[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Case number 24-7064, Charles Starpin and Regina Jackson at balance versus District of Columbia, a municipal corporation, and Michael Chan officer in his individual capacity.

[00:00:14] Speaker 00:
Mr. Presley for the balance.

[00:00:16] Speaker 00:
Mr. Phillips for the appellees.

[00:00:18] Speaker 02:
Good morning, counsel.

[00:00:19] Speaker 02:
Mr. Presley, please proceed when you're ready.

[00:00:22] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:00:24] Speaker 04:
May it please the court.

[00:00:26] Speaker 04:
My name is John Presley.

[00:00:28] Speaker 04:
I'm here on behalf of the appellee

[00:00:30] Speaker 04:
Mr. Charles Turpin and Regina Jackson.

[00:00:39] Speaker 04:
There are a lot of issues in this case.

[00:00:43] Speaker 04:
I wish to direct my attention at this point to a couple of key issues I think that are most important.

[00:00:55] Speaker 04:
I indicated the significance

[00:01:00] Speaker 04:
of what I call the colloquy, which took place between Mr. Turpin and Officer Lorraine.

[00:01:12] Speaker 04:
Now, that colloquy, which basically stated as follows, very succinct.

[00:01:30] Speaker 04:
What's indulgence here?

[00:01:48] Speaker 04:
No, I apologize.

[00:01:57] Speaker 04:
OK, here we are.

[00:01:58] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:02:00] Speaker 04:
The colloquy that I reference is as follows.

[00:02:08] Speaker 04:
This took place once the officers and so forth were in Mr. Turpin's apartment.

[00:02:18] Speaker 04:
And at some point during that time, Mr. Turpin asked the following question.

[00:02:27] Speaker 04:
How is it that you are able to be in my house and you understand what I'm saying?

[00:02:35] Speaker 04:
Officer Lorraine responds by saying, we're here because we got a call for service.

[00:02:45] Speaker 04:
Mr. Turpin states, I didn't call you.

[00:02:51] Speaker 04:
Officer Lorraine remarks, okay, I understand that.

[00:02:58] Speaker 04:
That's a very short colloquy, but it carries a lot of weight.

[00:03:08] Speaker 03:
But don't we need to put that into context, like the actual time that that occurred?

[00:03:14] Speaker 03:
In other words, there was an initial invitation to come in

[00:03:17] Speaker 03:
then the officers eventually follow Mr. Turpin toward the bedroom because Mr. Turpin is the one who says, there's my girlfriend basically.

[00:03:26] Speaker 03:
She's right here after the officer said, you know, who else is here?

[00:03:29] Speaker 03:
So don't we need to kind of put that in context as to when that exactly occurred?

[00:03:32] Speaker 03:
That's not at the initial onset of all of this.

[00:03:37] Speaker 04:
That's a very important question, Your Honor.

[00:03:40] Speaker 04:
And I was going to get to that because the trial court

[00:03:46] Speaker 04:
indicated that it was taken out of sequence.

[00:03:49] Speaker 04:
And as a result, it wasn't relevant to what happened later.

[00:03:56] Speaker 03:
Would you agree that that did not occur right when the officers came to the home initially?

[00:04:02] Speaker 03:
Because then to me, that was an important question to suggest I'm not inviting you in.

[00:04:08] Speaker 03:
You need to tell me why you're here.

[00:04:10] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:04:11] Speaker 04:
It did not occur at the beginning.

[00:04:14] Speaker 04:
It occurred later.

[00:04:16] Speaker 04:
As a matter of fact, they were in the bedroom at that time.

[00:04:21] Speaker 03:
My argument is that once- I'm going to agree that up until the bedroom scene, the officers were appropriately there with consent of Mr. Turbin or at least no revocation of consent.

[00:04:37] Speaker 04:
I do not agree that there was consent, but I think that what is clear is once the colloquy took place and once Mr. Turpin basically says, well, why are you here?

