qualified immunity the sole claim remaining against him  and all move right into the argument that the issue before this court and it's been well framed by both by this court's decision and more recently by the saucy versus cast case is whether or not an object of lee reasonable officer in o position could believe that there was probable cause to arrest mr karens for what on this record are declarations on the now for by his former spouse alleging what clearly would constitute harassment what we have in this record and what is undisputed are two orders birth of which are continuing in nature and then prohibit the exact conduct at issue here the hang up i submit at the trial court level and what you'll hear from my opponent is that there was one order issued in june of one nine hundred ninety eight by the king county superior court the first order in this case prohibiting this conduct they did contain an that expressly prohibited in fact on the face of the decree your honor is a reference is a statement that violation of a restraining order in paragraph three point eight this by the way is in the excerpt of record at page eighty a violation of that restraining order with actual knowledge of its terms is a criminal offense in violation of washington law and it cites the statute r c w twenty six point zero nine there's no question but that mr parents analysis paragraph three point eight in that decree states that make and this is the language out of the order this is it states quote a continuing restraining order is entered as follows the husband is restrained from assaulting her lasting molesting or disturbing the peace of the other party specifically of his ex wife so there is nothing in the record that ever modifies the continuing nature of that order and further there is nothing in the record that ever modifies the continuing nature of the orders entered by the city of pacific it is a strange construction that you will hear from my opposition to try to incorporate into either of these orders some limitation on the term of them the other argument that you will hear is that in the certification of probable cause that my client prepared he specifically reference the dissolution decree well that argument has no meaning because as this court has held clearly and in fact i believe your honor was it was your opinion in four versus jointly that the doctrine of probable cause of qualified immunity just not require even the probable cause to arrest exists further we have the recent decision by judge browning out of this court in alford versus painter which said probable cause may still exist for a closely related offense and in that in this case the exact conduct that he engaged in not only violated the city of pacific  again a continuing order but violated the preservation against contact contained in the dissolution decree so what stands in this record is clear evidence creating as a matter of law the existence of probable cause of course that's not the standard for qualified immunity and if this court can determine that and objective lee reasonable officer reading all of these orders could believe that his action in making the arrest that i suppose if you if there was if he says i didn't do it or if he said well what i did was i only called a couple of times talk with the kids and then you can have a reasonable officer trying to interpret the meaning of the orders and whether or not that would be violated because i just found it here there's no dispute as to what he did and what he did was a violation of the order i guess you have to ask the end of the case and what you know that that is the end of the case now there is in this record to be fair there is a declaration by mr parents denying that he intended to harass and he was calling his wife simply to arrange custody of course that is not the test for probable cause what is in the record in europe quickly referring to our two sworn statements by ms karen's repeating the voice mails that were left by her ex husband who maybe then you get into the question officers interpretation as to whether listening to both sides he would interpret this as a violation of the order then you get the problem are reasonable for the declaration by mr karen's doesn't come until he's opposing the summary judgment your honor so the only the information presented to the office r is that mr terence is calling and not making statements about can i arrange custody he's making statements to the effect that we're in jail last time i spend the harder it's going to be on the person that he is accusing his ex wife of having an affair with that isn't arranging custody that is for rassmann and specifically prohibited by to continuing orders i reserve the balance of my time thank  he is he is being charged in this situation for the for the crime of contacting his wife for purposes  for something this crime is based upon the existence of an order that my client breached while it he did not breach or violate any order and  ascertain you know if they have a trial later and say well the reason i was contacted wasn't to talk about the boyfriend or the other when i asked for a jury to decide or a judge in a court trial but here i think i mean you've got arrest warrant you you know you've understand your question but i guess what you're but you're saying like the officer should go out you know check with the you know get both sides together let me hear your side let me hear your side or ascertain here and i don't think that's what they're supposed to do no he's not been charged he's been charged with breaking a no contact order but the no contact order was modified on august eighteenth to allow all contact in fact the officer who submitted trying to get visitation he there there's nothing in there that can reasonably be interpreted as being harassing but costs are more important in this is that he's not going to charged with harassment here he's being charged you look at the pages eighteen and nineteen with the information that's only premixed you are charged with violating the no contact order but the no contact order in a place allows him to have contact for purposes visitation he doesn't well the big deal is your honor he has been he has been charged with charge was that was a crime they were specifically allowed to do by court order there is no court  hold water let me explain why i'm looking at page ninety of my excerpt a record which is the language containing the construct tin ewing restraining order issued by the superior court which page ninety three as anything other than harassing he she repeats in here that he recall he calls on three times he's angry accusing me of having an affair he's delusional the second message is that he says my friend vikas needs a restraining order and the third comment which is the court notes is the one that was repeated in the search for certification of probable cause states he says to his ex wife the more jail time mandated by law to make an arrest that's exactly what happened here the issue is before you on a question of qualified immunity and it cannot be said that no reasonable officer reading these orders and the sworn