the next case put the next case on the calendar red wing versus the oregon state prison is submitted on the briefs and good morning and may please the court my name is gary keenan and i'm hearing on behalf of parent and her groom i'd like to reserve five minutes if i may the morning jones standard determines whether notice constitutionally space sufficient for property deprivation here the st question as i use understand it there are two just great questions one is is any notice required and the nd is is there no form of notice constitutions sufficient if it is required and so the our case law seems to be that applying matthews said notices are what you don't object to for that purpose  right the purpose of deciding is noticed some notice requiring i would disagree with that your honor would why so there are two different standards for two different aspects of due process whether or not notice is required is determined by whether or not there's a property deprivation of the property interest sufficient enough and a cart deprivation has always been treated seriously enough and to require notice in dusenberry the supreme not notice is required sorry under the matthew standard if it were to apply here which it should not be applied here obviously the facts are very different from cases and that's what we have case law applying matthews to the as i understand it to the question of whether notice is required i mean it seems to me you aren't stronger ground to argue that matter that those cases remain could evolve but the question but but but they don't address  his question of whether there is some additional responsibility if they know that that is that the it's notice hasn't been noted and then you don't have a reversing our earlier cases but you seem to want  reverse something what is it you want is to reverse so i now understand your honour's for any of the case yes mclean deals with the adequacy of the method used to provide  i'm sorry i might have misunderstood your framing ok yes so the main standard would determine what the out of c of the method used for the notice would be so there's nothing wrong with our earlier case law you're just arguing that in this particular circumstance given the particular alternative possibilities jewson marion jones when require something more than what was done is that it well to the degree that scofield did apply the math not at all if i can inject a question of what the issue of primary concern to me is this assumes some notice is require and why is it not the case that putting a ticket on the window hook is why is that not reasonably calculated to give notice to the owner of the vehicle who parked it there when yes your honor when initially placed on the vehicle that would be reasonably calculated the problem is twofold one as a factual matter the postings of the tickets here don't make any mention of a tow so they fail to have the content but much more importantly is that after jones the one million jones standard requires that where the government understands that the person is not receiving the time said notice no matter how reasonable initial attempts have been have they know from the fact that the car still parked there how does that mean the government knows person hasn't received notice well so they have good reason based on the fact es a ticket he has consult the parking kitty database and he makes note in his own declaration that as recently as december th mr graham had used the government's parking kitty at so compared to f at the point that these tickets are clearly not reaching mr grimm under jones the government is required to try something else if there is another available option so if mr graham were not a parking ticket user this would not be a problem because there might not be another ready get in touch but here mr  has provided his phone number and his e mail address to the government's parking at the government has also already sent him e mails and in app notifications directly to his smartphone using their own app about what parking status  of payment things to that effect so but and there's a dispute as i understand it about whether there was a warning placed on the car but we do know that don't all we know is he's not being responsive that can be because he's choosing not to be or is obviously not being responsive he parked the car i mean or and which any knew a parked car demeanor and he has brief that government because of its smarts it initiative is actively soliciting private partnerships to govern makes a big deal over the fact that they receive some e mail but they are explicitly asking private companies to reach out to them particularly private companies who are doing tech related civic a and they're partnering with other companies so essentially they put up a help wanted sign it company did reach out to them and now without any discovery below and with the application of the wrong standard mr group is not yet had his due process claims griffin never give an explanation for why he left his car there all the time there's been no discovery and it's not in the record they have in their possession his contact information which they've used to already be contacting him about his car and because a parking agent's every time they issue a ticket or check in the parking kitty data and have noted that mr  parking kitty user the government is aware that they have this contact information they are aware that they've they're able to reach him through his means and they just choose not to provide notice of the talk through this means which when the postings are not proving to be effectual they are obligated to try something else if there's anything else available so had to use that parking to have given him notice how much longer would they have had to wait actually your honor if they had provided noticed earlier in the week with the park get up they could tow immediately well immediately when i mean that's how much notice actually try to inform the property owner that the deposit there has to be a punk function to the notice i mean either i e there is something you can do to stop it from happening so there has been some built  understanding that there's enough time that elapses that you could come move the car otherwise it's all useless exercise well the useless exercise here is going and it's clearly not ok under the morning joan standard is to keep relying on ineffectual postings money and counsel only end if we can st of all i assume that if we agreed with you that essentially the wrong standard was applied to the sub problem we have here we would have we would need to remain because it's just a court there were haven't been any findings or any right in the end the district court would have to do what with regard to determining we have a german but the right kind of notices or just said this is the wrong oh yes the last clear that the court is not to advise for the city what the proper type of notices so all they have to may please the courts don't even you're paying for the city it appears the court understands the issues i'm going to try to really just focus on a few points and hopefully not take up too much of your time so factually i want to highlight she  they also got from the telling company at pictures of what was on the actual saw it was on the card and this wasn't one of them well all i can say is the officer testified to this and that was not and so contradicted by inference no i don't believe so your honor but even then i want to highlight that i don't think it's really directly relevant would be very relevant because if there was in fact a warning on the car now would be a warning on the car now he would say that and that would be a warning otherwise there was no warning he would say that that was an adequate warning because they already knew he was looking at the car and should have known that but and it seems to me to put the factual case and you're from i understand your honour's concern but so the undisputed facts over the course of a week mr grimm so admits that on the th he received electronic notification that his parking was expiring and that's at the are eighty three and then  so two days i'm sorry four days after the car had been parked by that point there were four tickets placed on the car officer earl as i noted testified it was an contradicted that he had placed a warning and i understand your