04: The governing Supreme Court cases, Jardines, [00:01:36] Speaker 04: and Collins are clear that the space immediately outside the front window of a residence constitutes curtailage and thus a constitutionally protected part of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes. [00:01:49] Speaker 04: This case must be viewed consistently with those cases which frame and control the analysis. [00:01:56] Speaker 04: The government seems to be asking for the extreme position that the entire exterior of the motel suite, including the space just outside the bedroom window, [00:02:06] Speaker 04: was an open field rather than curtilage, simply because it was a motel with shared outdoor spaces. [00:02:12] Speaker 03: Well, it's not open field. [00:02:14] Speaker 03: It's common area is the exception we're talking about. [00:02:20] Speaker 03: Whether it was a common area for the occupants of the hotel or not. [00:02:25] Speaker 03: Open fields conveys a different situation, I think. [00:02:33] Speaker 03: So you don't think that this porch that went along the rooms was a common area? [00:02:44] Speaker 04: Well, I think it's really important to be very clear about what section of that porch we're talking about. [00:02:53] Speaker 04: I think the exterior corridor along past most of the rooms there on the balcony is a common area. [00:03:03] Speaker 04: But, you know, the images in the opening brief and the answer brief do a really good job of kind of showing the court this area. [00:03:10] Speaker 03: And... So it wasn't a common area because other occupants of the hotel rooms couldn't walk along that corridor to the end. [00:03:22] Speaker 03: It's a look to see if their car was okay in the parking lot, or they wanted to take a smoke, or they just wanted a little exercise. [00:03:29] Speaker 03: The other occupants could not use that part of the corridor? [00:03:34] Speaker 04: No, I think the occupants could use that. [00:03:38] Speaker 04: I mean, they could walk there. [00:03:39] Speaker 04: You could check your car. [00:03:39] Speaker 03: I think that's exactly what it would be used for. [00:03:43] Speaker 03: Well, then why isn't it a common area and therefore not curtailed? [00:03:46] Speaker 04: Well, because it's off the path, right? [00:03:49] Speaker 04: It's off the path to the room. [00:03:52] Speaker 04: The path goes to the door. [00:03:54] Speaker 04: The path goes to the other rooms. [00:03:55] Speaker 04: The path doesn't go to that area. [00:03:58] Speaker 04: And I think just because it may be publicly accessible doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't curtilage. [00:04:08] Speaker 04: You know, the porch on my house is publicly accessible to the mailman, but it's still curtilage. [00:04:15] Speaker 04: And so I think [00:04:16] Speaker 04: I think you can have both. [00:04:17] Speaker 04: I think you could have public access, but also cartilage to the room. [00:04:24] Speaker 00: Would you... The officer also looked into the first window, which wasn't at the end of the walkway. [00:04:34] Speaker 00: It was before he came to the door, right? [00:04:37] Speaker 00: He also looked in that window and didn't see anybody or anything, right? [00:04:43] Speaker 04: I think that's correct. [00:04:44] Speaker 00: But had he looked... [00:04:46] Speaker 00: If you change it and we have a different scenario and he looked in that window, the curtains were closed except for about an inch. [00:04:54] Speaker 00: That's the scenario. [00:04:55] Speaker 00: Would you still be making the same argument because it's the, you know, stepping into that space right in front of the window and peering into the window, especially with closed curtains? [00:05:08] Speaker 04: I think in that hypothetical, it would be a closer case. [00:05:13] Speaker 04: I think that certainly, [00:05:16] Speaker 04: as Judge Harts indicated, you know, the exterior to the other rooms does seem to be a more common area, and certainly people are going to be walking to their rooms. [00:05:28] Speaker 00: Does the common area include the space right up in front of the window that leads into the room? [00:05:33] Speaker 04: Well, I think not. [00:05:35] Speaker 04: I think not. [00:05:36] Speaker 04: And I think that Jardinez and Collins, to