[00:05:01] Speaker 04:
Which basically says, well, what authority do you have

[00:05:05] Speaker 04:
From that point, it's clear that even if arguendo, there was consent.

[00:05:14] Speaker 04:
At that point, it ends.

[00:05:18] Speaker 03:
And it's clear that- Wouldn't that be at the point where the officers had already seen the drugs?

[00:05:27] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:05:29] Speaker 04:
And that's another important point.

[00:05:36] Speaker 04:
The drugs issue was not brought up until after the colloquy.

[00:05:45] Speaker 04:
Up to that point, there was nothing said about the drugs and so forth.

[00:05:51] Speaker 04:
And also what is very telling, obviously, about what Mr. Turpin says, he says, how is it that you are able to be in my house and you understand what I'm saying, if in fact,

[00:06:07] Speaker 04:
Officer Lorraine believed that there was consent.

[00:06:13] Speaker 04:
The response to that would have been, well, Mr. Turpin, we're here because you consented to our coming.

[00:06:21] Speaker 02:
It's hard for me to believe that an officer on the scene, when we're taking into account the practicalities of officers that are going into a residence where they suspect that there could be some problematic

[00:06:34] Speaker 02:
interactions taking place are supposed to have an oral argument about law.

[00:06:38] Speaker 02:
I mean, it's just the way you're perceiving of it is what the officer should have said is, well, there's a doctrine called consent searches.

[00:06:45] Speaker 02:
And so if what you're asking is, am I lawfully here because I had a warrant to come into your residence?

[00:06:52] Speaker 02:
The answer is no, but I didn't need a warrant because I got your consent at the door.

[00:06:55] Speaker 02:
I mean, that's just not a realistic way of the way we would expect officers to interact with people in whose homes they've been invited.

[00:07:04] Speaker 02:
Is it?

[00:07:04] Speaker 02:
I mean, we don't even know what Mr. Clement, when he said, how is it that you came to be here?

[00:07:11] Speaker 02:
It's possible that that's what he's asking about the legal authority.

[00:07:14] Speaker 02:
It might well be, but I don't know that in that situation, what we say for qualified immunity purposes is that a reasonable officer, in order to avoid being determined to have engaged in unconstitutional entry into the House and subsequent search of the House, is supposed to have said in that situation, well, let me walk you through the Supreme Court case law and what a consensual search is.

[00:07:33] Speaker 02:
That just doesn't seem like it.

[00:07:35] Speaker 04:
Well, I agree with you that I wouldn't expect him to give a legal dissertation on consent.

[00:07:43] Speaker 04:
However, if in fact he believes that he did have consent, he could have merely said, well, Mr. Turpin,

[00:07:53] Speaker 02:
But what was the question was, how is it that you came to be here?

[00:07:56] Speaker 02:
Is that what it was?

[00:07:56] Speaker 02:
I mean, where I analyze this language as if it's a statute.

[00:08:00] Speaker 02:
But still, we can do that.

[00:08:01] Speaker 02:
But how is it that you're able to be in my house?

[00:08:05] Speaker 02:
I mean, I think it could have reasoned.

[00:08:07] Speaker 02:
The answer had to do with why they were at the house as opposed to in the house.

[00:08:12] Speaker 02:
I mean, I don't know that we, because I think if the answer was we came to be here because we got some complaints about a disturbance, and that's factually accurate, I assume.

[00:08:24] Speaker 02:
And at that point, if the difference is why they're at the house as opposed to in the house, we're splitting things pretty finely as to what an officer is supposed to do in the course of a dynamic interaction within a residence where they've been invited to come in.

[00:08:44] Speaker 04:
Well, Your Honor, the whole concept of consent is supposed to be voluntary and so forth, and knowing to some extent.

[00:08:56] Speaker 04:
I mean, you know, if that's their argument,

[00:08:59] Speaker 04:
that, well, it was consensual and so forth, then he should be able to just state that and so forth and lay language.

