extensively on informants and i appreciate your googling up my comment it wasn't it wasn't google look we've got this one page affidavit ok it relies entirely upon informant mistake the fact right this is not a controlled by you might think that reading the affidavit but it's not a controlled by no reliable information is offered to show that this informant is reliable i not revealed that this is a criminal informant seeking obviously a break a deal it will miss the fact that the criminal informant not telling the truth and by the omitted facts of course i'm talking about the fact that  there aren't material misstatement in the warrant where the material information is omitted is the same whether it's criminal or civil now obviously because of the one hundred three action you have an issue of qualified immunity but i think for reasons already stated in a brief that's going to fail but i i strongly disagree that that first inquiry whether there's a violation here is different whether it's a criminal or a civil case and so your position is we're ever you would suppress well you know as a practical matter you go into court on a one thousand nine hundred claim representing someone who was trafficking in drugs and had all the evidence drawn out because well you know it was it was a bad war and you're not going to get a whole lot of sympathy from the jury juries notwithstanding a law and order episode don't buy into tech the legal technicalities which is how that type of depression hearing is considered by most people but here we have a case that really emphasizes the importance of why you've got to have reliable information there's no claim here that randy death and his family were involved in any of this alleged criminal activity right i mean the fact is that this is probably something fabricated by this informant that is that there was somebody in this particular unit because they've been living there for a year the utility bills were and randi just wife's name and there was no information from anybody other than the informant that this six foot hispanic male rather obliquely people and events submit on motion to quash and granted can you is there anything in the record that explains why the motion to quash was granted were there some kinds of findings was there any kind of testimony and what was the basis on which looked at the warrant and realized it wasn't going to fly well in the basic problems of many in the ones when the basic problem is you read the affidavit you wouldn't know that this is an apartment building course if it is an apartment building you know that i mean was it cost because there was some kind of misconduct this is a problem i tried to say i am and i just i don't i don't think personally i don't think you got to the point in a criminal case where there was any kind of a finding that a officer committed misconduct i think it was just there was enough was our franks motion i mean just it was mr death as a criminal defendant filed a motion the people didn't oppose it it wasn't opposed fact or misleading of the straight to the whole warrant crashed and burned i mean i don't think i'm sure there was no hearing there wasn't testimony taken in a criminal case i think again it was an instance where you look at the warrant back but when you get into it it's like the problems multiply they compound and then when you take the testimony of the officers i mean we've got the afghan romeril stating that and i never told anybody and if you believe detective cooper romero commit perjury in his deposition so well well you know if i have to go on and then i haven't  the false nature of the affidavit itself it describes what you might think is a controlled by in fact it's not a controlled by there's a sylvia person is a known person comes in the whole transaction contrary to what the plan was right the fact that the transaction was never observed by anybody other than the informant who was a criminal informant none of which is revealed to the magistrate in the affidavit that's two or three basic flaws right there and judge enters and analysis the fact that it's not the magistrate is not toll in the affidavit that this is an apartment building and therefore you've got multiple affidavit for the probable cause you don't look at the the magistrate judge is looking at the affidavit he makes he's a neutral to dispatch a neutral detached traditional officer he'd make a determination of probable cause he looked at the affidavit if sometimes if the app if the warrant itself is vague you can look at the affidavit to fill in the details but it doesn't go the other way right because the magistrate has to rely on this  affidavit so they don't get qualified in any and when you go to california law it's an even easier case because under california law you don't just strike the material information or them even though held that the warrant was the fifth that a search warrant case held at the warrant was sufficient plaintiff appealed this court reversed finding that the warrant probable cause is insufficient as a matter of  that the magistrates decision in this state court action in issuing the warrant did not insulate the officer from liability as a matter of law that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because the warrant was  qualified immunity and where you go to the when you go to the california state law claim there is no qualified immunity period furthermore your strike the affidavit in its entirety under under california law and where you're from the fam what was the green street case referenced by judge andersen before i dig through the something new i don't know but i don't think so i know i know easy and no where on the search warrant is the apartment number placed in the report and the search warrant you're supposed to be able to give the search warrant to any law enforcement officer and they can go to the exact location of the unit two story complex several apartments given in the search warrant was sufficient that it identified one and only one apartment at that location but according counsel points out you computer vague wants with a more specific affidavit but not  and that's true though i have to admit it's a certain level of confusion personally as to the warrant and the affidavit because they don't seem to be a single document that was the evidence says was prepared by officer merrill headings of the single document that was prepared so i don't