honour's it should be a matter of grave concern that neely rickets was arrested her home searched her husband's hotel room searched and her husband's vi medication and sea based at the end of the day soley upon the word of a form our ex boyfriend who in the past had in fact been arrested for physically assaulting ms rate gets these facts show and give  someone with an axe to grind a motive for revenge can go to the police presenting accusations that a crime is going to be committed and based at the end of the day soley upon those accusations this search is and ultimately arrests and detentions be carried out just what i'm trying to figure out  certainly there are situations where a person makes a claim let's assume that they are anonymous and we have all the case law dealing with that where you wonder whether really there was enough but here the person is known he shows up they take him to the prosecutor they actually put him under oath and then they take that to a neutral magistrate and they get a magistrate's permission so how on earth can there be liability not not with respect to covers getting the drugs will get to that separately how on earth could use can you say there wasn't probable cause because under that particularly even under the case law relied upon by defendants at the end of the day obviously probable cause it is a factual inquiry to be made by the officers it is a factual inquiry to be made looking at the facts available however even under the cases established it was a situation where an arrestee had accused a corrections officer of sexually assaulting her in that case however the officers did not simply accept corroborating information from a cell mate of the prisoner making the accusation and the reason your honor why even in this context where christopher kish as opposed to a confidential informant was known to the officers was known he was not a confidential undisclosed informant even though his name was known in this particular case given the fact that the only information the officers were going by was information provided by mr kish what's your best case that essential he says it was an insufficient  there was a landlord who was having a dispute with a tenant the lamp lord called the police and told the police that the tenant was or that someone was trying to break back into the house the police based solely upon what they were told by this landlord preceded to the residence and proceeded to arrest red ski in that case the sixth circuit in finding that qualified immunity was not appropriate on the issue of probable cause to the officers in that case the sixth circuit held that the officers by simply accepting the word of the landlord who was in a dispute with his tenant that a crime was being convicted without carrying out any other independent investigation and without considering the exculpatory evidence presented by the ted when the police arrived the tenant indicated that he had a driver's license that would have shown that he resided at that location there was also on note left on go or it cetera in that case the sixth circuit did that the actions in the officers in simply relying upon the word of the landlord that a crime was being committed and without conducting additional  in our brief our reply brief on page nine re cite the red van ski decision at page three of four of the decision where the sixth circuit states what was mark's warrant alone of placing someone under oath where again looking at the facts of this case there is knowledge that he is a former boyfriend of nearly  investigation would have revealed that he had previously been arrested for it to assaulting ms ricketts that in this case when you're dealing with someone who has motive and background and relationship and incentive to attack someone and cause them harm and to make up false allegations against someone the mere fact that you put that person under oath i would submit does not at that point and the inquiry of whether the officers had probable cause requested they discuss the case with the prosecutor i'm sorry i know what was the question at regus or whatever in the name of their cases did they discuss the case with the prosecutor inbred vance keep bensky hold on one moment your honor and i will all this happened outside the door of the guys apart when they were called there and haul them away if i understand it correctly yes i do not believe that here we have a situation where the guy comes in the police are sure what to do they go to the prosecutor that's a good thing right absolutely prosecutor puts him under oath to see if his story holds up that's a good thing right again yes then prepare an affidavit in support of a search warrant that's a good thing that is a step they should follow you know claim that they made a false statement in th nt was for the search but now actually erast her in conjunction with the execution of the search warrant right although you argue i know you argue about whether they arrested before the person ever went in i get i get all that but they had a search warrant for which a neutral magistrate has has concluded correctly or incorrectly in hindsight that there was probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that there would be evidence found of that crime at the place where she lived right yes they had to say on the face of that it's still they still had to go do more investigation before they could arrest him yes i would say in the face of that and when they went to the magistrate for the search warrant when they went t prosecutor all along this chain if you trace it back if you trace back from the going to the house the arresting neely recruits which occurred prior to any