[00:09:09] Speaker 04:
It doesn't have to be a legal thing.

[00:09:13] Speaker 02:
Is your argument that when Mr. Turbin asked that question that that was a revocation

[00:09:18] Speaker 02:
Let's just assume that there was consent to come in, because I think this argument assumes that.

[00:09:22] Speaker 02:
I know you don't want to give that away, but I think this part of your argument necessarily assumes that.

[00:09:27] Speaker 02:
And if we assume that, then is your argument that even if there was consent for the entry, that that consent was revoked when he asked the question, how is it that you came to be in my house?

[00:09:41] Speaker 02:
That's a revocation of a consent, just to ask the question, how is it that you came to be in my house?

[00:09:48] Speaker 04:
Yes, because they are basically saying that, well, you know, you said come in and you consented to everything and so forth.

[00:09:58] Speaker 02:
And if in fact... So what would the answer have been, we're here because you consented to our coming in?

[00:10:05] Speaker 02:
Yes, why not?

[00:10:08] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry?

[00:10:09] Speaker 04:
Yes, your honor.

[00:10:10] Speaker 04:
Why couldn't he say that?

[00:10:11] Speaker 02:
Right, but I'm saying if he did say that in response, Mr. Turpin still would have asked the exact same question.

[00:10:19] Speaker 02:
And then, but if the officer would have said that in response, and then the question, if it's the answer to the question that determines whether the question is a revocation, then it's hard to see how the question can be a revocation.

[00:10:33] Speaker 04:
Well, I think that in legal terms that the cases sometimes refer to is that,

[00:10:45] Speaker 04:
A question like that on behalf of Mr. Turpin is inconsistent with someone who consented to something.

[00:10:55] Speaker 05:
The problem for you is that later on, when he did try and revoke the consent, he knew how to do it.

[00:11:02] Speaker 05:
He did it in very clear terms.

[00:11:04] Speaker 05:
It wasn't just a question.

[00:11:06] Speaker 05:
How did you happen to be here?

[00:11:07] Speaker 05:
As the chief is saying, that could be construed a lot of different ways.

[00:11:11] Speaker 05:
It certainly was not an obvious revocation of consent

[00:11:14] Speaker 05:
I want to ask you one thing, just to make sure there's no confusion in my mind.

[00:11:19] Speaker 05:
You're not doubting that the drugs were in plain view.

[00:11:25] Speaker 04:
Is that right?

[00:11:29] Speaker 04:
Apparently, the drugs were in plain view.

[00:11:32] Speaker 04:
I'm not arguing that.

[00:11:35] Speaker 05:
OK, I just wanted to make sure I had the record straight in my head.

[00:11:41] Speaker 04:
Also, I'm not consenting as to what type of drugs they were.

[00:11:46] Speaker 04:
No, no, no, I wasn't.

[00:11:47] Speaker 04:
Right, exactly.

[00:11:48] Speaker 05:
I'm just asking whether, because there's another way to argue the case if you're contesting plain view.

[00:11:56] Speaker 05:
But my understanding was that you were not, so that other way doesn't matter.

[00:12:00] Speaker 04:
No, I think the key thing is the sequence, when it occurred and so forth.

[00:12:06] Speaker 04:
And it's very clear from the evidence

[00:12:11] Speaker 04:
from the body-worn camera footage, it's not a mystery that the issue regarding the plain view of the drugs was clearly after what I refer to as

[00:12:35] Speaker 04:
The revocation, the court, and so forth.

[00:12:39] Speaker 05:
I would refer to the clear revocation after the drugs were uncovered.

[00:12:44] Speaker 05:
Then he clearly said, I want you out of here.

[00:12:47] Speaker 05:
Then he said it.

[00:12:48] Speaker 04:
Well, Your Honor.

[00:12:49] Speaker 04:
Or something like that.

[00:12:51] Speaker ?:
He said.

[00:12:51] Speaker 04:
He did.

