they may have please the court here's the reason a landlord has to go back to court and start over if the time limits for you are not strictly observed and the reason anybody that wants of state during any victim process asked to go to court to get the state these statutes were enacted with the strict time limits to curb abuses that are laid out in beginning  then make up with their tenants and put the writ of restitution in their back pocket for months sometimes over a period of years even and then some  are erupt between the landlord in the piano the landlord could take this aldridge of restitution out and get any veteran action going without going back to court right now but that that sounds like an argument for a person a rule of fourth amendment violation any time the writ is executed after its expiration date and there is no such per se rule it's just a reasonable miss test here and so we need to grapple with whether amendment no if there sheriff are executed or written within twenty days show your your argument therefore is that to violate a staple by taking more time in  allows us to violate the fourth amendment now how is that argument consistent with virginia against more my my position doesn't go that far no i'm the fourth amendment the question about the fourth amendment is being totally federal that states are free to add to people's protections without creating fourth amendment violations if the state says in addition to what the fourth amendment commands you have to do more that does not allow a derivative federal suit go to the fourth minute that the core of your argument seems to me  orderly and consistent with the recent polling of the supreme court i don't think it is i think you just told me that if wisconsin allowed twenty days that would be consistent with the fourth amendment so your argument is precisely that because wisconsin has allowed a shorter period there must be a violation of the fourth amendment now here's my argument it's that without a writ of restitution sheriff going on to take somebody's property off their land would clearly be a fourth amendment violation would be a warrantless invasion of private property and the only reason they get to do that is because they have this writ of restitution that gives them a fourth amendment pass but the fourth you have your first you're making the set kind of argument that virginia against you it is that when the state adds protections if you don't call it here to what the state rule is it's as if there were no authority for this or that was the argument of more in virginia against  so there is no i mean that's the import of the sold out case there's no per se fourth amendment violation once rid of restitution expires it's a rule of reasonableness and you haven't told us what was unreasonable about what the sheriff's deputy why didn't your client drop this his suit against the movers week out i came to believe that we could recover any damages that we had at stake through the proceedings against the county and we had fewer hurdles by proceeding against the county because there was clearly added to the movers lost stuff or damaged stuff why wouldn't that be a straightforward  reach of contract to george well that they have some immunities by virtue of their being employed by the county and let them move through the moving compan companies that are contracted to assist with any picture so in wisconsin if a company is hired to carry out an eviction order and decides to carry it out by blowing up all the possessions using joy in a minute they would be immune from liability why didn't the plaintive remove it itself that had plenty of time but this this links into the due process argument is what worries me the normal you you said there has to be a need for a hearing if the state has come along injured your property you have to have some opportunity for recompense but usually if somebody has a complete opportunity themselves to take the property away and doesn't use that opportunity they're pretty hard pressed to complain that somebody else follow follow things up later so why didn't your client take the property away itself he was focusing and i don't know how much of this is he on the record he was gone i know it's in the record that he was out of town when the infection was commenced and i was surprised it was a surprise to him later it seemed almost incessantly settled and then he didn't take it away and he didn't pay and there several again he didn't take it away and he didn't say well then he wasn't out of town for a year he was he the final rid of restitution and august was obtained in an ex party proceeding based on a representation that the rent had been paid on time that mr cryo based or saved on the settlement agreement order which if he didn't it finally after all of those but none of this is getting at my question which is why didn't he take the thing two things he he believed he had paid the rent he didn't know a check had been returned and he was trying to fight against the writ of restitution itself rather than get his property off the premises thank you all  calculate the triggering of the ten day clock whether you use the september twenty sixth day when the stay lapsed or whether you use the october fifth date when the invention commenced maki county executed a valid read and did so in a reasonable manner consistent with the fourth amendment and taken into consideration the balancing test between the governmental interests and the private interests involved but what's your position about when  the the information in the record requires that the court piece together information i had been focused on well there is a public there's a public record correct yes so we know what the court did right and we know when the writ was delivered to the sheriff right and we know the state so so everything we need to know is a matter of public record correct so when did the expire the rep was appears to be delivered to the sheriff's office on september twenty sixth and so calculating that date going forward tobar eleventh would be ten days excluding weekends and holidays are going fast that is what happened here the sheriff's office we end the eviction on october first and by their own fifty eight process report they completed it on october eleventh well yes except fiction yes they meant seven ninety nine forty five five which says you have to complete and begin the eviction process within ten days however there were events after the fact which brings us to the reasonable test reasonable  test which is well there you mean when you mean when you say they completed it within ten days if if it had to be postponed they thought they were done in fact deputy nelson had fall the paperwork of the court then they got a phone call telling them or asking them to come back out to the site we don't know who made the phone call they did definitely go back out to the site on october nineteenth and twentieth they thought they were done with the invitation on october eleventh turns out they were not and in was i assume it's worth nothing it was supposed to million how can that the state be permitted to take someone's property is worth millions and say well you know we just fifty thousand there's plenty for you that's your ceiling well your honor a parent according to the courts this court's decision and easterhouse said that parents not limited to minor deprivations and adequate