. >> ms. drake? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, the odor of burnt marijuana coupled with officer cause, cursory, and equivocal testimony about the sounds of movement. he couldn't discern exactly, and his training and experience led him only possibility to conclude with consistent with the destruction of evidence is insufficient to establish exigent -- >> well, -- >> i'm sorry. you are describing what you think the evidence was to support exigency. and the suggestion that we've heard on the other side, that's an issue that can be addressed on remand once we correct the state court's error in that the police cannot create exigent circumstances. i don't know it's terribly relevant what the underlying facts about what they heard was. that would be relevant depending or not on what the opinion says. >> it's relevant because it goes to other exigent circumstances existed. and as to the question of whether a remand would be appropriate in this case, the question of whether exigent circumstances