reasonable basis for concluding that emergency was unfolding in my client's apartment the district court relied on the three cases brigham city ames and snipes to determine that they did however in those three cases and each one of them there was a mercy unfolding or exigent circumstances to warrant the officers to enter those particular locations in this case there was no indication that my clients need any assistance or there was emergency unfolding within their apartment i set forth fifteen different factors not my brief said thirteen but actually there's fifteen i miscounted fifteen different factors as to why there was no basis a reasonable that they believed that my client's needed assistance the apartment building that they went into it was three south of where the actual incident was happening the apartment building where they were supposed to go was on a major thoroughfare it was two lanes in the suresh and my clients were on a small street he felt that the nub of the issue in this case at least for me is the question of qualified immunity what is your best case to articulate that under the particular circumstances here the officers violated a clearly established right keeping in mind that the screen court has said over and over again that it cannot be defined at the high level of generality i understand officers are trained from day one that there is for four bases for entering apartment search warrant consent x in circumstances or ha pursuit there was nothing here they know there was no probable cause to believe that anything was happening at my client's apartment they know if they go into the wrong apartment it is a fourth member nation they're taught that from day one those are general principles but if you have max fifty feds third one five zero and it is a fourth amendment violation of the office engage in result efforts to avoid error here they did not i mean they were blatantly on the wrong street they weren't even close to where they were supposed to be pearson says that's a supreme court case it and it seems to be the only supreme court guidance we have that's really very relevant and it says well if they make a mistake it's not it's not a an innocent mistake it's not a fourth amendment violation and what else do we have that would indicate to these officers that what they did was a for them and violation well i think first and foremost there was there was nothing you don't mean to say that it was unreasonable as a matter of law you you want to say that there's a question yes i think you're should decide that fact so for the qualified immunity aspect you're saying that the principle is that the officer a reasonable officer would know that if they don't engage in reasonable efforts to avoid error and they go into the wrong house well that's a violation alright if i accept that if we accept that though then doesn't every case of going to the wrong house automatically become a jury question of whether or not the officers in gauged in reasonable efforts i don't think every that basically i mean it is what it is it's not a complicate i don't think it's a complicated case i think it's a sad case but i think they went to the wrong location and the officers here we parted immediately after realizing their mistake right yes how long would they be apartment my understanding was about three minutes they went in drew their guns on my clients did a search and then left and came back  presently when they got the call but they were told this is a gated department community they were told by the color to go through the entrance of this gated community and come around the back of the building so that they weren't planning on being a part of the you know they knew they were going to be in some small back alley or a back street to come up from the other side of the building so the fact that it didn't look like parking is a completely a red herring they weren't planning on being on earth you know that was what they were told to do they were instructed to come to the entrance to make a right turn and alley and that would take them to the correct building it was after midnight it was dark they missed the only alley and made the first right turn that they thought was available and that brought them to a building with the correct number so they thought they were at the right building bathroom they thought they were at the apartment i understand that when they got to this apartment there was no noise coming from it cracked and rather than barge in and they immediately stopped they knocked on the door didn't get a response backed up paul back in to say there's something going on here it's dark it's quiet they went to double check the number on the building which was of course the correct number of the nine one one car then tell them i'm on the line she's trapped in the bathroom and the other thing officers requested was a to have her come out so or so it was a three or five year old child i forget the age of the young child and a fifteen year old is trapped in the bathroom calling on when one is on the phone would you agree and i know this is not this case it's a hypothetical but would you agree that if there was plenty of qualified immunity is analyzed on a particular factual scenario in this case of course the facts are in dispute is the court can do that the question is are those where the efforts taken by the officers reasonable to the circumstance and if the answer to that is that's a jury question then that also interest the qualified immunity problem well if the answer to that is we're not sure then qualified immunity implies the supreme court's pretty clear about the call and that's what i'm asking if we have a just a factual dispute for a jury and whether or not officers and gauged and reasonable activity and i know you're going to  radical if we have a factual question does that also then mean we can't give qualified immunity or shouldn't give qualified immunity i think of one of the