[00:12:52] Speaker 04:
I mean, but that's not the only way that one can explain.

[00:12:55] Speaker 04:
I understand.

[00:12:55] Speaker 05:
We're going around in circles and that.

[00:12:57] Speaker 05:
But I get your point.

[00:12:58] Speaker 05:
I understand.

[00:12:59] Speaker 05:
And it wasn't the reason I asked about plain view when I looked at the video wasn't clear to me.

[00:13:05] Speaker 05:
whether if I just walked into that bedroom, as the police were allowed to do, if I just looked on that night table, that I would know that those packages, whatever they were, were drugs.

[00:13:17] Speaker 05:
But you didn't raise that as an issue.

[00:13:21] Speaker 05:
Because I think the police opened whatever the package was.

[00:13:25] Speaker 04:
Let me say this, Your Honor.

[00:13:27] Speaker 04:
There's a lot of speculation on the other side as to when this occurred.

[00:13:36] Speaker 04:
He didn't come in and immediately say, give any indication that he saw

[00:13:46] Speaker 04:
The drugs in?

[00:13:47] Speaker 04:
The drugs.

[00:13:49] Speaker 04:
He didn't say anything about it.

[00:13:51] Speaker 04:
The only notification that came in was when he arrested Ms.

[00:14:02] Speaker 04:
Jackson.

[00:14:03] Speaker 04:
Up to that point, there was nothing said and so forth, and they were just talking.

[00:14:09] Speaker 04:
So you can't infer

[00:14:13] Speaker 04:
that as soon as they walked in the bedroom, well, okay, they saw it.

[00:14:17] Speaker 04:
If he saw it, he didn't say anything.

[00:14:21] Speaker 04:
You can't make that assumption.

[00:14:27] Speaker 03:
He didn't go back to the bedroom.

[00:14:30] Speaker 03:
Is that correct?

[00:14:31] Speaker 04:
Yes, he went out back to the bedroom without consent of that occurring also.

[00:14:38] Speaker 04:
And I wanted to say I'm out of time, but I reserved some time.

[00:14:42] Speaker 03:
But I'm asking when you say that, why are you here?

[00:14:45] Speaker 03:
You're saying he went back to the bedroom after that.

[00:14:50] Speaker 04:
No, no, they were in the bedroom at that time.

[00:14:53] Speaker 04:
Everybody was in the bedroom at that time.

[00:14:56] Speaker 02:
And then one officer left Mr. Turpin after that.

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:15:00] Speaker 04:
Yeah, they forced Mr. Turpin to leave and so forth to go to another room while he interrogated Ms.

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
Jackson or attempted to interrogate her.

[00:15:13] Speaker 03:
But I was just trying to get at your question about they never said anything about the drugs.

[00:15:19] Speaker 03:
Your statement suggests that everybody had gone to the living room or outside or something

[00:15:26] Speaker 03:
and then somebody went back to find drugs as opposed to already in the bedroom and they could see the drugs.

[00:15:34] Speaker 04:
Yeah, they could see it.

[00:15:35] Speaker 04:
But in other words, no one, including the district court judge, could know when they saw it.

[00:15:48] Speaker 04:
The only way that one

[00:15:51] Speaker 04:
would know that they saw it, it's when they made the arrest.

[00:15:56] Speaker 04:
That was the first time that that issue came up.

[00:15:58] Speaker 04:
There's nothing in the record.

[00:16:00] Speaker 04:
And once again, this is a case for

[00:16:06] Speaker 04:
judgment on the pleadings.

[00:16:09] Speaker 04:
So you're very limited to what evidence you can use to make your argument.

[00:16:13] Speaker 04:
There was nothing that the district court knew about when they actually saw it for the first time.

[00:16:22] Speaker 04:
The first time that that comes out on the record was when the arrest was made.

[00:16:28] Speaker 04:
Up to that point, they were just talking.

[00:16:30] Speaker 04:
Well, what are you doing?

