facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party now there were cross motions for summary judgment in this case i think by the time i'm finished here today i'm going to talk myself into factual dispute so that's going to take care of my client's summary judgment i think when i'm playing a flooz is in a district court and you're on appeal that's what you're left with so i'll acknowledge that right out of the gate but so that leaves with just looking at the defense briefs below and whether the trial court viewed the facts as required by man so she did the second procedural error that plane of source certainly is that the failed to appreciate or grant any inferences from the circumstantial evidence and that is primarily focused on defendant harris and it's over the factual dispute as to whether the house was or was not red tagged whether she accurately or in accurately read what was on the screen in front of her and on june twentieth two thousand and thirteen it's our position that by failing to grant any inferences and recognize the circumstantial evidence and i say that because both ms harris and the trial court kept using the term no evidence no evidence no evidence you see that several times well ms harris did not directly had met and we didn't have anybody looking over her shoulder on june twentieth two thousand and thirteen and of course players didn't have the opportunity to to capture the screen but circumstantially we put in the record ms wright's observation of the website a few days later mister tyler's observation and then when we did the freedom of information act request five weeks later we asked for what she relied on and the nine one one director sent us a printout of the page that showed clearance of the red tag in two thousand and eleven and he didn't qualify what he sent us so if he meant to he should of but he didn't so was one of the procedural errors but don't you have to have some evidence that of harris having acted with either reckless disregard for truth or knowingly and deliberately providing false information what evidence do you have that for the for these federal qualified immunity or the state government unity i would say for for the at least for the federal community well i think it would get into the  negligent versus incompetence plainly incompetent i don't phrase it the way you did in my brief i don't think but that's why i focused on the arguments about a government act plainly incompetent which i think sort of incorporates the reckless disregard for your same plain incompetence is enough and she acted plainly incompetent yes he's done that you have enough evidence to show that here i think my best evidence and again it's circumstantial to get to that finding is her failure to educate herself on exactly how that website worked and how to read it and how to make sure that she knew she was doing reading it correctly and that is supported i think by the evidence that i obtain from her about her work history previously with the city of lansing and then with county and it just so happened these were lansing police officers that were harmed volved so i wanted to show that part nudity of her work and her exposure and interaction with these officers over that time span which i  you know i'm asking for a favorable inference to the plaintiffs that that puts her on notice that these officers are using that red tag information to enter people's throwing well that's my i guess my question  what evidence do we have that ms harris knew what the officers actually intended to do with the information that they that she knew that they were going to into the premises and or into the premises without consent or without a warrant do you have evidence of that and your honor i just i did just give you my best evidence so that was my my argument that hearse her tenure and her interaction with the lansing police department either she knew or should have known so what what what am servers are there that he said she was aware that the asked that they would get verification from her to make sure a place was read before they went in no i what are you relying on i can't represent that from this record ok so what is it that you're just an inference from her tenure as a non one dispatcher and the number of times that she had been asked well she had been asked to look only in her short few months as a supervisor but she was aware of the process throughout her tenure as a dispatcher what process by looking up the red tag status looking up but not knowing  yes yes i don't have any evidence direct evidence that she knows that when the officers are told there's a red tag they intend to enter i don't have what i don't have any direct evidence that anybody has ever told her that that's what they do with it so what's the inference that i'm not sure what inference the court is to draw i thought the inference you were saying is that she knew that officers would contact dispatch to get information about the red tag once the officers got  information information they would enter these uninhabitable premises that somehow she knew that in providing writ confirmation that officers would regularly routinely act upon it but it sounds like that's not the inference that you're suggesting the court should have drawn that she should have known that's what they do with it should have known what should have known that they would enter i think there's a bit of just basic logic in there is there were we're talking about the red tag structure of the structure if they weren't planning on entering it there wouldn't really be any other reason for them to know whether it's red tag or not thing it's just common sense that if they're calling to verify it they're verifying it for reason right equal it would be running the registration tag on a car in the street to see if it's expired well if it's