i think it's difficult to argue that officer romero thought he was you know creating a separate affidavit which would have to be exclusively relied on quite magistrate as opposed to the formal warrant i think the evidence indicates that he was creating a single document which would be handed to you the magistrate in good faith is saying here's the information here's what i want is it ok and i think if there's error there it's the sort that's covered by qualified immunity and certainly nothing where he was you know if they're just again this just seems to be a single document there doesn't seem to be well personally i have noticed that until we began this colloquy difficult it has been clear that well in this court room under these circumstances it has been cleared up whether officer romero understood that there was this sort of fine distinction between the attachments i don't know i am not sure what relevance does this one w ambiguity here there isn't on its face the ambiguity comes to me at least in trying to understand why would officer romero have created the document in this way he has a very specific location you know outside or just make this up or whatever this was part of the package that was given by officer o'mara to the magistrate it obviously if officer romero had thought this description needed to be on this page as opposed to this page he would if he's the one who presented it to the judge the problem that that is created here is not one of a lack of information it's sloppy drafting and while that may be a death sentence in a suppression hearing because we have an entirely different standard at the criminal level should he be held liable financially liable because he did a crappy job of putting together his package to magistrate there's no question here that he identified the apartment there's no question that he's the one who provided that information to the magistrate and as i understand the whole idea of qualified immunity it's it recognizes the fact that police officers are not perfect that they do make mistakes clearly the magistrate who received this was not overly concerned by this he took the entire package and issued the warrant now of course you know judges magistrates make mistakes but this is that's the sort of mistake that one can see occurring just you know as the normal course of death was trying to say i didn't hear anything i couldn't hear it anything i would have heard it if if there had been this knock on notice he never says that and there's nothing difficult about making that sort of clear cut statement could hear somebody was knocking on our door we could hear it and nobody knocked and then here we have the same they first thing i heard was people knocking down the door and before i could reach for my g for ninety eight at six and seven mr davis says i could hear someone knocking on my front door from my bedroom and then through my i could hear someone talking at the front door that sounds like him sorry we're talking about the first decoration i think i have to disagree on of all of paragraph three is about that day i could not if the witch defendants caused the damage to my house i was inside her apartment when the defense broke the glove i was in the living one room when they broke the bed all of this is referencing that event and immediately before that is ok but there's something missing in paragraph two of no but on the other hand it's there's a logical flow from i was you know i have this apartment here and i could hear somebody and then boom all this terrible stuff was happening i guess the answer is yes it could be read either way the point is that this is a this is a declaration that was  clarify apparent ambiguity in the first one and rather than a very simple straightforward statement that i did not hear anybody at the door i would have heard them if there had been a knock notice we get a statement that actually seems to get moved closer to i did hear them  between the respective versions of events that has to be resolved here you're asking we're suggesting that a jury has to decide you know what which of mr disc own statements as to what happened should people secondly another one i hadn't even mentioned tracey martinez stated that she was watching the stairwell from the driveway after she came out of the laundry room and there which was in two and there's no indication this martinez was anywhere other then within sight of the door there is so there's a material fact i did not hear  i did not hear another this martina's and she no deposition taken later from her saying i was wrong when i made a declaration why isn't creation of material fact because department i did not hear the police knock on the door before entering this apartment i did not hear the police say anything before going into the apartment i politics or i did not remember her saying that she's  the partial summary judgment of the various counts if what we're talking about is a failure of judge andersen on this on the not notice issue and we would suggest and request that that be the only portion think the attempt with with mr warford was to show physical impossibility not simply impeachment but to show that miss martin is test my simply could not be but it doesn't do that because well that doesn't state how far she was address specific location in the affidavit it's the not offering any information verifying that this informant is reliable not revealing the fact that it's a criminal informant and therefore is seeking to favor the c to search this residence just like you put in the information that this particular informant is a criminal informant the in trying to take a break on on the deal and you also put in the affidavit the fact that this by transaction between negro and the informant was never witnessed by anybody that the sole source of that information was from the informant and in fact that this whole so called controlled by was not a controlled by it went sideways because the informant brought in immunity under state law claim there is no qualified immunity and the cases are on a breeze so there would be damages on the state law claims for the whole intreat in search except her and the city to be liable under response appear you are if you're just looking at the federal claim then you're looking at the general damages for failure to have not noticed and the destruction of property that mr death described in his decoration the other reasonable