[00:16:31] Speaker 04:
Well, why are you making all of that noise?

[00:16:34] Speaker 04:
He asked that I don't know how many times.

[00:16:37] Speaker 04:
Well, what was going on?

[00:16:38] Speaker 04:
Well, there was nothing about the drugs.

[00:16:42] Speaker 04:
There was no arrest at that point.

[00:16:44] Speaker 03:
But what do you contend the arrest was for?

[00:16:48] Speaker 04:
Well, it was for the drugs and so forth, allegedly.

[00:16:54] Speaker 04:
But with respect to how one can

[00:17:02] Speaker 04:
make a statement, a definitive statement as to when that occurred, you can't do that.

[00:17:11] Speaker 04:
You can't make an assumption that as soon as he walked in the bedroom, well, he saw it.

[00:17:15] Speaker 04:
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

[00:17:17] Speaker 04:
If he did, he didn't say anything about it.

[00:17:18] Speaker 05:
The problem is that wasn't an issue.

[00:17:22] Speaker 05:
You gotta raise something like that.

[00:17:23] Speaker 05:
Yes, could it have been raised?

[00:17:25] Speaker 05:
Yes, could have.

[00:17:26] Speaker 05:
But he, when the one, the second cop went into the, back to the living room,

[00:17:32] Speaker 05:
There was a back and forth, and he said, what are you going to arrest me for?

[00:17:35] Speaker 05:
He said drugs, I guess.

[00:17:37] Speaker 05:
So they had seen something, and they surmised they were drugs.

[00:17:41] Speaker 05:
They were passives.

[00:17:42] Speaker 04:
That was after the colloquy and so forth.

[00:17:44] Speaker 04:
That was after that discussion.

[00:17:46] Speaker 05:
So they had seen the drugs by then, and they told them, we're going to arrest you for drugs.

[00:17:50] Speaker 04:
Oh, well, there's no dispute about that.

[00:17:53] Speaker 04:
They did.

[00:17:54] Speaker 04:
There came a time.

[00:17:55] Speaker 04:
after the colloquy, and what I refer to as a revocation, and no, he didn't say, get out of my house at that time during the colloquy, but at the same time, his statements were totally inconsistent with someone who had given consent.

[00:18:19] Speaker 05:
Let me make it real clear for me.

[00:18:23] Speaker 05:
If you concede, and I'm not saying you should concede, if I had you in a chokehold and you had to concede that your revocation argument is wrong, it's not borne by the record, so it's not on play, your client unfortunately would lose, is that right?

[00:18:45] Speaker 05:
Well, if there was no- Wait, just for my head, I'm a slow thinker now, okay?

[00:18:51] Speaker 05:
If you had to concede or acknowledge that your revocation argument does not work, your client would lose, right?

[00:19:04] Speaker 04:
Yeah, if the revocation argument... We don't buy it.

[00:19:11] Speaker 05:
I have to ask questions so that I understand how you're arguing.

[00:19:15] Speaker 05:
We don't buy it, you lose, right?

[00:19:19] Speaker 04:
Yeah, if there was no revocation, if there was no colloquy, then that's a different situation.

[00:19:26] Speaker 02:
Don't buy into the notion that he's slow thinking now.

[00:19:28] Speaker 02:
That's contradicted by everything any of us have seen.

[00:19:35] Speaker 05:
Okay, thank you, Council.

[00:19:36] Speaker 04:
Okay, and as I said, I did reserve some time.

[00:19:39] Speaker 04:
We'll give you time for battle.

[00:19:40] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:19:51] Speaker 01:
Mr. Phillips.

[00:19:52] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:19:52] Speaker 01:
May it please the court?

[00:19:53] Speaker 01:
Graham Phillips on behalf of the appellees.

[00:19:56] Speaker 01:
I'll start with revocation, because I think that is understandably where the focus was this morning.

[00:20:00] Speaker 01:
I think this revocation argument based on this question that Mr. Turpin asked fails for two independent reasons.