a lesser extent, really has to control that analysis. [00:05:44] Speaker 04: I mean, the Supreme Court [00:05:46] Speaker 04: specifically use the words, the area right next to the front window. [00:05:52] Speaker 04: And I think the Supreme Court chooses its words very carefully. [00:05:57] Speaker 04: And I think it's necessary that we have to presume that they meant what they said. [00:06:01] Speaker 04: And it makes sense, I think, also, because certainly people come to a porch, maybe come to the door. [00:06:08] Speaker 04: It's an entirely different thing, I think, for people to approach the window and look into it. [00:06:16] Speaker 03: Aren't there a number of cases that allow officers to stand right up against the window that's open and look in to see what's going on? [00:06:27] Speaker 03: I thought your argument with respect to the window related to the fact that it was just a small break in the curtain or shade. [00:06:36] Speaker 04: No, I'm not aware of many cases that authorize police officers to put their faces up to a window and peer through it. [00:06:46] Speaker 04: There are a lot of cases where if the curtains aren't drawn and the lights are on and you can see it from the yard or you can see it from the street, then that's a different scenario. [00:06:56] Speaker 00: You're talking about like plain view from the, for instance, if it was plain view from this pathway, had the drapes been open on this pathway, [00:07:06] Speaker 00: Even at the end, had the drapes been open and the officer could stand right there on the pathway, you're saying it would have been different. [00:07:17] Speaker 04: It would be a different case. [00:07:18] Speaker 04: And I think the evidence in the suppression hearing was that you could not see through the window from that path. [00:07:26] Speaker 04: And so the argument here is that that dead space area is curtilage. [00:07:33] Speaker 04: And to the extent that the court is inclined to disagree with that analysis, then I think there is a subset of curtilage there. [00:07:41] Speaker 04: And that's the area immediately proximate to the window. [00:07:45] Speaker 03: Should we get three inches of curtilage? [00:07:49] Speaker 03: I'm not aware of this distinction before, but I'm probably missing something. [00:07:55] Speaker 00: I'm asking these questions. [00:07:57] Speaker 00: I'm not sure that was your argument in your briefing. [00:07:59] Speaker 00: I'm just trying to understand exactly what it is. [00:08:02] Speaker 04: You know, it may be to some degree a matter of inches, but I think we have to take this case as we find it. [00:08:10] Speaker 04: And that's that there was a one-inch gap in the curtain. [00:08:14] Speaker 04: And, you know, this is, you know, you know, switching for a minute to the beyond the cartilage and the trespass test to the reasonable expectation of privacy, I think we could all agree that [00:08:29] Speaker 04: The area right outside of our bedroom window is really at the very core of the protections of the Fourth Amendment. [00:08:38] Speaker 04: I think anyone would have an expectation of privacy in that space, especially when they manifest that expectation of privacy by pulling the curtains. [00:08:46] Speaker 02: So all of the motel rooms have that or just this configuration with the end of the hall? [00:08:52] Speaker 04: I suspect that all of the rooms in the hotel have windows pertinent to the corridor. [00:09:01] Speaker 04: I don't know that. [00:09:02] Speaker 04: But this particular window, which was where the officer viewed Mr. Watkins on the bed, partially clothed with a gun, [00:09:12] Speaker 04: This particular window was a bedroom window, and it was in a section of the hotel that is not on the thoroughfare, if you will. [00:09:22] Speaker 02: And are you relying on that to say, couldn't look in that window, but could have looked in the neighbor's window, or are you saying you can't look in any of them? [00:09:30] Speaker 04: Well, I think it would be a closer, again, I think it would be a closer case if it was one of the other windows. [00:09:37] Speaker 04: I think, you know, certainly if the shades are open, if the curtains are open and you're walking past, I think people do look, you know, into rooms. [00:09:46] Speaker 04: But I