facts in question it's not clear qualified immunity plies i think the supreme court's pretty clear about that it how it would have to be a clear violation based on the facts and of course all the every case is going to be fact specific so that that gets into the weeds of exactly what facts were talking so if as a matter of law the officers were unreasonable then qualified immunity they lose qualified immunity if it's a fact question for a sorry i don't have a case of the help i had on though it seems to me a profile of from that that if there's a question as to whether or not this was an innocent mistake or whether or not it would they were reasonable in  point of qualified immunity is to get protection officers in the field who are bringing good faith and have no reason to believe what they're doing is unconstitutional based on the knowledge they have never actually been hearing of that's a very difficult question as directions about how to get to the building where a number of missing was ongoing taking place they followed the directions to the best their ability in dark in the midnight under exigent circumstances this is an ongoing violence criminal are taking place in real facts in this case are much more compelling for the officer than errors and lies errors and there were no exigent circumstances the information the correct information about the number of partners was readily available they just didn't bother to cross their t s and look at where they were going and supreme court good faith effort by the officers to double check when it looks like they may be in the wrong place or move on i mean that isn't what was reported them initially and as soon as they find there's something when they immediately withdraw because of course that means someone is being beaten in a different location that they have to take a right trying i there's some question as to whether they're in the right apartment or not i think with technology be easy to verify so i think the question of reasonable miss i don't know is it's not as clear cut as as you argue but if there are readily available methods that they can easily use to verify the accuracy of the location that goes to reasonableness and that's a fact question for the jury to evaluate so that's why i say well qualified immunity i think is the the stronger argument for you in this particular case i think though i can appreciate that and i think either would apply in this case i think in the in the case of the second a number of the building i think  a reasonable person building an enclosed apartment complex like this would have a unique name or number on every building so i don't never heard of the officers of the two buildings of the same number in the same apartment in the same a gated community so once they took a number in the building that  just briefly your honors first of all on the river and the record if i submitted aerial photographs of the location and you can clearly see they weren't even close counsel indicated that they followed his directions of the color they did not the drove right by the alley and then went down another street so they drove not one two but three they three apartment building south also to show their own resemble the dispatcher had the caller on the line when they walked up to the apartment it was dark there was no sounds coming from the parliament and the entire time they were there the dispatcher had the nine one one caller who said she was locked in the bathroom well common sense or she said she can't come in there ask her are your lights on can you come to a window they didn't do any of that the other thing they didn't do is they also indicated oh because they're asked in a deposition well why didn't she check around the back other windows all there were no other exterior windows other than the front that's a lie that was false and the record indicates that from a declaration from the sun there were extra windows they didn't do any of that they were the officer did think or perhaps someone at the wrong location so he steps out on the street calls dispatch verify the address yeah those are the numbers they've been in that complex one officer at least ten different times other actually i've been there about three times that i've been on that street they should have known they were not on parthia that area of los angeles northridge for three is a major major street and that building they were supposed to go to fronted but yet they go to a small street that they described but here's my problem yes why is there a mistake on so much worse that what happened in garrison  known that there are it if they made a mistake there were they thought there was one apartment and they were wrong what went into the wrong one right in garrison they had a search one ok so they didn't have to have the problem caused because they assigned search warrant and apparently the apartment was divided into two different sections and in this case you have to have in order to enter an apartment under exigent circumstances you have to have probable cause to believe that a crime is committing in that apartment and in the other cases and you know brigham city in ames and saif and all those cases there is indication that something was going on inside that apartment here or there it is that there's a lack of that so based on that i think there they were not reasonable in their actions and if the court were to find that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity that still does not defeat the state claims although i thought the state claim defeated if they were acting within the scope of their employment am i wrong that's not correct because the the what is the standard for the state immunity for the state immunity is they say the court relied on having a twenty one point one point eight which the district court did not cite the study twenty one point six one hundred twenty one point eight on officers i believe immune from prosecution if his