[00:20:08] Speaker 01:
So the first is just that this question did not evince a revocation of consent under the Fourth Amendment.

[00:20:17] Speaker 01:
And I think the appellants have not disputed our assertion that a revocation of consent under the Fourth Amendment needs to be unequivocal.

[00:20:24] Speaker 01:
They cite with approval the same authority that we do on the nature of what constitutes consent.

[00:20:30] Speaker 01:
So then the question is, is the question here, quote, how is it that you are able to be in my house an unequivocal revocation of consent?

[00:20:39] Speaker 01:
I think the answer is definitely not.

[00:20:42] Speaker 01:
In the first place,

[00:20:44] Speaker 01:
I think there have been some questions that rightly raise, what exactly does that question even mean as a question?

[00:20:51] Speaker 01:
It's not clearly a question about the officer's legal authority.

[00:20:56] Speaker 01:
And the way that Officer Lorraine answered it is he didn't take it as a question about his legal authority.

[00:21:03] Speaker 01:
The way he appeared to take it was a question about why are you here?

[00:21:07] Speaker 01:
What triggered you coming to my house?

[00:21:10] Speaker 01:
And he answers that it was because they got this call about a noise complaint and potential fighting.

[00:21:15] Speaker 01:
And Mr. Turpin does not respond, that's not my question, that's not what I was asking.

[00:21:20] Speaker 01:
He says, I didn't call you.

[00:21:23] Speaker 01:
which is a fine answer, but it certainly does not support the notion that what he meant by his question was, what is your legal authority to be here?

[00:21:32] Speaker 01:
But even if you assume that the question was intended to mean or could be read as, what is your legal authority to be here, a mere question about the officer's legal authority is not a revocation of consent.

[00:21:46] Speaker 01:
I mean, to start, it is only a question.

[00:21:49] Speaker 01:
And it's a question that you can imagine someone in this position asking for a very rational reason other than revoking consent.

[00:21:57] Speaker 05:
Consent to search?

[00:22:00] Speaker 05:
Excuse me, Your Honor?

[00:22:01] Speaker 05:
Consent to search?

[00:22:03] Speaker 05:
Well, I don't... The case is split up sometimes.

[00:22:07] Speaker 05:
Consent to enter, maybe one thing is distinguished from consent to search.

[00:22:12] Speaker 01:
That's true, Your Honor.

[00:22:12] Speaker 05:
And your answer is?

[00:22:14] Speaker 05:
This one, again, I just want to make sure I'm understanding the arguments.

[00:22:17] Speaker 01:
Yeah, no, I don't think.

[00:22:20] Speaker 01:
There was no consent to search.

[00:22:21] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:22:21] Speaker 01:
Our position doesn't hinge on him having consented to a search because.

[00:22:25] Speaker 05:
He can't because it wasn't there.

[00:22:27] Speaker 05:
So your argument is?

[00:22:29] Speaker 01:
That he consented to their entry into the room where where drugs were in plain view.

[00:22:34] Speaker 01:
And so it's not a case where they

[00:22:36] Speaker 05:
And that was impressed the trial, because I must say it was far from clear to me what was being picked up.

[00:22:42] Speaker 05:
If you pick up a bag and then you open it and start looking, I don't know that you can do that to make it in plain view.

[00:22:49] Speaker 05:
But that was impressed, right?

[00:22:51] Speaker 01:
Yes, I agree.

[00:22:52] Speaker 01:
And I understand your position, but I do think the key thing is that has never been a disputed part of this case.

[00:22:58] Speaker 01:
So just to get back to what I think this question could mean, other than revoking consent, you can imagine that someone in this position wants to know, even if it is a question about legal authority, that they want to know, do you also have a warrant?

[00:23:14] Speaker 01:
Because you could want to know that

[00:23:17] Speaker 01:
because it could inform how you interact with the police.

