been refined over the last two years particularly in the other shark a sharp versus county of orange decide about three weeks after the decision in the summary judgment here and district of columbia versus west the from the us supreme court gives us somewhat of an advantage even in an interlocutory appeal from denial of sort of qualified immunity summary judgment and all the rules that constrain that because even though the district court found tribal issues of fact as to whether probable cause to arrest and whether malicious prosecution existed detective the riva is still intitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity unless mr sharp shows that resolving all the fact joel disputes in his favor the case law so established in the absence of arguable probable  i'm originally we rewrote really went out to the to bending whatever it's called he did not have probable cause to arrest mr sharp before he saw mr sharp their one song he s he does he have probable cause to arrest him at that time as he does he definitely have probable cause were no interest darmstadt if he has probable cause it seems to me an easy answer the answer is no you can't possibly have probable cause to arrest him at that time he doesn't even think he has probable cause i disagree with your order he says so he says i didn't think i had enough probable cause yet that's what your concepts yes he says that no that's not binding on him i understand is not binding so i'm asking you as a lawyer and somebody w onder stance probable cause does he have there is he have probable cause at that point to arrest the first bald man that he sees first bald light skinned man he says yes yes re reasonable officers could disagree and argue that there was probable cause because he had information from a confidential informant predictive of future events suspicious events illegal events and he found corroboration found a man who worked at the place who looked like reasonable reasonable people your view is a reasonable detectives could have arrested every bald man they saw they could disagree about whether or not they can guess which position is there a fact question in this case as to whether or not this confidential informant existed there is not a lie that it's a confidential informant appears for the first time in the depositions in this case the district attorney when deposed doesn't say she was told about a confidential inform there's no confidential informant in the police reports correct there is a call sheet that refers to the confidential informant jonathan aguilar along with mr sharp mr alvarez there's a call sheet that talks about going to arrest somebody was there anything in the call sheet that says and the confidential informant told me that him that he bought from a ball of light skinned man no and you agree that was never that information was never given to the deputy county attorney correct so it's  ars for the first time in discovery in this case that is the first time it appears so kit doesn't that at least give rise to an inference that a reasonable finder of fact might come up with that you know your client was matching the description of the person of the perpetrator to the guy he arrested now we can't infer from that that the witness made up that this confidential informant existed or provided that information what is there any evidence  whether there's a fact question about that i understand he said it but under these circumstances where you're consulting with a county attorney you're documenting a record in this and nothing he goes out there in meets a man whose ball than meets confidential informant actually said what he said no i did it when you have a testimony from a witness under oath that this happened and you don't have any contrary evidence the mere absence of other that so when you put that tentative sort doesn't that haven't raised a fact question i would disagree that it raises the fact question because the people who were there at that conversation the only one who's testified is detective riva he testified under oath the testimony of a single witness is enough to prove a fact and there's no evidence under oath that that did not happen so i would submit there is no genuine disputed fact that fact and the court trial the district court did not find one so we've based on the information corroborated for a confidential informant and mr sharpe's arrest record which the evidence shows doctor looked at before the arrest in march twenty seventh said to me ask about that so now we have assume the confidential informant for second assume that there's enough backlash and we have a bald guy who was arrested fifteen years prior for record in the general description you have a confidential informant who did not just give a general description of a suspect but gave information that was corroborated specific information buying the fireworks out of a toy hauler at this location gave the detective in directions that location which showed it was a location where mr sharp rented space mr sharp was the only bald light skinned man like like detective like detective rivers testimony we have to take that as true correction so maybe we don't take the detectives estimate is true but surely we have to think this is true so he rested so he but he didn't rest and what he would there correct he investigated for so assuming he didn't have probable cause to arrest him when he went out there did he gain the probable cause because he learned that he had been arrested for use of fireworks fifteen years before yes that was another factor in that the taliban circumstances during those three facts together give you probable cause arguable probable cause because i must tell you i've suffered through looking at the surveillance tape and there anything there that gives us probable cause said it's it's grainy i can't tell what the not going to be a factor but in fact when once the once the prosecutor looks at the surveillance tape she says please i don't have anything here could you address the false arrest claim i've looked at that tape too and thankfully it shorter but i don't see any assault on a police officer or somebody backs up six inches and it stops the car and comes out with his hands up lies and has an assault on a police officer the evidence is that the actual backing up took place before mr sharpe's passenger started videoing the events on his cell phone that is what detective anastasia till it testifies to but mr sharp says he didn't mr starr said he did not attempt to back so whether he intended to if he's that guy if he backed up with you know when when there was somebody behind him that he didn't see and didn't know was there why would that constitute assault on a police officer it would not constitute a sort of police officer but somebody looking from the ask a question you asked you is i understand from your position you're emphasizing quite heavily the fact that that there was only one ball of light skinned  individual the active encounter at the time of the seizure the farmer works right yes spoke to but he didn't arrest them then and he didn't arrest them the next day if he had run a police check now there's almost a four years time he looked at hundreds of hours of not very clear tape but some part of his court at any point does he have some obligation to confirm that he's the only tall white skin bald person or did he see other people on the ta obviously employed there he did he have an obligation he was in the middle of an investigation you have an obligation to investigate are there other tall light skinned people working there or in these hundreds of hours of tapes that he relied upon did he identify other people i didn't testify that he identified other people he testified that on the day that he went out there which was the same day that the confidential informant gave him the information mr sharp the only person who matched the confidential informants description whom he talked to that because you have an obligation to find out if there's other bald light skinned men there after seeing mr sharp in person multiple times that is not a factor that would negate article probable cause what if it what if he in fact knew there are other tall bald people because he had seen them on the tape that would be a factor that would go into the s therefore i think we can concede that the standard is correct and the question here is whether a reasonable officer with the knowledge that mr or that detective or even had at the time that he made the arrest could reasonably believe the key evidence is obviously the videotapes prior to the arrest earlier that morning there was a hearing in the court in which evidence was introduced that there was videotape that had to show that evidence was informants information that was given to mr one of the that information turns out to be true he says i bought it at the location you guys out there mr alvarez says you're right you got me so as to why i was if the basis for probably cause was the what information was actually given by that informant if any was that of i've not i have to confess i'm not entirely familiar with california criminal procedure but is that at the time that there was the arrest and subsequent charge is there a probable cause statement filed so in lot of states you have to file some kind of information or probable cause statement with with the charging document as i don't want to require that i don't believe there is there requirements once once event person was identified and and became a part of this case in discovery no yes it was during discovery it was i believe it was i believe it was at deposition but i am not entirely certain of that so we would have to refer to the record but what happened here procedurally so understand is that there was an arrest and then the prosecutor declined to prosecute is that right