expired the officer is going to take some unfortunate actions are going to write a ticket to going to arrest somebody this ranchers know that the information they give out is used for something so because a red tag goes on the structure and her tenure i think combined at least it's should know that you cannot enter a house like that without a warrant for that purpose yes but the purpose of the c of the red tag for this misdemeanor purpose yes ok was not red tagged so i'm i'm sorry i jumped back to ms harris on on the other i without warning a lot of our discussion has been where they're not ms harris can be liable but you want me to focus on the police so i start breaking so even if we're attacked that gets us to paying versus new york and welsh versus wisconsin ok so let's assume it is an institutional you did not sue the city right the city was to enter the red is long as there was a red because you don't get a red tag unless you've followed process and all the rest of it so as long as there was a red head they would go into the building i guess under the theory that whoever was in there had no with the already to be of their true monday through friday eight to five because you can go in there to work on the house issues well ok but this was different this was somebody was living there but so how do you deal with the qualified immunity issue with respect to them but still  constitutional violation whether it's city policy or not if it's a city policy it's an unconstitutional policy right but you need more you need to say that he did then you reasonable officer would have understood that they were children were being hit i think something to to that effect that was the basis of the call and the officers as i recall say that they were there to perform a child where welfare check essentially and make sure that those children were were safe this report didn't deal with this issue exigent circumstances but given what it appeared to be you know of abuse against children going on over the course of the day when they were that i think but certainly for at least an hour and a half why wouldn't officers have authority to enter that house to make sure that those children are safe first of all the neighbor said that she only heard a small portion of it an unknown person had said something about the previous hour and a half so that was the first gap officer when our city was on the porch and he saw the children briefly and the officers cannot create probable cause based on what they don't know so they didn't hear anything or see anything that would support what at that point was an anonymous call later they talked to the neighbor but at that point it was an anonymous call from what i can view from the nine one one catalog and the sergeant in charge acknowledged that he didn't think the child abuse call itself was enough so that's what i would really have one less wrong and you know what about the fact that there was an arrest warrant for a fine out doesn't didn't add give the officers authority to enter the with they couldn't infer that she was in the house by virtue of a car with her plate being in the driveway i think her car was and i don't remember if it was in the driver in the street right but you're saying that's not enough to allow an officer to infer that the person is in the house where the where the cars parked no because if they'd gotten that far then they would have an address or so she would have played there was nothing that was produced in any of the documents of their investigation that attached the car or her to that address eight minutes for me and seven minutes for co counsel a large person portion of the plaintiffs argument when it relates to the standards and guidelines for stablish ing qualified immunity are just an accurate  he it was a totality of the circumstances it was the fact that it was a child welfare check they had uncooperative adults in the house and were still yelling at the children they didn't know what condition the children were get there and go not now we're checking on these children i think it was the fact that the the house was twice confirmed red tagged and then at that point they don't know why that house was red tagged the police don't have access to  that only access they have is it right ted is it not they don't know why so it could be loose wiring to ross it was george fire hazard but now they know there's something in that house where people are not supposed to be and there's now there's children in the house as well so what we need to do as police officers is to get in to get those children out to make sure that they are safe because the information that the officers have is that the house is not supposed to be inhabited so with four children  exigent circumstances but there the accident circumstances existed once they put everything together and also to just address one other point it took them so long because they were waiting for attack unit so that they could have a ballistic shield and also ran for the door because they weren't sure what they were coming against a sergeant to stay go of also testify that he he could hear that they were covering the doors with something end ed up there there was a washing machine i believe and a couch on one door out another door so they didn't know what they were walking into so they want to make sure they were see that's what took so long  once the plate of mention smoke versus hall and that place is brief also improperly discusses qualified immunity by selectively applying certain elements necessary to in the light of specific context and not just broad general propositions my position is that the facts of this case by the plaintiff are being ignored and is just being  looked the rules being looked at just on its face and not applying the facts of what actually happened here to that rule how