[00:23:19] Speaker 01:
You could want to know the nature of their legal authority so that you can decide whether, oh, I could revoke my consent later if this interaction starts to go in a direction that I don't like.

[00:23:30] Speaker 01:
But to put the point simply, merely asking if the officers are there on the basis of consent is not the same thing as revoking consent.

[00:23:39] Speaker 01:
And I'm not aware of any case in any jurisdiction that equates those concepts.

[00:23:44] Speaker 01:
So I think that's the simplest way to resolve this revocation argument.

[00:23:51] Speaker 01:
And I think, as counsel conceded here at the podium, that is the end of the case.

[00:23:56] Speaker 01:
I do dispute, as a secondary matter, dispute the timing argument.

[00:24:03] Speaker 01:
I think it certainly is true that this question gets asked before the officers have actually picked up the drugs or mentioned the drugs.

[00:24:14] Speaker 01:
But when they mention or pick up the drugs is not the relevant inquiry.

[00:24:19] Speaker 01:
The relevant inquiry would be,

[00:24:20] Speaker 01:
When were the drugs in plain view thereby creating probable cause?

[00:24:26] Speaker 01:
And I understand that you could have questions about that.

[00:24:30] Speaker 01:
I do think the baggie that- It's not on the video.

[00:24:34] Speaker 03:
It's not on the video.

[00:24:36] Speaker 01:
I think it is, Your Honor.

[00:24:37] Speaker 01:
I think before this question gets asked, you can see the TV stand right there, and the objects that we're talking about were just sitting on the TV stand.

[00:24:45] Speaker 05:
We don't know what those objects are.

[00:24:46] Speaker 05:
You can't go very far with this.

[00:24:48] Speaker 05:
I mean, you're lucky it was never contested.

[00:24:50] Speaker 05:
It is not clear to me what they actually saw, because my first surprise was there was a bag with something in it, because they pulled something apart.

[00:25:01] Speaker 05:
And I would have argued his counsel, it's not plain view.

[00:25:04] Speaker 05:
He didn't see anything.

[00:25:05] Speaker 05:
It would cause you to know that was drug.

[00:25:07] Speaker 05:
Maybe you, because you watching them and wondering whether they were under the influence, you just assumed maybe.

[00:25:15] Speaker 05:
So you started pulling things apart.

[00:25:18] Speaker 05:
You don't have much with that argument.

[00:25:20] Speaker 05:
Your only argument, as I understand this record, your only argument is it was never contested.

[00:25:25] Speaker 01:
Well, we certainly went on that basis alone.

[00:25:28] Speaker 01:
And maybe I'll just leave it there then.

[00:25:31] Speaker 01:
Because I do think you don't need to get to that because of that concession or that forfeiture.

[00:25:37] Speaker 01:
You don't need to even get there unless you think the question was a revocation of consent.

[00:25:42] Speaker 01:
And for the reasons I've just discussed, I think it plainly is not.

[00:25:46] Speaker 02:
And you'd still have to deal with, even if it got past that, you'd still have to deal with the standards for a judgment on the pleadings too.

[00:25:53] Speaker 02:
Because it would have to be,

[00:25:55] Speaker 02:
in plain view, so plainly, that would result in inclusion of plain view at that threshold stage of the case, which is another complication.

[00:26:09] Speaker 01:
I think we would argue it, but I agree that that would be a complication in a case where the plainness of the view was actually disputed, but it was not below.

[00:26:19] Speaker 01:
It has not been here.

[00:26:22] Speaker 01:
Unless the court has any further questions, we'll.

[00:26:24] Speaker 02:
ask that you affirm.

[00:26:26] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Mr. Phillips.

[00:26:33] Speaker 02:
Mr. Pressley will give you two minutes for rattle.

[00:26:38] Speaker 02:
Well, uh, just for the record driver, I had requested, uh, five minutes, five minutes, right?

[00:26:46] Speaker 02:
Sometimes the arguments go in a particular direction and there's only so much time left.

