proper a lack of probable cause to the degree that the defendant police officers should have known that there was no probable cause one of the primary contentions that the defendants make in their opposition brief is that the can backs taste about a conspiracy by the city officials came straight from his head and didn't exist in the real world but on the contrary the record have evidence that the city had a policy that any any work to be done by a contractor for the city that was over five thousand dollars in value had to be put to public did you in this case even have the public works of public works talk to came back several months before it was anticipated that this that this work would be contracted out to tell him in a few  but in order to understand what the significance of that is you have to look at the context of this the context is he's talking to the chief of police in light of the history of europe is there any evidence tying made which would still call for the pave pain of three hundred fifty thousand dollars in a contract that was never put the public bid and should have been and probably would have resulted in arresting him had to do with that were it was this was retaliation for he squashed that deal i mean this is part of the conspiracy is the conspiracy is that ken back spoke up in quantity a deal that had three hundred fifty thousand dollars of money that was really not you know there was was not some money that was justifiably allocated to this project there is a lot of money there and you've got the chief of police inserting himself and you've got the city manager he that there was probable cause then that smitty defense is not operationally hartman case the supreme court kicks right in right yes that's right and that's consistent with mally and the whole theory of mally is that it's sort of a different fact was arrested they pursued the charges they did pursue the charges after he was arrested yes and and it was you know this issue was was fought in state court and a motion to dismiss that somebody from the prosecutor's o this case i think it is i don't i don't know that they're i don't know that any kind of a person a rule that in all cases where but in this case where it's it's the at least there's substantial evidence that the prosecutor really did nothing of any significance this police report was walked down to the prosecutor's office the prosecutor firmly read the materials in front of in front of the officer  council under under the california law as it's applied and in that county a felony prosecution i assume can can be commenced with a complaint but it has to move through some terminator the action before any of those further things you know i want to be careful of going outside the bounds of my knowledge so i basically became counsel just on the that the fact that there was an intervening determination before the arrest by the magistrate doesn't matter and here at least from the magistrate's point of view he didn't i don't know what he had different than he would have had an to make the decision to file the complaint i mean you know prosecutors you know the idea is that if you're talking a break about breaking causation simply presenting piece of paper to a prosecutor and having where they make the argument that there's no prob telling somebody you better fucking back off because you don't fucking know who you're dealing with certainly at the very least is not so far removed they had every reasonable officer having mendenhall testified that i talked with the chief said take it over to the da and see if he wants to issue a complaint don't tell him we want to issue a complaint don't do anything like that i just want to see what he thinks there on the island so i don't believe so and the da says they didn't tell me they wanted a complaint he was three fanatic about that they didn't tell me they wanted it done today they didn't tell me anything i looked another there's another paper i can explain that i think much of the routine procedure in the san bernardino and all i'm saying the reason i keep saying it's routine is there's nothing special about how it was done here once  was done without probable cause and it was dismissed on that basis and the court held that it still broke the intervening thing what we're saying here is a minute always more cautious than that he went to the d a and said  didn't tell him what to do in the asking to do it then he had the situation that based on people vs fines i don't believe that one can say that a reasonable police officer would not have believed that this could have of those that they talked about in mali and that's what they said he was supposed to do he was supposed to pause and consider his actions and what he did how can you my obligations he actually went in and asked and he said to the d n a you tell me this is violate sixty nine and the d a said yes it does i'm going to issue a complaint based hands in his pocket while he was in custody and he then refused to have his picture taken and he became hostile and argumentative so that he had to be physically restrained defendant said that the that  warren would quote be starry he oversaw the fund and after the photographs were taken defendant threaten to throw bars of soap at war and later that day warren encountered defendant in the jail lobby and said i'm going to kill you this is a threat you're getting in terms of  about the culpability on the part of the officers as being in the form of negligence whereas in mally and in this case we're talking more than just negligence we're talking about clearly established