how do you how would you articulate the argument for qualified immunity for the individual officers that the officers the officers they were in order to i guess diminish their qualified immunity has to be shown that the officers were incompetent in some way or that they knew that what they were doing was a violation of someone's constitutional rights and i believe and and that's just talking about the federal qualified immunity so is it is it that they thought well and all that put together gives the officers reason to enter the home so i want to make sure about this arrest warrant which i ask about what your position on that officer ball because she was not getting cooperation checked the cars that were in the drive i'm not sure if it was a driveway or front of a car from the house on the street she testified in her deposition that she did not remember if it connected the address or not but she knew but her belief was that the owner of that vehicle was in that house which it would be speculating what would lead me to believe that it did connect the addresses because she she had a belief then that one of those people inside the house was connected with that car and did have it and what's the timing on that on the checking of the she che a warrant could be arrested or no again i believe it was a a lansing city ordinance mr mayor warr which not it would not have given a reason alone to i'm not i'm not and i'm not positive what was i can't remember off the top of my head now are you saying there warren alone would not be a reason to go into the house know that it that is what i'm saying they didn't believe that that warren alone was enough reason as a matter of law is the warrant enough to get in the house my position re yes it would be enough i believe the officers testified that they didn't believe that warrant alone does it matter whether they believed it or not are we looking at just subjectively is the war on and off is that not the question here they they didn't act on the war and they found just not communicating clearly they didn't act on the war alone because they believe they needed more information more as something question is if legally they had a right to go into the house with a warrant does it matter that they didn't know that they had that legal right my position is no because it's it's they are not punished if they are mistaken i think make a stake of law or fact i had my position is they had the ability to go in that house not only because of that want to but because of all the other circumstances that we've we've discussed  but i agree with that that they as long as they're authorized to that they don't need to know what authorizes them but if you play that scene that that scenario out and you have people that are saying get all warrant get a warrant then what would happen is the police would say we have a warrant for the arrest of this person and they would say see will come out because that's the authorization to get that person not to go into the house if the person walked out and you know i couldn't i again i'd be speculating to ask you to answer why they didn't have that conversation i know they were they did say that they were not getting any cooperation from the  adults inside of the house god afternoon your honors if it please the court bonnie task he representing and i'm behalf of defendant nine one one emergency supervisor melissa harris plaintiffs assert three claims against defend harris liability under section one thousand nine hundred three for unlawful search false arrest and faults arrest as a state cause of action the touchstone of any fourth amendment claim is reasonable notice as the fourth amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches and seizures reasonable allows however for some mistakes on the part of government officials remember intent is the devil here reasonable ness includes mistakes human error garden variety error from from day to day any mistake made by harris if if a mistake was made at all and we don't have a record we don't know today nor can we ever know what was on the screen to have reasonable inferences i mean it's a reasonable inference the screen didn't change in that short time that it says what was there but a i mean if your job is to verify the kind of information that police in the field need to go forward with  arresting people reaching the close of the house i mean these are they're calling dispatch to get to verify their belief that they have a out for this person if there is this house really condemned i mean if it's plainly on the screen and you get a wrong why isn't that address there could have been very simple variations in data entry or even decipher the screen this was not a primary benefit or service provided typically under nine one one remember am county had just assumed and taken over a consolidated nine one one service including all of the local dispatches it was the city of lansing that had won only one of the local dispatches who ran its building departments public service by offering up this service on a website to the public the city of lansing when it had its nine one one service offered this to its officers and other government employees to call in and say is this a red tape house for whatever reason whether it was police law enforcement building or other reasons or purposes and county simply assumed that and trained it supervisors to be able to read that screen and that website in order to maintain that service it could have been simple human error for her to input again this wasn't the dispatcher who took the calls from the police on the scene that dispatcher had to relay that request about whether this site this property this address was red tape to her supervisor who was not an originator of that call she never spoke with the police she never spoke with a sergeant on the scene