[00:26:53] Speaker 04:
Your honor, I wanted to say a word about another important issue in this case, and that is the come in statement and so forth.

[00:27:04] Speaker 04:
The other side is making a major issue about that statement.

[00:27:11] Speaker 04:
And just as your honor mentioned something about how

[00:27:17] Speaker 04:
In the colloquy, the statement could mean various things.

[00:27:24] Speaker 04:
Well, that certainly applies to comment.

[00:27:26] Speaker 04:
It's not as definitive as the other side would like.

[00:27:31] Speaker 04:
And once again, if you have a reasonable officer dealing with that particular issue, that particular officer would have to know that

[00:27:47] Speaker 04:
come in under normal circumstances is a situation where, let's say that someone comes up to your door, it's raining outside.

[00:28:00] Speaker 04:
solicitor.

[00:28:02] Speaker 04:
You might say, well, come in.

[00:28:04] Speaker 04:
Does that mean that that person that you've asked to come in has the run of your house, can go to your bedrooms and so forth?

[00:28:15] Speaker 04:
That's absurd.

[00:28:17] Speaker 04:
And no reasonable officer would be able to draw that conclusion.

[00:28:24] Speaker 04:
And if, in fact, there was a serious concern about coming in and giving this

[00:28:34] Speaker 04:
This statement, these two words, all of this power and so forth is with all due respect ridiculous and not something that should be considered in that way.

[00:28:49] Speaker 04:
People say come in and so forth and the average person and so forth common sensically understands what that means.

[00:28:58] Speaker 04:
ask anybody to come in inside, typically what it means is you step inside the door, on the other side of the door, come in and say what you have to say.

[00:29:09] Speaker 04:
The officer ostensibly wanted to just talk, so to speak.

[00:29:14] Speaker 04:
Well, he also wanted to search, and that's obvious from the video.

[00:29:20] Speaker 02:
So from this argument, just so I'm understanding, this is acknowledging that come in means you can come inside the house.

[00:29:28] Speaker 02:
What you're saying is it doesn't necessarily talk about the scope of what you can do when you come in, but you're saying that it at least means you can come in the house.

[00:29:41] Speaker 04:
That's what it means under normal circumstances.

[00:29:46] Speaker 04:
Now, as to whether, obviously that didn't occur.

[00:29:58] Speaker 04:
If in fact that was really meant in that fashion, Mr. Turpin would not have stepped outside.

[00:30:06] Speaker 04:
He came to the door and stepped outside.

[00:30:12] Speaker 04:
Now also it's very important to understand that Officer Lorraine also had a different understanding about what come in meant.

[00:30:21] Speaker 04:
He had the opportunity

[00:30:23] Speaker 04:
If he really believes that it meant come in, he could have come in.

[00:30:28] Speaker 04:
The door was open, actually.

[00:30:30] Speaker 04:
He cracked the door open.

[00:30:32] Speaker 04:
This is all on the video.

[00:30:35] Speaker 04:
He cracked the door and reposed himself.

[00:30:39] Speaker 04:
If he thought that he really could come in, he would have come in.

[00:30:43] Speaker 04:
He didn't come in and so forth.

[00:30:45] Speaker 04:
So he didn't really believe that it meant come in.

[00:30:48] Speaker 04:
Mr. Turpin didn't say when he came outside to talk and so forth, which they originally agreed to when he was at the window when they first came up and so forth, Mr. Turpin stayed outside.

[00:31:00] Speaker 04:
He didn't say, well, guys, okay, come in.

[00:31:04] Speaker 04:
He didn't really mean that.

[00:31:05] Speaker 04:
So just as you indicated about how the, and what I think is a revocation based on what he said and so forth.

[00:31:16] Speaker 04:
But at any rate, I see my time is out, but I think you understood my point.

[00:31:22] Speaker 04:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:31:22] Speaker 02:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:31:23] Speaker 02:
And thank you to both counsel.

[00:31:25] Speaker 02:
We'll take this case under submission.