i think the important thing to remember in this matter is that this was this is a summary judgment decision and so this court basically engages in the same analysis that the district court is required to go through and  that is its to noble review and summary judgment all facts and in furnaces are to be taken in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party that's a well established  principle and i think when you review the record in this case it's very clear that the district court did exactly the opposite that the district court viewed every fact in every possible inference in favor of the moving party and had to do that in order to grant summary judgment this case and i would like to just point out one example i think there are many in the record of the court doing this but one that i think  is very telling is the incident report in which ms wilcox reported that her boyfriend at the time a person and perhaps franklin had been abusing her in some way making her take drugs told the officer she was a complaining party at this point that that he was made her feel like she was being held captive and nothing with no one arrested that out of that incident or any and things happened but miss wilcox was taken by the police according to report to a safe place of her choosing this happened of the two months before the incident that resulted in the plaintiff's arrest and there was that arrest was based on her story that plaintiffs had held her captive held her captive physically for at least six months prior to that date so here she she's in qantas wilcox's in contact with a police officer with her child is taken to a place of her choosing and the district court says that incident corroborate her story simply because she was making similar allegations against mr franklin that she then later made against the plaintiffs in this case that is drawing inferences only those favorable to the moving party and no i'm sorry you said in the prior incident the police took her to a place of her choosing that's place one yes place two i'm referring to is the place were the search warrant was executed are they the same place knowledge facts in this case and attributing them in a way that only favors the moving party and ignoring to the extent that they tend to undercut miss wilcox story show the race huge him that he had when he applied for the search warrant no no you have to look at everything he knew when he made the arrest because that's when he has to have probable cause nobody price for a search warrant to search one is simply to search for evidence it was not an arrest warrant so what counts is what he knows when he makes the arrest and at that time not only did he know all these other things that made this well cox's story questionable at that time he know about the prior incident at the time yes he admitted he had the rest he admitted in his deposition he had read that report  and there was paraphernalia right there was one or two pipes that apparently had drug residue but we don't even know who the pipes belong to there's nothing that connected does that those pipes with my clients in any way other than it was found at that residence there was another person at the residence who was simply let go we know that miss wilcox was likely at that residence at some point because she was able to take the police officers there and tell them that my client's lived there so she obviously knew my clients and do they live there but that doesn't indicate any kind of criminal activity that doesn't support her story of being held captive for six months to a year and being forced into prostitution and forced to take drugs it doesn't support that at all all the things that would support that story were not found at that residence the only thing that was that's correct why when that corroborated her and heard well it might corroborate that she'd took meth because we know she had been at the house and maybe it was her pipe again you can argue some of these things in various ways but that's the whole point at this stage everything has to be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party which is the plaintiffs correct but they only have to have probable cause they don't have to  spend more of your limited time on this one should talk about the statements that were made by law enforcement following the arrest and that was what i was going to move to next i think the case is even clear when it comes to the defamation claim here are they public relations officer or public information officer went on t v on all three major stations in this book area and said everything that this woman told us would be found in that house was in fact found there and what she everything she told us was corroborated he used exactly those words which was exactly the opposite of what happened and of course it gives the public the impression that there's no doubt these people are guilty because the police have corroborated everything this complaining witness has said and when asked about where he got his information detective chamber officer chamberlain didn't i mean as i say that that is almost as definition of recklessness with regard to the dissemination of that kind of information he didn't document where he got this information i jury could conclude he simply made it up that he simply assumed sense an arrest was made that they must have found all the things that this witness had said would be there otherwise they wouldn't make an arrest and then he never spoke to anybody that's a logical inference from the facts we have here  issue of whether or not there was qualified immunity and then the issue of the defamation and i'll address the defamation just just very briefly that was the issue that judge hawkins raised i just want to make sure that both were covered you take the new yorker you want i'll touch on that one because i think that issues is fairly short and a little more simple at least from the defense perspective your honor with respect to deputy chamberlain if the court refers to one fourteen the statement that he made was actually quote everything that our victim said was going to be in the residence basically everything was corroborated so she's being very helpful with the  there was a deadbolt lock on the basement she did your honor and there was not so the distinction some work everything to me it is not everything but if you if you listen to his statement your hon it's basically everything was corroborated so he's not deputy chamberlain isn't saying we found the specific evidence he's saying everything that she said would be there and if and remember this is a human trafficking incident or allegation everything or things were found in the house that would support the evidence of human trafficking and those are found that were found by the search for the computers and electronic devices there was drugs found there was a pipe found there was a letter to between the victim slash informant and her boyfriend that corroborated that she in fact had been there and then jani you also have to look at it in terms of the experience and training that the deputies had with respect to prostitution so if you take all of those together that's what chamberlain deputy chamberlain said when he said it's corroborated corroborated doesn't mean everything that was supposed to be found there was found there couple of two or three days after the execution of war and the rest of the point i take it was your office determined there was insufficient evidence to go forward and it