she had no idea what that original call was about or why someone was calling or who was calling about why or how or is this property red tagged all melissa harris knew was that someone out in the public was calling in asking is this property it may have been a real estate speculator it may have been a builder it may have been an interested party the property turned over and over and over there are many potential reasons why that was true but here paint plaintiff's claims are clearly barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity which protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law so we've got i'm going to end of the spectrum plainly incompetent or knowingly intentionally violate the law plaintiffs have the burden however here of showing that harris is not entitled to qualified immunity and they haven't done that as it pertains to harris this case boils down to a straightforward and narrow issue one whether harris knowingly relayed incorrect information about the red tag status of the property or to was harris so plainly incompetent in doing so but there is no evidence that harris knowingly relayed incorrect information about moment in a dispatch center she's acting as a supervisor she's not taking into original call but she's supporting those who are having difficulty more complex situations again on this record which was stipulated recall the party stipulated to the facts here there is simply no evidence that harris knowingly relayed incorrect information about the red tag status and likewise no evidence that she even knew the reason prompting the request for that information her actions do not evidence the requisite level of incompetence here at worst harris made a simple garden variety unexplained error which is within the parameters of qualified immunity plaintiffs do not comprehend here the term knowingly is used in this context they equate whether harris knowingly provided incorrect information with whether incorrect information was actually provided harris acknowledged with the benefit of hindsight and discovery that information now known to be incorrect was given and this is reflected in the joint statement of facts what plaintiffs cannot establish is that harris knew or had reason to know that the information was correct when she passed it along again merely making a mistake is not enough to establish that harris either intentionally or knowingly provided that incorrect information further making one mistake does not rise to the level of being plainly incompetent remember that one mistake does not rise to the level of being plainly incompetent in a creative effort or attempt to establish that this mistake rises to the level of total incompetence plaintiffs do argue a convoluted failure to train herself theory but harris cannot be liable under a failure to adequately train herself theory first there is no authority recognizing this theory and second failure to train liability cannot be based on a single incident recall instead it must be supported by a pattern of errors plaintiffs again have not met their burden to demonstrate that harris is not entitled to qualified immunity as the district court found the record does not establish and there is no way of ascertaining what harris's computer screen actually showed that key first element is in the course of their duties so we have that second element is good faith and under michigan's law for intentional towards that is a subjective test which we argue subjective matters are always very inappropriate for summary judgment the third element is whether it is ministerial or discretionary so gross negligence is for negligence in michigan not intentional to harris is is i will acknowledge that i can make an argument that her failure to properly inform herself on how important it was and being careful about it blends  good faith that's not my strongest argument for her the denial of qualified immunity comes in the fact that this is a ministerial task not discretionary it looking it up and reading the screen and relaying what you see as ministerial ok occupying a red tag growing for ms right i think i think the way i ended up sorting that out in my brief is that the only false arrest claim that can reach back to ms harris is for  right because plan to find out had a warrant so she's right it's fine but might is right right tyler was later based upon what they found so ms right head was arrested for resisting obstructing for not being there their commands which obviously we say were lawful and occupying a red tag premises so her arrest was for the very thing that ms harris reported but if he's getting arrested anyway command that that's the gist of the local ordinance so there wasn't anything lawful about what they told her to do she was with her rights to stay within her dwelling and demand a warrant so very quickly with my remaining time  did they get to do any facts at the scene take that call and elevate it into something that would give them but for you to enter in and we say no because when our ski saw the children and he's the one that stepped in the window until they yelled at him to get back out so he just stepped in and then they yelled at him to get out so he has additional liabilities i think because of that but because he has to buy that he saw the kids and he wasn't concerned for them boy i i think he may have had a fear your recollection of his deposition but i may be mistaken but i think my client testified that the children were visible to me right but i mean we have to look at it from his standpoint right and i would have to go back and detail his i don't remember if he slept had a figure recollection or not whether he saw the children but that was our position my time has expired ok counsel thank you for your arguments today we we appreciate them case will be taken under submission