thank you good afternoon my name is amy bell and tony and i represent robert bello the plaintiffs below to please the court this case is solved the rights of the rd party owner of firearms to recover their property from the police the district court's opinion order should be reversed in its entirety in dismissing the th amendment due process claim the court incorrectly placed the burden on mr bello host deprivation hearing by a neutral arbiter or hearing officer to challenge the county's retention of the property when the county refuses to return such property here mr bello had requested the return of the property will you say it's handguns that were registered to his new york state pistol license and the county refused to return the property and thereafter never proceeded any further  just a blanket refusal they never proceeded toward a hearing to challenge their own decision before a neutral on hearing officer now even if the deputies that had  st of all there is no order to enforce judge walsh's suspension order was directed solely at mrs bello and it was requiring her to turn over her handguns based if there was even a viewing judge walsh's letter and suspension notice as a judicial order once the handguns were surrendered to the sheriff's office there was nothing to enforce so currently the sheriff administers the monies retention of mr bellows property is a lawful because while they claim that they are in force in a judicial order there is no order to enforce all of the terms of the letter was discretionary i was not discretionary it was a ministerial act because judge walsh as licensing officer is required to either suspend or revoke the pistol license of an individual who has been the subject of a nine point four six report he has no discretion over that and being a ministerial act removes the absolute qualified judicial immunity defense for the sheriff and furthermore as far as the mono claim it was it was erroneous for the district court to dismiss such coin because the complaint clearly alleged that there was a policy and procedure followed by rockland county that when an individual is seeking the return of their firearm that the sheriff's office requires them to commence an article seventy eight proceeding on their own which as i've already discussed is completely contrary to the person the face of the of the new york state pistol license itself is not the back of the license indicate which handguns are registered on the license to the licensee but there is no indication of co ownership however the sheriff's office  has the technology and the ability to ascertain who was pistol licensed that handguns are registered to because the registered under their serial number as well as the mak model of the handgun so by inquiring you know tracing the serial number or even just putting in individual names they would be able to ascertain that they were poems by mr bello and his mom thank you order was directed solely at mrs bell requiring her and actually giving her forty eight hours to to surrender her through under the handguns that were on her for the life of the sheriff's office now as an aside her pistol license had they you know i could see that it would be reasonable for them to believe that they had a valid order in front of them however the focus here is the sheriff himself who has personal involvement in making the decision not to give the gun mr bellow and counsel who also is i guess making the decision together with the sheriff and deciding that there was still a valid order to force just to be clear there is no presence order that requires the sheriff's office to retain these handguns and this is very important because this is not an uncommon situation with law enforcement agencies that you know vermouth firear and then are approached by a rd party co author or someone who has no prohibitive for the return of the firearm as in the case of long guns and they just simply refuse to return the firearms even though there was no order requiring them to bello had no right to physically possess them and she in fact did not physically possess them they were and mr bellows locked safe and she had no legal ability to physically possess them because she had no valid new york state  the firearms was proper correct i know that there was a reference from the district court in the record that that was conceded or that those claims were no longer being pursued and i know the state of the law on the nd circuit with regard to  amendment claims and you know going to challenge the initial caesar i will say that mr bello challenge to the seizure at the time in his home of the firearms because they were in his block and there was no basis for the seizure to take place because this is bellowed license had expired i can reasonably see that the deputies thought they were doing their job in collecting the the property so there was yes judge i am challenging the retention of the firearms and there really i would i would urge the court to to make a request to reconsider the issue of th amendment violations in that context when there is a rd party owner involved but let me ask you fragged your objective is to challenge the retention of the firearm why not she can amendment to the surrender order or other relief from justice walsh mr bello has no standing to challenge a suspension order from judge walsh that apply to his mother so there would be no avenue for him to initiate a proceeding in state court because there's there's no basis for him to challenge that order and that order is is no longer in existence because it's not a retention order it's simply ordered mrs bello surrender the handguns and that's been accomplished so it's the new challenging essentially a challenging analogy the orders didn't order the sheriff's office to do anything but it certainly didn't order them to continue to retain the handgun not being disputed well let's assume that the missile seizure of the property was indeed reasonable that's the operating assumption of this hypothetical is there any case for that fine that would because the initial seizure was proper which it was from the actual you know defendant with proper from the defendant was proper to seize them from you know on its face from mrs bello because her license was on its face suspended even though still on her pistol permit valid or not renewed or not they were under a pistol permit and there was still subject to the order and the sheriff still had a duty to obey that were the account was to turn  and co ownership should have been brought to justice walsh or to an appellate court not to the rockland county sheriff's department the long regarding the notice requirement for fourteen purposes is quite clear and the sheriff's department doesn't have a duty to provide double due process the continued retention it is not a separate issue once the appellant has news of who took the guns and why as he admits he in our brief the scope of judicial jurisdiction permitted purposes is to be construed broadly and in this case the entire authority of justice want to make decisions concerning  as a judge it was issued on court letterhead and this was a an order that the sheriff's department had a duty to obey the sheriff's department can't simply reverse the judge's o with a temporary restraining order that expires and in that case there was a provision as to hope how to go about returning guns in the absence of a very order in situation the modelo argument is also incorrect the entire process the policy the plaintiff claims existed did not deal with the situations like this where judicial orders in effect fall to retrieve his or her property  i don't know if it is in a statute or regulation per se but certainly as a purported owner of the property use aggrieved by the order his properties those he has and he has standing  standing to challenge the order  mother's purview getting her name off the permit how do you feel you've got to do well he would have to do that in conjunction with her would be the guns were still listed on her permit theoretically according to his affidavit they were transferred to his possession i don't know the affidavit doesn't specify if she sold them if she gifted them however it was but apparently according clarify that one cannot amends a and expired the license and it cannot be done through the clerk's office technically an amendment is filed through the clerk's office but the amendment would need to be filed as with the sheriff's office and sent to the licensing judge to amend the pistol license but here there is no pistol license to amend so they  defacto could not have removed the handgun from or likely because there was no license to remove them from and there was much discussion about the initial seizure and the reasonableness of the seizure of the hand guns which we've gone over but the issue here really is the continued retention of the handgun and looking at that from the position of a person in mr bellows position and being the sheriff and considering mr bello himself is there a legal ground to retain these this property these handguns from mr bello who has all of these handguns listed mrs bello to surrender her pistol to surrender her pistol license and the handguns that are listed on the pistol license and it gave her forty eight hours to surrender those handguns well it not required doesn't it implicitly require the sheriff's department to receive those those guns that are required to be turned over you know to the sheriff's department it requires mrs bello to turn her property over to the sheriff's office it's not ordering the sheriff's office to do anything if they agree to take them and hold them and then as the life thing you know police agency affiliated with the licensing officer they work in conjunction traditionally with a licensing officer but mrs diallo was required by the people law section for hundreds of section eleven b and c that the people are required yes she could have she could have transferred them to a gun store for a private sale through the gun store but that would that was unnecessary because her son already owned them and he had owned them for numerous