think it becomes a much closer case when the curtains are drawn almost, you know, almost tight. [00:09:54] Speaker 04: You know, the evidence in the record is it's one inch. [00:09:58] Speaker 04: That's a really small, [00:10:00] Speaker 04: It's a small divider in the curtain and he would necessarily have to be awfully close to the window to be able to observe anything there. [00:10:10] Speaker 03: What's the case law? [00:10:12] Speaker 03: Do you have any federal circuit opinions making the distinction between an open window and a window covered by a shade through which you can look through a crack in the curtains lifted or whatever reason? [00:10:27] Speaker 04: I haven't found. [00:10:30] Speaker 04: good case law on that that, you know, really ironed it out. [00:10:33] Speaker 04: And I think that's probably as a function of, you know, the fact that these cases do have to be decided on their own facts. [00:10:41] Speaker 04: Certainly there's cases where a case which I think opposing counsel had cited where the police officers were in the side yard and the curtain was open I think six inches perhaps and the lights are on and the guys inside are [00:10:56] Speaker 04: packaging cocaine or something. [00:10:58] Speaker 03: Did you look at the two cases that were just supplemented? [00:11:01] Speaker 04: I did get a chance to see them. [00:11:03] Speaker 04: I didn't get a chance to thoroughly study them. [00:11:08] Speaker 04: What struck me about those cases [00:11:11] Speaker 04: You know, I think they're distinguishable on their facts. [00:11:14] Speaker 04: One of them's a case from 2003, I believe, which certainly predates Jardines. [00:11:21] Speaker 04: I think Jardines did change the legal landscape here. [00:11:26] Speaker 04: And I think the second case is, strangely, I think it was actually decided just after Jardines had been announced, but it doesn't reference Jardines at all. [00:11:38] Speaker 04: And it's also a different case. [00:11:40] Speaker 04: I think that's the one that's a different case too because that's kind of walking along cartilage to view through a fence to look into cartilage. [00:11:48] Speaker 04: Here we've got walking on cartilage to look into the house. [00:11:52] Speaker 04: And so I think factually they're distinct. [00:11:58] Speaker 04: If I might reserve the rest of my time, I think I'd like to do that. [00:12:02] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:12:27] Speaker 01: May it please the court, Jacqueline Hutzel for the United States. [00:12:32] Speaker 01: The Supreme Court has been clear that simple visual observations from a public space are not a search and are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. [00:12:42] Speaker 01: Here, Officer McNally saw with his unaided eyes the defendant holding a, with a gun and an extended magazine. [00:12:53] Speaker 01: He did so. [00:12:53] Speaker 00: This wasn't a simple visual observation such as, I'm not sure what case you're talking about, but I'm not aware of a case like this where the officer isn't just standing in front of an open window with the blinds open or the curtains open and he can see in. [00:13:10] Speaker 00: He's in a public place and he can stand there and he can see in. [00:13:13] Speaker 00: This is an officer [00:13:15] Speaker 00: going to the window, which is past the door, not going to the door, but going past, and even if it's public space, he's walking up, he's getting up to the window, standing on tiptoes, or maybe not standing on tiptoes, I guess, now, but he's walking up to the window, putting his face up to the window, [00:13:34] Speaker 00: and peering in between a one-inch crack. [00:13:36] Speaker 00: And that's not a simple visual observation. [00:13:40] Speaker 01: Well, a couple things, Your Honor, in response to that. [00:13:42] Speaker 01: I certainly understand your point. [00:13:44] Speaker 01: When I say simple visual observation, I'm meaning without any extraordinary measures, without any sort of device, right? [00:13:52] Speaker 01: He's not using binoculars. [00:13:53] Speaker 01: He's just using his unaided eye. [00:13:55] Speaker 01: And that's what I mean when I say simple visual observation. [00:13:58] Speaker 01: And also, to your point, I just want to say that I