county and in the surrounding area he he didn't conceal that he was a maverick for medical marijuana he had a website where he freely advocated for medical marijuana he would speak  radio for medical marijuana he had a ambulance that had medical marijuana on the side of it that he drove and so it was not a hidden fact that he was   county and the government in this case that merely because there's a medical marijuana patient that doesn't mean that that he can have medical marijuana that means that it's a defense to the charge an affirmative defense affirmative but it doesn't defeat law is that it is an affirmative defense but not that does not defeat the existence of probable cause to make the rules of the i guess that's a question that we would have to left to the magistrate who we didn't get that information at the time that to the extent that it wasn't fully disclosed to the polling what i mean fully disclosed the best that we have i mean even with all your stuff the best that we have is that the appears to be this if you will caregiver but now we're back to judge tallman to question even if he appears to be this caregiver probable cause will exist and response they indicate that he went to his website and that they saw on this website that he indicates he was a medical marijuana provider patient and that happened before he requested the search for that happen before the course of the search warrant and complaint is that he suffers from grandma seizures that he's alleges and we take his allegations is true at this point that when he when he notified folks that he's a teacher at the jail that he thought might be getting ready to have one thing and then he jail folks were ever was and it was monitoring this closed circuit t v and i'm trying to figure out whether you think they should have responded to it a seizure or whether you think the injury is  interrupt a little bit here my colleagues it seems to me that what your client said he told the staff he was suffering and could go into a seizure right that's all he said right that's correct he never said there are certain medications that i needed certain times he never said there are certain things that cause these seizures he never said i need medical treatment he never said well there's failure to get medical treatment at the jail even in fact the first time we know anything about this is when he gets home and he looks at himself right oh his wife examines the injuries  if you want to speak at a public county commissioners meeting you have to call in advance and inform them you want to speak so this seems to imply that there's a rule or statute or something that allows people to speak at a at a public commissioner's meeting that's correct what is that that he wanted to speak i guess i'm trying to figure out if he would answer questions because i think that he determines whether it's an open public media i don't so i'm trying to figure out what type of forum open meeting but that you have to request open were limited limited to requesting in advance an opportunity to speak and then been given five minutes or more to say what you have to say well this is the it is an open meeting because the public is allowed to speak and when he notified them that he one of the speech he got a letter back and said you will not you will not be allowed to speak and if you attempt to the right to speak i understand there may be you know time place manner restrictions on how long you speak and whatnot but where is the rule that says that the public can show up and speak  those are the only claims that remain as to my plan stop patrick on the the entire basis for the fourth amendment claims against my client relate to washington state's medical use of cannabis act as a course where that's purely a creation of state law there is no federal right to use or possess marijuana of medical or otherwise and it's also relevant that at the time of this incident in may of two thousand and eleven possession of marijuana even in small quantities remained the legal under washington law as well therefore there was no state law right to created either all moved at the it was create an affirmative defense if criminal charges were brought against  plaintiff was all gave to establish they have to establish that there was a deliberate falsehood or a reckless disregard for the truth and also that whatever facts were omitted or whatever in that affidavit when those are excised the remaining facts don't support probable cause and resignation so set aside that would it have made a difference anyway question because it may not have made a difference but i'm concerned and i was concerned if something was left out and engaged in multiple controlled by us with a could confidential informant that mr eisenberg sold medical marijuana to a confidential informant the record is also clear and undisputed that he was in possession of marijuana you conceding that the magistrate judge was not told that that opposing counsel client had this medical operation i don't know you are not conceding that that the record the record is if the answer to judge christians question is yes it wasn't disclosed that he can't make the second prong which is this did not have been adequate probable cause had we accepted that's correct are you are we really that says he's a patient but we also know there is adequate in there that he could be or is functioning as a medical marijuana care giver so you're not suggesting are you that there's a knowing failure to disclose and not in any way your honor what i'm suggesting is that that mr racing bird was not in compliance with the luca to begin with he could not be in compliance there was a registry that was never created at the state level no one could be in compliance with move at that removes him from the protection of the statute altogether and i notice that my time is up and i'd like to turn it over to mr kirkwood thank you where mister l super claims that he informed the staff when he was being booked that he was cool really suffering and could go into the green most see and then with respect to what happened in the jail cell all  little white working in the reef in the because his briefs don't really identify what's true for more talk on here but i think one circuit case law makes it pretty clear that county commissioners meetings city council meetings there are limited public for for me anyway but i think that's right generally but of course many of those cases arise in california in california there's a brown after the ground access there's going to be an opportunity for people to address that type of a body and rent so in the in the orange county case that came out a couple years ago  comparable similar case but there's that there was a rule a local rule that said you can appear and it's going to be three minutes and you can't be disruptive and so on and so forth so it seems to me that this in iraq a tory sponsor was alluding to something like that rule or statute that said that a city council meeting already meeting of the county commissioners there has to be time set aside for members of the public to come in and address any issue any issue at all and there's no such these meetings for the public to come in and address and he should have any issue that was of concern to them and in response to mr asmer in the hearing that he want to show up on one of these meetings and during this open mike time if you will understand i think your point is that there we are we're looking at a first amendment whether it's been violated here a lot and it seems to me it seems to me that your point is somebody ought to come forth with a statu that suggests that there's some right or non right that it's either a public forum or a limited forum or a non public forum and then proceed with with the argument but it didn't me it's in an affidavit and they may all be good facts for you but then i looked as to judge kirsten for the rules i'm sorry i look for the rules i look for the statute i look for the regulator and i look for th well and then you would have no right to speak and so i was looking for the rule of point judge christians question that's why i kept pointing you at are right it seems to ease and it seems to me that you've got to get to the rules sometimes you just letter that was contrary to the rule well i think that if i take that as the rule then i'm all for such a limited public forum at best and then i'm saying to myself well then why not a reasonable and viewpoint neutral restriction and why i'm trying to figure out why it wouldn't be that only people who have put themselves on the agenda are allowed to speak but it doesn't matter who's put themselves on the agenda they get to speak so then i say well it loses on a limited public forum if i go nonpublic for me doesn't get to come at all and so then again not you lose every time i try to give you the benefit of the doubt about what you got there i got no rule to say they were wrong and i think one of them what the indication is in the record is that he notify them he was going to speak at the meeting the response was you're not going to be allowed to speak and if you do you'll be arrested i and well i mean the attention of everybody in the room and say whatever are going to be played on the response that they told him was if you have a grievance you can take it up with us personally telling him that they didn't want him to participate