she's gave her cell phone number correct you know actually she did not identify herself as an operator from the tucson police department that was a fact later later found out she identified herself as jennifer and she identified the cell phone from which she was calling after being officers at the time what we have to look at is what the officers knew at the time they broke down the doors and went into this home to transcription as i worked through the t p d yesterday she did she does not say that she was a telephone operator are you looking at that to where i work but the fact is that is that the officers when they arrived at the home knocking on all of the doors and windows and receiving no response at that point in time they checked with communications to find out what indeed were the facts that you if i had the call and they're being dispatched doesn't matter that this was a perceived domestic violence call i don't think that it doesn't matter i think when the officers are dispatched for whatever reason they have to have some facts and circumstances which allowed them to enter the home and door a few blocks down a few houses down was there any dispute as to that i don't believe that was was disputed i think that the truth of that was that the it was the house in back of them but two or three  apparently that the testimony was that she walked around the block and then looked to see the front of the house and there was a very old automobile there kind of a classic car and she identified the plate on that car that was in the driveway so how she again  behind i'm not positive that's the only information that they have but i won't disagree that that was the one part of the record might say that but that the maps which are not part of the record on appeal indicated that it was a few houses over and  back but nevertheless knowing only these facts they've called to verify what what we're what why are we here what are the real facts what should we do and started to brother then discovered from the communications people all officers who made the decision to enter the home how many officers were there there were four officers why didn't one testify that he thought he saw someone going from the door from the garage leading into the house her for hours on end and the officers arrived found shouting heard shouting for the commotion heard a card table moving her chairs moving pardon me if you read the opinion this is what they heard it was anonymous alcohol saw signs and symptoms of alcohol consumption by mr hopkins and nevertheless all of those facts did not rise to the level of summary judgment this court reversed by the district court of arizona and in essence said this was a matter for the jury and that's how it's very easy for us to look back and parse the facts in the cold light and that when the officers respond how are we any one of the officers supposed to deal if they get a spend a little more time outside the house and continue beating on the doors and windows it appears from the record that the entire transaction lasted forty i think forty eight minutes and the estimation of one of the officers and from the time she wrote down in i think they should have spent a good thirty minutes outside that home and waited to see if they could arouse that you have against you you must understand this is a very quiet retirement community this we're not talking about a place where were they there is typically any kind of criminal activity this is a very quiet community south of tucson which is this was structured and built as make an entire retirement community with many different some communities with them and i think if there was a rush to come in and and i good morning may it please the court nancy davis from the pima county defendants the pollies the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of pima county was appropriate for three reasons first there really is no dispute about the material facts which would  summary judgment as a matter of law second there was no constitutional violation by the sheriff's deputies when they made the warrantless entry into the gavigan household and third even if there was a constitutional violation the sheriff's deputies are entitled to honor in hopkins it was reversed and remanded for a dispute about a material fact as to what the officer actually thought he heard whether it was sounds of a card game versus sounds domestic brawl or violence occurring in the residence in that minutes after the call was made so it's a very fresh incident by the time they got to the gavigan residence there were no sounds no one could be identified in the residence despite knocking on the front door pounding on the windows in both the front and  violence calls in his career was concerned that someone could be in there and be dead or injured in their thoughts anything from this house when i live in a quiet neighborhood in of officers came in with going to bring him to my house and i would at they left the television on because they wanted to create the impression to the rest of the world that somebody was inside and didn't know that that's why the television was on the officers did see a flickering television i guess but they didn't know why  is on all day and all night that is true but it's objectively reasonable for an officer responding to a nine one one call of domestic violence to assume that if the television is on that if a car's in the driveway and other cars on the carport that somebody should respond to that the banging on the front door the identifying of sheriff's deputies open up and also to the phone call and here they took numerous steps to try to make contact before making the entry and were unable to do so and only did so because of fear that someone may be injured or dead inside the in that case the father had called into the police department concerned because he was unable to make contact with his daughter the officers there responded to the rabbit residence two cars were in the driveway they spoke to a neighbor the neighbor said somebody should be home and the officers through any of that analysis in terms of the state law claims so i don't know why the court dismissed the state law claims he didn't wayne the arizona standard of care for negligence into intentional infliction of emotional distress or any undisputed facts show that those claims were subject to i don't believe that there is but i know that any appellate briefs that were submitted the county did refer to the state of arizona versus green and i believe state of arizona versus hastert want to talk about probable cause and and the entry into a residence without a warrant we mean in the district court in the district court was that in your br information related to what they observed on scene they verify the license plate of the store car located in the front driveway that was verified with communications they also verified he had them call him and try to do th summary judgment the officers also tried to ring the doorbell we think the fact that one officer saw or thought he heard footsteps and garage door closing is not a relevant or the only fact that needs to be looked at  pass or assault or domestic violence and i don't think any of those were cited for the qualified immunity statutes under the state of arizona law so i think that sort of addresses the issue of that you brought up earlier on the state claims and i think you coun