don't believe there's anything in the record that showed how close the officer had to get to the window that he had to get close to it. [00:14:07] Speaker 01: There's nothing to say. [00:14:08] Speaker 03: Is there a photograph of his standing on his tiptoes looking in? [00:14:11] Speaker 01: No, Your Honor. [00:14:12] Speaker 01: Respectfully, the counsel actually filed something last night. [00:14:16] Speaker 01: The photograph actually is showing the officer in front of the open door later on, not in front of the window. [00:14:23] Speaker 01: And if you watch the video itself, which is in the record, [00:14:27] Speaker 01: It's in the Supplemental Record Governments Exhibit 1. [00:14:30] Speaker 01: If you watch the video, he's actually not even on his tiptoes. [00:14:32] Speaker 01: He's simply moving, so one of his feet looks like, makes it kind of look like he's on his tiptoes, but that's in front of an open door. [00:14:39] Speaker 01: It's not at the window at all. [00:14:40] Speaker 00: But he's not standing in the walkway just casually looking through an open window. [00:14:45] Speaker 00: Well, he was clearly in the... Not even close to that. [00:14:47] Speaker 01: He was clearly in the walkway. [00:14:49] Speaker 00: Looking through right right looking through the windows his nose up to the window, right? [00:14:56] Speaker 01: Well, there wasn't any evidence that how close he had to get to that and clearly he could see easily into into the window through a one-inch If he if he focused through that one inch Crack in me. [00:15:09] Speaker 01: Yes, your honor. [00:15:10] Speaker 01: Yes, your honor. [00:15:11] Speaker 00: Okay, that's the simple visual observation Yes, your honor. [00:15:15] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:15:15] Speaker 01: Yes [00:15:16] Speaker 01: And I think that the courts, including the case that counsel referenced, Hardenas, was clear that officers are not required to shield their eyes when they're in a public space. [00:15:29] Speaker 01: And this is true even when the space itself is protected. [00:15:33] Speaker 01: So the Supreme Court told us that in Dunn and Cirallo. [00:15:38] Speaker 01: You can see the court found that was curtilage. [00:15:41] Speaker 01: It was a backyard. [00:15:42] Speaker 01: The defendant there had gone to great measures to make two separate fences to keep anyone from looking outside. [00:15:49] Speaker 01: And the fact that the officers were in an airplane in a public space made it not a search for them to look with their unaided eyes into the backyard, which was a protected space. [00:16:00] Speaker 01: Similar we see in Reeves and Cousins, even looking again into protected spaces. [00:16:05] Speaker 01: In Reeves, that was in a home looking through a window. [00:16:10] Speaker 01: and cousins that was in the backyard. [00:16:12] Speaker 03: Was it an unobstructed window? [00:16:16] Speaker 01: It was not unobstructed, Your Honor. [00:16:17] Speaker 01: It actually had bars on the window and there was foliage on the outside. [00:16:22] Speaker 01: And the court there found that it was no search for them to look through that window. [00:16:27] Speaker 03: Did they part the foliage to look through? [00:16:30] Speaker 03: Is that why you mentioned the foliage? [00:16:34] Speaker 01: In that particular case, actually, the officer put a rifle through the foliage and through the bars of the window, so there was some sort of separation, but it was more difficult to see. [00:16:44] Speaker 01: There were measures that the homeowners had made to make it more difficult to look in the window. [00:16:50] Speaker 01: And I think that's important, too, that even measures don't change the analysis, right? [00:16:57] Speaker 01: Even if a resident puts up measures [00:17:00] Speaker 01: to, to keep someone from looking at the inside, like the fence in Cirolo, like the foliage, the bars in Reeves. [00:17:08] Speaker 01: Um, also in the cases that I, that I, um, one of the cases Elkins that I submitted yesterday, where it was actually a building, the gap wasn't even, it was a wall, um, not a window we're talking about. [00:17:20] Speaker 01: There was just a PC PVC pipe protruding, which created a small gap in the wall. [00:17:26] Speaker 01: And the sixth