actually took longer than that your honor it was about a twenty three day investigation what did your office find that led to that conclusion what did the spokane county sheriff's office find that led to that conclusion they were the ones that did the inquiry it was not the prosecution office correct your honor ok what if they find that led them to believe that at the end of the day what the young woman had told them was not true essentially on her they could not upon further investigation past the probable cause threshold they couldn't corroborate her statements in fact the more detailed investigation that they did the more her statement unraveled and i believe that in deputy scoggins affidavit he he states that record show it does not hear us office apologize to these points it does not your honor one last thing on the the issue of the defamation you have to show actual malice in the state of washington and there's simply no evidence of actual malice for the court to consider in this case deputy chamberlain and deputy scogin both said are detectives going both said we didn't know these individuals we disregard of the truth that it probably can be your honor but in this particular case the public information officer deputy chamberlain came out to the scene if you recall the search warrant was executed at four am the media was already there they were alerted yes and the record indicates that nobody knows who alerted um it's not uncommon in spokane and probably everywhere else but the reality of it is is based upon the time that dippy io had to rely on the information in other words he got the return of a search warrant he looks at the information he talks to the lieutenant and he goes on the information that he's given because the media is there at the time that's upon the additional information that they received out of the search warrant that he had probable cause to arrest these individuals so i don't believe that that rises to the level of recklessness  i don't i don't even know that you could call it grandstanding your honor i simply believe that based upon the information that they had detective scogin has been in the special salt unit for over eighteen years at that point in time human trafficking had become a significant issue in spokane washington which is in his affidavit which is in the record and based upon the information that he had in the recent training that he had received that was his that the point released with the i'm sorry i can't answer that mr wong may be able to but i don't i don't have that recollection right now my apologies  with respect to you i've got about three minutes left and i would like to talk just very briefly about the court's ruling and the issue which was qualified immunity as as this court is well aware there is a different washington still follows spin the federal courts do not i do believe that based on either one of those tests whether or not we're talking about washington's probable cause or more importantly perhaps before this court is the issue of  the federal that is illinois versus gates which is the deciding case and both of those because i am just a couple minutes left i will lump them together recognizing that they do have different standards both of those required that the courts look at or the deputy looks at the totality of circumstances judge paez you raise the issue of the search warrant i do believe that search warrant is a very crucial component of the probable cause because that the information that was used in the search warrant at two thirty am doesn't change or diminish in terms of the probable cause that detective scogin could use to make those arrests or information when he got to the scene yes you're some of it was inconsistent with what he put in the yes your honor and i don't that's not an uncommon occurrence when you do a search warrant you find different information but if you go to the information that he learned after the search which i've already noted for the record there was a number of items particularly the computers  with human trafficking and and sex crimes are they do use the internet they do use craigslist they use back page you know i learn all sorts of things that i didn't know but that's how they solicit and market women for sex and he articulated all of that and given that it was human trafficking he based upon his twenty seven plus years of experience he determined that it was a prudent detective ultimately determined they didn't stay in jail until that was determined but the detective ultimately did determine that there was not sufficient probable cause the focus has to be on the facts that were learned for the search warrant and for the that were ask mr while that i don't have a specific answer for that i believe that it was covered in the media but it would not have been the front page information thank you for the questions your honor apology far as i'm aware of no and it's not in the right if there was one it's not in the record no was there a press release by the public information office including detective chamberlain w your charges were dropped against your clients i'm not aware that there was anything like that i don't believe there was and there is nothing in the record i do want to dress the probable cause issue here's what dep the detective said to mr wilcox twenty days after this incident this entire case is you that entire case is what you're prepared to say it's that we have absolutely not a shred of other evidence we found no other girls we found the dead bolt lock on the door we found no guns we found no drugs he's telling her we have nothing other than your statement and that was just as true when he made that arrest and he knew that was true when he made those arrests and he interviewed her a month later through weeks later this is twenty days later when he's talking to her because they still haven't found anything but he knew that because he knew they had found none of these things in that search he knew all this w made those arrests but what why would that mean there's not probable cause because if what she said his pro because first of all what she says by itself could never be probable cause because you have to have something that would make her a credible witness or reliable witness if you're going to rely on her statements they don't have any evidence they don't know who she is they've had no prior contact with her so they don't have a history so the only way they can determine if this wild story she's telling them has any truth to it is to verify some of the facts criminal activity again they have to verify facts of criminal activity not innocuous facts not just that she knows some people or that she's been to some address but that would facts that would support her allegations of criminal conduct by the people they're arresting and the one thing they could have done was to be have found at the house counsel you think that they can't credit her statement as a victim for probable cause not to washington law until they have other evidence that's a that's what washington law is the aguilar spinelli test you must have some other way to these corroborate so that a reasonable person would believe this story is true it's until you have that it's just a story by being told by someone you don't know and actually what they found out told them she was not credible counsel you're over thank you for your time but we are taking in their questions well i want to thank both counsel for their arguments and for traveling from spokane and