and meaningful post operation process through eight ninety three eight hundred nine if not of food fifty thousand dollars ceiling for probably worth millions now isn't adequate in the first place evidence is sketchy about the loss and in the second place the fifty thousand isn't a meaningless number and they don't some time doesn't have to be proportionate in some way to the amount of the taking by the government i understand you're the government take all the private property in wisconsin and pay fifty thousand dollars for your work let me propose to you your honor that head mr creel gone through one of the multiple state court actions that he initiated and withdrew them perhaps and that that would be the case for him to being brat bring back and say that he had an inadequate non meaningful process but that's not what occurred he in february of zero six nine years ago he asked for it to no hearing in the small claims court in april he filed a lawsuit against the landlord and ten john doe's in that same month he would drew that claim and that was for the of action and it's personal property loss and he followed through with that and perhaps he would have a case to say to bring back to the federal court and say this is inadequate and not meaningful look at what my damages are he wouldn't do that with this claim be subject to wisconsin's discretionary duty immunity  in other words would it be completely immunized whether the deputy sheriffs duties were discretionary or ministerial or not entirely or not flushed out in the case but i mean that doctrine is in flux but i think that's the import of my question yes i believe that the deputy's duties were immunised because they were discretionary so there is no remedy while again the plaintiff could seek remedy through individually going after the  defendants just suggested that the sheriff's deputy would be immunized corrected if plaintiff could go after the private actors but i'm talking about in terms of public responsibility for the due process claim right well and again it comes down to whether the sheriff was acting in a ministerial or discretionary manner right but if she if this act is subject to immunity under wisconsin's doctrine then there is no remedy against her and also the remedy is nonexistent with in the meaning of the easterhouse decision i would disagree that it's a meaningless remedy your honor well if it's not existant how can it be meaningful well the court would need to determine that in fact the deputy right i mean none of this has been argued so we've got you know a failure of argument a failure to raise this issue is a failure of proof because we don't have anything other than the ball to claim that this property is where the millions of dollars you know i mean it's a horrible record but these are important questions for the constitutionality of the cap in the availability of an adequate remedy for due process purposes we just don't know the answer there i think we need more information if i can return just briefly to the wolf here and there was an affirmative link with the sheriff's office there in the sheriff's failure to properly supervise the process division and the testimony was indicative of the of the abuse in that case  we heard from no less than eighteen bowden who is the author essentially of the landlord tenant laws and spoke to the intent of the landlord tenant laws to cure abuses and avoid surprise and no one could be less surprised in this case than mr creo who had a an addiction case that went on for six months defaulted on numerous stipulations that had several stays defaulted on each of the stays was present at the of action site nearly every day during those days was given the opportunity to assess the property that was there was given him put on what he wanted to take was permitted to look at the trash pile and make a decision on what he wanted to take or not take so in this case the mr creel had a full opportunity if that goes to your question about the post deprivation remedy  the facts in this case show that he had ample opportunity before the case to access whatever property he wanted to your honor and determined that particularly where there is and order for of action and judicial scrutiny that that it was appropriate that the governmental interest outweighed the private interests here given that mr  victim from the property there again and also the additional factors of unforseen events that were referenced earlier in the phone call that brought the sheriff's office back to the property and your honor you mentioned saw it all as well i would also mention that that court the court the united states district the united states supreme court and saw it all determined that a reasonable so reasonable in this inquiry is appropriate in balancing the governmental and privacy interests involved and the compelling interest here again is preventing landlords self help evictions in terms of whether there is a panel to or a lesson to be learned here when things don't go as planned i think this case is proof positive here we are ten years later after the election occurred multiple lawsuits by mr kriol and time energy and effort on behalf of the county to defend and again i believe that the district court made the proper decision and i would ask that you affirm it ok thank you very much thank you  here's the timeline the original writ was signed on our guests twenty fourth was delivered to the sheriff's office argus twenty ninth we know that from the notes an affidavit in the record and in forty five there was a state issued on september first to temper thirteen deaths appendix forty there was another state ordered on september twenty first to september twenty six when morial ised this paper appendix forty one it shows that on the day it was entered september twenty first the cia de clercq and the eviction squad those are the sheriff's department was notified of the state on september twenty first that stay expired on september twenty sixth everybody in the district court assumed that the ten days would start with the expiration of the state judge aranda meet up the idea that a rid of restitution had been reissued and redeliver to the sheriff's department at some point after they had steve expired there is no reason to believe that they just get the first rigged and then they get notified of stays and they have to make sure that they do their job in a timely fashion after the last state expires the stay expired on september twenty sixth so the chance can working days to execute the wri expired on october eleventh the eviction wasn't complete until october twentieth specifically the sheriff's department was on the premises these days after the expiration of the this october twelfth october nineteenth and october twenty eighth there are a lot of disputes of fact with respect to what happened at the premises during the course of the eviction this goes in part to the question about why didn't fail crile save his own property well to read his declaration he's trying it's during the of action at least and he's being turned away at every opportunity by the county sheriff's department  we could not have successfully proceeded against the sheriff's department and there's a we would have had a big problem with immunity but we would have had a bigger problem with the damages camp thank you very much ok thank you thank you oh and i mean mr olson foley my next