owner's concern about that and then two days after that warning placard that the tow notice was posted so those are the facts that i want to highlight to to the court that mr graham admits that he received notice through the app that his parking was was expiring and then you have the following seven days of notices on the car on the law as your honor noted the moline really kicks in if is our threshold position under yes your honor what case law doesn't seem to support that seems to say there that notice is required so this court case law has stated that in the case of  on what basis do you say that no notice was required so let me see so there's schofield and this court state in schofield quote due process does not require prieto a notice to be given to the owner of a registration that was never as registering a would be easy very easy to find out that it was register not necessarily this was a car with california license plates and there's no evidence that a portland parking officer can find out whether in fact a california resident has a tag sitting at home all the officer knows is the cars and registered but again to go back to i guess to the threshold question at this point is that so scofield's and stands for the proposition that no praetorian notice is required for underage search vehicles but that's not what happened here anyway contrived case but there are but whether people's cars can get out is really a big deal and i do and i completely agree with your honor on that and so what i will say is what moline requires and this is what the court stated in property posting a notice on that tangible properties or car home is notice recently calculated to apprise the interest holder and that if the notice is not checked it is reasonable to assume that the property has been  possible to use the app to give notice is something that would have to be decided on an email if this court were to exactly but again i didn't why should we do that why isn't that a relevant question the reason alain i mean what once you and so that is not so your honor that's not really the issue the lane standard the moline standard is the government has to give again notice reasonably required to apprise the interests holder one of the intend to forfeit the property or whatever and the notice in this case was reasonably calculated to apprise the interest holder over the course of a week six different case there was one week between the expiration of the parking and the eventual towing and again with this court case last chance for stance for is that st of all when you have expired registration no praetorian notice is even required so honor i really apologize that was not my intent and in fact i do want to make another correction where i note in page twenty two of my brief i incorrectly stated that this course decision in the eichmann in two thousand and seventeen was a towing case and if one reading that really dispositive here there are many other cases that stand for essentially the same proposition i mean clement again this course this court discusses the fact that and i'm going to make sure i read the quotation correctly quote a toe made me also be appropriate where if there are no current registration stickers so stickers and the police can't be sure that the owner won't move or hide the vehicle now granted that is dicta i do recognize but it would be is a yes this court could always try to distinguish as precedent on the facts but i believe if you look at scofield clements and lone star they really do stand for that proposition but really the bottom line again is that malayan does not require actual discusses it in terms of stickers i mean is really all i can say is again the quotation is a tone may be appropriate where there are no current registration the stickers and the police can't be sure that the owner will not move or hide the vehicle so  well because clements definitely seems to suggest that no praetorian notice is required in the case of a car that doesn't display current registration stickers which is what we have asked what happened in qana and they said they could have found out things that they and bother to find out oh i understand i understand what you're saying but that is a car so so the fact that time and that was a car that was actually parked on private property that it has a special type of registration that allowed if you are not driving your car it allowed you to forego having to register it and keeping it on your private property and so on the facts of that case yes clement did reverse the tow in that case but again here what we are talking is expiring to citations for displaying a spider registration tags for citations for unlawful parking a warning pocket and again officer earl testified that he placed the warning placard he testified that he circled the word on that morning placard and then a top placard on the day that the tow happened and under the telly of the circumstances the district court properly concluded that the city had satisfied whatever due reasonably calculated to provide notice right that's what it that's correct your honor now whether or not it was reasonably calculated give notice it's a question of fact is that not true i would say it's a mix question of fact in law because moline itself talks about the fact that in the case of tangible property hosting that granted it and that is a fine it is normally made by the trial court that's correct roger and so and the court in this case concluded that the was adequate and rejected that claim that argument on the merits gun is case and so for that reason this quarter the firm that what i understand to be central to this case is the contention that  not getting the notice and you haven't explored alternatives so i i would say that it isn't very doesn't quite hold that because again oh and i'm sorry your honor i see that i run out of time  answer right away when you answer the question yes so this is where again the matthews versus aldridge balancing comes in because what moline states is that well dusenberry does say that as to the question of whether notice is adequate we're going to look at exactly how but what i'm trying to say is that test kicks in again in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality and in that case and dusenberry which dealt with the final forfeiture of evidence that has been  are significant interests at stake but it is not the final deprivation and so that's really where that that matthews versus eldridge balancing comes in because again at heart mr graham's argument in this case is that the court this court heard in analyzing notice it but clement talked about the fact that yes towing a car is significant it does deprive a person of the use of that car for some time but the court also bring more over and then leads to all these costs which for people poor people which of which mr griffin is apparently no one can you can relying completely turn your life around it's not a joke i understand your honor and i do agree with that but again the district court properly concluded that adequate notice was given in this case and for that reason this court affirmed the judgment of this record thank you  like to respond quickly to the finale point i think the two case is a perfect example of how this court does not require it be a final deprivation that was a temporary suspension of a pilot's licen to this court calls it the winning jones standard so a big issue between the parties is that the city of portland is just not accounting for the jones grape wine obligation which is just positive of why each and every one of their posted notices after the i'd also like to point out that the district court didn't consider any of the technology in play here didn't so much as mention parking kitty and simply said that there may come a day when providing notice by some other means by piece quote so ridiculously easy that it would be required and frankly a ridiculously easy standard is not a standard the standard is similar in jones standard and we need to discovery into the technology in play here to see what was actually practicable for portland to have done and mr  what would be the instructions if you could write your opinion that you would have us give the district court it would be to consider the facts under them when jones standard  to consider the implications of the government's parking kitty