circuit found that there was no violation by the officers. [00:17:30] Speaker 01: searching in that with their unaided eye. [00:17:34] Speaker 01: And I think that's important to note because here we do have curtains, right? [00:17:38] Speaker 01: They were only open an inch. [00:17:41] Speaker 01: If you look at the video, the officer may have been holding his hands further apart than an inch, but a small amount of space that the curtains were open. [00:17:49] Speaker 01: But the measures that the resident makes doesn't change the analysis because what we're looking at is whether or not there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. [00:17:59] Speaker 01: And the fact that this space was public is really important. [00:18:03] Speaker 01: And it's different than in Hardinist where it was a front porch, right, of a private residence. [00:18:08] Speaker 01: Because this was a motel, and motels are different. [00:18:12] Speaker 01: And we see that in the case law that has been cited. [00:18:15] Speaker 01: So a private home, you have exclusive enjoyment. [00:18:19] Speaker 01: But if you get to, say, an apartment building where you're looking at multi-units, then you have shared space, you have common space. [00:18:25] Speaker 01: And that's gonna change the analysis, right? [00:18:28] Speaker 01: But then in a motel, not only do you have shared spaces, you have common spaces, but you also have transient occupants. [00:18:34] Speaker 01: And I think the importance of it being a motel and that being a public space is really, really significant in this case. [00:18:41] Speaker 01: And you can see the difference of that motel versus the private home in Hardinus where they said it was a dog sniff on a front porch. [00:18:48] Speaker 01: And the Supreme Court said, although they said you don't have to shield your eyes, they said that the dog sniff was too much because that was curtilage [00:18:56] Speaker 01: There was a reasonable expectation of privacy. [00:19:00] Speaker 01: But in Lewis, which is a case from the Seventh Circuit, we have a motel. [00:19:05] Speaker 01: And they're looking at the same thing. [00:19:07] Speaker 01: They're looking at a dog sniff in that case. [00:19:09] Speaker 01: And they found that just like in the case here, it's an open air hallway. [00:19:13] Speaker 01: There are exterior stairs right by the hotel room that go to the parking lot, just like we have here. [00:19:20] Speaker 01: And it found there that the dog sniff was not a search because [00:19:25] Speaker 01: A motel occupant has no right to exclude others from that hallway, from that exterior space. [00:19:31] Speaker 01: And I think that's really important here because that space was public space. [00:19:34] Speaker 01: Someone could be looking for their car. [00:19:36] Speaker 00: Nobody's suggesting at all that there wasn't a right to access that hallway. [00:19:40] Speaker 00: It's the extent of the public license to come into that space. [00:19:48] Speaker 00: I don't think that's what the defendant is arguing, at least, that they can't access the hallway. [00:19:54] Speaker 00: They can see that. [00:19:57] Speaker 00: That doesn't necessarily give them the license to go past the door and go right up to the window and peer inside the window through a crack in the curtains. [00:20:09] Speaker 01: Right. [00:20:09] Speaker 00: Well, I think the idea being the reasonable expectation of privacy, and I think it being a space that the public could have access to, that someone inside the room... Well, certainly someone inside a hotel room has a reasonable expectation of privacy when they close their blinds in their motel room, in their bedroom, and they do not have an expectation, a reasonable expectation that someone, anyone, any member of the public could come along and just peer inside and see if they're doing anything at all in their... [00:20:39] Speaker 00: much less anything illegal. [00:20:41] Speaker 01: Yes, I think the difference is that the defendant didn't completely close the blinds. [00:20:48] Speaker 00: And if there is a reason... So if you got these blinds, like we all know about, that you're trying to close and they just won't stay that one inch and you're pulling them over like I do in my hotel room, it's my