search the one of the first things they do i understand from the facts in this case they are right that the house one of the first things they do was to place a kneeling rig it's under wraps before searching the house before attempting to corroborate if  search of the house would have revealed the presence of the pills the case described before confirming if any search would have led to evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of nearly  tracing that back before going to the magistrate for consulting with the prosecutor if we look at the bottom of this pyramid if we ask what is the foundation upon which all of this no other interviews conducted there was no investigation into mr kitchens background there was no attempt to independently corroborate whether anything any of this story that mr kish was presenting wasn't any way in lee enough to the extent that you could have said they should have arrested a curb before they did the search be in g the search didn't find anything so they at that point they should have let her go they do the search they find a quantity of pills which is basically what kish has described twenty five different prescription bottles and then i'm not sure what significance this had they also find suspected marijuana and drug paraphernalia so not a real shock that they didn't let her go after the searches or well again your honor my understanding is the drugs that there w prescription for those drugs and even if they didn't let her go at that point because again we maintain there was no probable cause for the execution of the search i'm sorry the execution of the arrest to begin with or even the search to begin with based only on the uncorroborated word of christopher kish we have the situation then judge your honor where they do go in talk to thomas steiner and thomas steiner provides exculpatory evidence where thomas steiner states that there was no plot there was no plan in your honor if i am reading my time or correctly that does appear that i'm out of time thank you very much if you just when i think a quick question of course your honor regard to disappear liability you haven't talked about that but what w police expert mr katsaris where under oath and in the form an affidavit he opined that the municipal liability was based upon a failure to adequately train its officers were guarding what constituted probable cause and what officers would need to do to establish prior probable cause prior to executing an arrest in a search ok now that you have been you making that argument you are appeal yes we did your honor that  good morning may please the court david crouse on behalf of the appellate let me first address the revamp ski issue that the plaintiffs brought up here the most the crucial item and the one that they don't seem to concentrate on is the lack is that there was no information provided to the police with police of any axe to grind by mr kish mr kis came in on his home and i think it's interesting to note that they took a statement from him and then the next day they took him to the prosecutor this was not something done in a rush was something done deliberately to make sure that all policies and procedures were followed the red van schaik case and at page three zero nine of the opinion states finally unlike ehlers this is not a situation where officers failed to collect exculpatory evidence but rather they already had both knowledge and possession of such evidence the time of the arrest that's the distinction and revamps when the when the officers and were advance confronted the plaintiff they were aware of the conflict between the parties that is not true in this case and that is the distinction that must be made that is crucial to the holding in reva in an extensive truth so you're saying if they know of this axe to grind they've got a mess to get further comfortable with that i'm not sure that if i think if they have if there's evidence of something but there was no evidence here and we know she's going to stand back up and she's going to say well they didn't know that kid had an axe to grind but they should have investigated kish further so  to that now because you know that's what she's going to say i don't i don't think there is any support in the law for that i think that what they have that when they have a situation where someone comes into them they take a statement they go down and have a prosecutor put this person under oath therefore they have now done what needs to be done i don't think that they have to go further and make an investigation all the establishing here is probable cause they're not establishing the evidence that needs to be provided to obtain a conviction so exactly this is the first step and they took every step that was appropriate and i think the messerschmitt case which is probably the closest to this matter the qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent or those knowingly violate the law and obviously that didn't occur in this case they did exactly they followed the law they were not and they got the impartial ma arguing we were looking at different issues in this case and we felt that the messerschmitt case was closer think that the all of the case law supports the position of what  properly and substantially done in this case i don't i mean i imagine you can hear many other cases to argue but we felt what we had was sufficient let me address one more i exculpatory evidence that they claimed that they located or that when officer cox spoke with mr steiner at that point because the we have the probable cause was established by the documentation of mr kitsch and that was that was a statement made under oath for mr so at the time