fault? [00:21:00] Speaker 00: Well, I think... That somebody can come and try to peer in and see what I'm doing in there? [00:21:04] Speaker 01: Right. [00:21:05] Speaker 01: I certainly understand your concern. [00:21:06] Speaker 01: And I've spent a lot of time specifically thinking about this, [00:21:09] Speaker 01: this one inch gap. [00:21:11] Speaker 01: First off, it's not like a blinds where one part was just crooked, right? [00:21:15] Speaker 01: It's curtains and it's a one inch or a little bit more all the way down, right? [00:21:21] Speaker 01: One inch. [00:21:21] Speaker 01: Yes, all the way down. [00:21:23] Speaker 01: But I think it's important that it's visible from both sides, right? [00:21:27] Speaker 01: The defendant has every reason to know that his curtains are not all the way closed and perhaps he even had them partially open so he could see what was going on outside. [00:21:35] Speaker 01: But I do think that in a motel where you know specifically that you can't keep people from being outside of your room, that you might have smokers, you might have people looking at the parking lot, you might have the air conditioner repairman, which is right there. [00:21:48] Speaker 01: If you can't keep those people out, there's no reason to expect that those private citizens wouldn't look and glance and see you sitting there with the gun. [00:21:57] Speaker 01: And I think that there's no reason also [00:22:00] Speaker 01: I think it's very difficult. [00:22:01] Speaker 01: I think this is one of the reasons why. [00:22:03] Speaker 00: It totally depends on what's reasonable, depending on how good the drapes close. [00:22:08] Speaker 00: Is that what you're saying? [00:22:09] Speaker 01: Well, I think it does matter how closed they are. [00:22:12] Speaker 00: You just can't keep that gap closed. [00:22:15] Speaker 00: I keep forgetting off track here. [00:22:16] Speaker 00: Well, maybe, yeah. [00:22:18] Speaker 03: I'm not blaming you. [00:22:20] Speaker 03: No, because... [00:22:21] Speaker 03: You keep talking about reasonable expectation of privacy. [00:22:24] Speaker 03: I don't think we examine in each of these cases whether it was reasonable for the occupant of the room to think his privacy was protected because of what he or she had done. [00:22:35] Speaker 03: As I understand the governing law, if an officer has a right to be where he is, he can use his senses to see anything without violating the other person's right as long as he doesn't use [00:22:52] Speaker 03: infrared stuff for cameras or radar or things like that. [00:22:59] Speaker 03: So the question here is did the officer have a right to be right in front of the window and if it was curtilage perhaps not. [00:23:08] Speaker 03: I don't see why it's not a common pathway so he had a right to be there. [00:23:13] Speaker 03: And then whenever he can see with his eyes, [00:23:16] Speaker 03: whether it's the occupant's fault or it's some defect in the blinds or something like that, is irrelevant. [00:23:24] Speaker 03: It's what the officer can see unaided. [00:23:28] Speaker 03: And by focusing on reasonable expectation of privacy, you make us consider all these different factors that, as far as I can tell, aren't relevant in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. [00:23:41] Speaker 03: I may be missing something, but you keep focusing on reasonable expectation of privacy. [00:23:45] Speaker 01: You're correct, Your Honor. [00:23:46] Speaker 01: And that's specifically to address Judge Moritz's concern. [00:23:49] Speaker 01: And I think the idea when I'm saying reasonable expectation of privacy, I'm talking about society, whether or not society recognizes a reasonable expectation of privacy. [00:23:57] Speaker 01: And what I think it's important about, to your point, is that that's why [00:24:02] Speaker 01: an officer in a public space that can just use his unaided eyes to see is why society doesn't recognize that privacy as a reasonable expectation. [00:24:13] Speaker 01: And so that's what I was getting at there. [00:24:15] Speaker 00: And it's because it's curtilage, though, right? [00:24:24] Speaker 01: If it was curtilage, which I don't believe that it was. [00:24:27] Speaker 00: If it was