they talked to him let's assume that for a second that he did plan to kill himself or if you're referring to mr stein mr secretary let's assume that he did plan to kill himself that's sort of the whole theory here and did so when they call him up to say where you what are you doing did the police tell him or did you know did he otherwise know that they had already arrested his wife i'm trying to recall that i don't call off and i'll be honest with you just seems to me that it might be relevant to the question of whether they believed steiner if all of a sudden the police are supposedly this plot if there was one and and he did want to take his own life knowing that they had arrested his wife it seems to me he's pretty unlikely to say yeah i plan to kill myself and she's going to help me do it is wife i mean he may well have known at that point by attempting he couldn't contact or at least then he doesn't want to know what you don't know if the record disclosed what the police told him when they talked to you don't know i don't i can't recall at this time it was i was officer of those claims i also believe that the search of mr steiner's room was appropriate based on the search warrant and that i think in that case officer grew ballsy acted absolutely appropriately given that he understood what what was there there were the pills that were possibly going to be used to assist in the suicide and then there were the pills for daily use if he had taken all the pills for daily then i would agree there was a problem but he left the pills for daily use there was sufficient amount which was confirmed through the conversation with mr steiner if they're going to claim that mr steiner should be believed he has to be believed for everything and in that case he said look i have enough pills there was also this question of mr steiner being confined to his room and therefore would not have been able to get out and get pills obviously that's incorrect because as a matter of fact when the search warrant was executed mr steiner wasn't there giving evidence and he certainly had the ability to get out of his room and do other tasks should he wish to do that i believe that the opinion in order from the court below was well reasoned and proper and i would urge  you did not advise us that you were saving any time or rebuttal and sure looked like you took your entire fifteen minutes but will give you a couple minutes ok and thank your honour's i apologize i let the clerk know i apologise for not letting the court know that was an oversight on my part very briefly and thank you for the court's indulgence i would simply say addressing the issue of whether or not christopher kish had an axe to grind and did the know that when did they know that certainly we know from mr kish is statement he acknowledged that he had a son with neely re gets certainly there was information provided to the police that they had formerly been in a  relationship that certainly should have raised some red flags with the police but wait a minute they also knew that he was at the house because he was babysitting for his child right while he claimed he was there i don't think he said in his statement that he was babysitting what he said was he was visiting his side of the unvisited but mean the point is it's not like he came in and stormed the house by gunpoint she apparently allowed him in the house to visit because she had a child with this guy so why would i just trying to figure out how on earth that could arguably in your mind put the police on notice that there's something suspect here i would argue your honor that it with the police being confronted with someone who had been in a prior romantic relationship with someone when someone comes to the police with a past history with someone a past romantic relationship business dealings whatever a past relationship that's gone sour it certainly seems it but you're assuming they knew all of them when all but you're also arguing they should have investigated and find out whether that was the case what your best evidence that at the time he made the sworn statement to them which they then took to the magistri what your best evidence that they knew of the rocky past between these two people the only evidence in the statement of the connection between them is that he references that they have a son together but again it certainly argument as well  counsel for defense has talked about the fact that they did some deliver they had been deliberate that wouldn't deliberate speed in this case they didn't just rush to the house they did go to a magistrate they did do certain things its argument that had they undertake an additional investigation as pointed out and they take conditional investigation they would have discovered this very rocky relationship where they would have said to him well we see you have a rocky relationship with this woman are you lying to us under all i think it certainly would have again as in the red cap the red  obligation upon them and i think this is consistent with the jurisprudence there's an obligation to do more than just take someone's word who comes into a station and says someone that i used to have a relationship with is going to commit a crime there needs to be something more than that otherwise there's a tremendous risk to people that someone an ex husband an ex business an ex boyfriend an ex girlfriend ex relationship walk into a police department accuse you of a crime and next thing you know you're being placed under arrest your premises searched and your medications seized and with that your honour's thank you very much for your time this afternoon and thank you counsel the case will be submitted t