curtilage, right. [00:24:28] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor. [00:24:30] Speaker 01: If there are no further questions, I would request that we affirm and I would concede my time. [00:24:37] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:24:38] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:24:53] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:24:57] Speaker 04: You know, I think it is, I don't want to repeat myself too much, but it really is essential that this court view this case through the lens of Jardines. [00:25:08] Speaker 04: And here, you know, there's two separate challenges on the Fourth Amendment. [00:25:14] Speaker 04: There's the reasonable expectation of privacy. [00:25:16] Speaker 04: There's also the trespass test. [00:25:18] Speaker 04: Both of those, in my opinion, lead way in favor of Mr. Watkins' position. [00:25:27] Speaker 04: You know, I think that it's not quite right to say that just because an officer can be present in that location that there's not a reasonable expectation of privacy. [00:25:40] Speaker 03: Well, Hardinus, the officers didn't have a right to be there, right? [00:25:45] Speaker 04: Well, that's right, because the scope of... [00:25:51] Speaker 03: That would be the same situation as if we determined that the pathway in front of the motel rooms was curtilage. [00:26:02] Speaker 03: So I don't see how, once we've decided it's not curtilage, what does Jardenas tell us? [00:26:10] Speaker 03: Well, I think what Jardenas tells you is that it is curtilage. [00:26:14] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:26:15] Speaker 03: That's the point of deciding that. [00:26:20] Speaker 03: Good. [00:26:21] Speaker 03: We're on the same. [00:26:23] Speaker 03: Right. [00:26:25] Speaker 04: And so I think it is important though, to recognize to the public access and the scope of whatever license there may have been, right? [00:26:33] Speaker 04: I mean, that particular space, you know, had it been, you know, I would expect that somebody like Mr. Watkins or me in my younger days, if I was staying in a suite like that, I'd be awfully excited to realize that I had poor space. [00:26:48] Speaker 04: You know, I'd bring a chair out there. [00:26:50] Speaker 04: I might read a book. [00:26:51] Speaker 04: I might drink a beer. [00:26:52] Speaker 04: I'm not a smoker, but if I was, I'd smoke cigarettes. [00:26:56] Speaker 04: And so I think that area generally could be, I mean, I think that's a benefit of that suite. [00:27:03] Speaker 04: That's the benefit of a corner suite. [00:27:05] Speaker 04: It's nicer than the other rooms, and presumably it costs more. [00:27:09] Speaker 04: And so the license that an officer might have to be there [00:27:17] Speaker 04: I think it depends on the totality of the circumstances. [00:27:21] Speaker 04: I mean, sure, it's not blocked off. [00:27:24] Speaker 04: But the officer, you know, we're talking after midnight here in the middle of the night. [00:27:29] Speaker 04: And I think what the officers could have done here, you know, they had a lot of options short of going onto that space and looking in the window. [00:27:37] Speaker 03: They could have... Do we really consider, in determining the validity of the search for the officer's head, [00:27:47] Speaker 03: Had other options? [00:27:48] Speaker 03: I think so. [00:27:49] Speaker 03: I think we do. [00:27:50] Speaker 03: Do you have a case where that comes up? [00:27:51] Speaker 04: Well, the knock-and-talks, right? [00:27:54] Speaker 04: Officer has a license to go do a knock-and-talk. [00:27:56] Speaker 04: That's not what happened, right? [00:27:58] Speaker 04: They could have done that. [00:28:00] Speaker 04: They could have called the unit and asked Mr. Watkins to talk to them. [00:28:04] Speaker 04: They could have surveyed the unit, wait for him to come out. [00:28:08] Speaker 04: But they didn't do that. [00:28:09] Speaker 04: They went past the door onto what I think is the colonelage, and they looked in the window. [00:28:17] Speaker 04: Obviously the facts in the record are one inch you know it is it is hard to imagine much of a peripheral view from one inch and so You know it's not like they could see the whole whole room Think I'm out of time you are thank you. [00:28:33] Speaker 03: Thank you