s this case of course involves the probable cause of whether or not my client committed an of the determination of probable cause was that there was a witness id that is the police said that there was a witness that identified my client inside of the industrial area e detective mckay stated that every john was one hundred percent certain that he saw mr reid in this back area behind the manufacturing plant and a fire marshal hall use that determination in two different ways one to identify the arsonist but also to say that there was arson and that since hall said he couldn't figure out how that fire started so because he couldn't figure out how the fire started and that there he couldn't and that reid was there it must be arson so there were two statements made or allegedly there are two statements or that allegedly there was a statement that mr dunn made to these invest the calculation of these making a three claims it's important not sometimes the analysis is merely to look at what evidence there is but the fact that every dime comes back and says the police attribute a statement to me i never made it and it was so material also is more important in this case because it shows that the police and the investigation is not only faulty but that they please officers are  proffering false evidence that is they are saying that evidence that the material evidence was there but in actuality it's not true and one of the things that they might circuit really hasn't dealt with a lot is what happens when there's issues of credibility in summary judgment usually the issues are credibility or are not addressed in some summary judgments but that would there's a disconnect when if a jury could listen to the officers and hear them say that avery dunn said something and the jury makes a decision that the officers are now not telling the truth those that jury would be from the usual case in which you might have an officer port and somebody denies making a statement to the officer here you have at least as i read the record and intermediary you know you have mr d talking to the fire marshal and then his report goes to the police officer yes why isn't the police officer entitled in calculating or not whether there's probable cause or not to rely on the fire marshal's report  court has asked me if the officer can just rely on that fire marshal's report without examining the facts behind it really abrogates the police officers duty to examine the case and examine if there's probable cause in essence what the officer said here was i looked at just no facts he doesn't know how the fire started he doesn't know the mechanism how it started they don't really know exactly the area where the fire started so without knowing how that fire started how can they determine it's arson and secondly how can they took determine who started that fire i think you get back to my question in such a circumstance why why  can't police officers not expert on any of those females rely on a fire marshals determination well i think you can to some degree that is if those areas are so outside of his ability to discern he certainly should but i don't think that excuses him from looking at the facts of the fire it may not in terms of good police practice in terms of determining probable cause and not enough i think you have to look at the evidence and i don't think you can there's a shortcut to determining probable probable cause i think you still have to look at it remember this is not a case where they're making instantaneous decisions this was a case where  the fire was out it had been thirty days and he had had plenty of time to read the reports and make a decision and essence i don't think that it's an important distinction of merely saying how did that fire start give me your opinions versus do you have opinion about probable cause because and that's since this fire marshal did his own investigation and came up with those conclusions and i don't think that the officer can abrogate his position and just say well this fire marshall said that mr reith that this cried and therefore it's good enough for me especially since part of it is this the calculus of the fire marshal was that mr reed was seen in and around where the fire was started and we start starts telling well for the lack of better word lies about probable cause then you have to look at his then his entire statement of probable cause comes into doubt there was a federal where the fire started and the question then becomes it's not just to be to take that statement now but also and i'm repeating myself to some degree but it also it puts into doubt those officers credibility in anything the say and then can anything they say now become have any weight because the jury could decide to throw out all their testimony because they have made material also misrepresentations  s not an issue of whether or not mr reed was an arson the issue was whether or not of course probable cause existed from the officers perspective of his investigation in the information that he had it deals with that with a with a quantum in the quality of the information what he had missed that balancing test that's always difficult for police officers and sometimes very difficult for courts to determine that sufficient for probable cause to arrest or that's not sufficient for probable cause to arrest here however i've listed in the briefs and i'm not going to go through the fifteen eighteen different facts that the officer had but there are some facts that i want to talk about as to the quality and what those facts mean because that's really where the law goes it's the interpretation of those facts some people may have a slighted meaning or ability to understand a fact as it relates to the ultimate crime and some people some judges some lawyers simply sman may look at a fact with a lot more importan and that's what we have here here i think important fact is that is the schoolgirl of the high school girl who overheard three kids talk in of the south it's high school girl here's three kids talk but it turns out one of those boys is the defendant son now there's a there's a dispute as to what exactly was said and this branch the high school girl said one thing when the investigator spoke to the the other two boys they kind of put a little spin or a twist to it but what's not in dispute is is this the quote that was attributed to the plate the son after acknowledging there is a fire that he sees from the high school after acknowledging that his dad just got fired from their says and they rebels that could mean a lot of things but to a trade investigator that could mean she the son overheard dad in this play and to create some happy that's what that could mean if it's sufficient it's it's i not sufficient but but by itself with the other information the officer is collecting for probable cause determination is important first in also because the policy of the polygraph wasn't done by chino police department it was done an independent police agency some importance of that in insignificant by itself but again it paints a big picture that he was seeing mr reid was seen across the street of the fight and people go out and see fires i guess but for a trained police officer to be there across the street at the scene is a significant fact it shows proximity it shows a lot of things that an officer a trained officer can say he is at the scene he there's there's there's the the body of the crime is close by you also have his to strike that the nature of the fire you had the fire investigator trained individual highly qualified who who didn't investigate the fire after the fact in fact was called to the fire well that's going on and he cleaned some court and things he saw black smoke rising high in the facility and rapidly moving which to him would mean not accidental which would mean sabotage which would mean an intentional act of someone starting a fire meaning an individual is involved taking that information with mr reed mr reed was fired the day before mr reed said when he gets fired to the clerk handing him his check you know any good lawyers and significant statement by itself but again it's growing the fact that the fire was in such a place that someone probably would have to have knowledge of the facility someone would have to have worked there or at least seen the blue the blueprints of this facility that the fire started in such a way that someone would have to have the working knowledge of to start a fire in this combustible styrofoam things i mean i don't understand all the fire investigator has is technology of chemistry is involved but he does conclude that it takes someone with a high knowledge an ability to get this thing going mystery had that all of that ability he worked there he got fired from there he wants a lawyer he the dish of anger is there there are other factors in the briefs i don't need to go into but a policeman makes the decision of to arrest or not to arrest he only needs probable cause he's not there to he's not the judge of guilty or not guilty he's there to arrest an individual because he believes that there's probable cause to arrest now getting back to avery done and it's that based on zero zero zero two four four is the singular to sentence declaration of a redone and i would submit that avery dunn's declaration doesn't necessarily say what the plaintiffs thanks for that it says it merely says following the review of the statement i do not concur with its contents and then not identify thomas reed as the person i saw that day attached to that declaration is stamped two four five is the police officers review of the interview with mr dunn and there are circles in certain parts of the statement in fact there are four circles circle now i guess that is supposed to mean he mr dunn didn't believe with that part of the statement yes but in the statement it does say i did see a person with a baseball cap a white t shirt in jeans you also have people across the street street when they identify him saying well i did see mr reed with a baseball cap white t shirt and blue denim shor but more importantly the district court judge judge phillips knew the danger here and she writes in her order granting summary judgment not taking any evidence as it relates to mr dunn for purposes of finding probable cause that's the important issue really counsel has raised an issue but it deals with credibility i think just can't be correct credibility has nothing to do with this issue since it was an issue that the district court didn't even utilize or analyzed in her determination she went through the facts she analyzed the facts she determined as a trier of those facts for purposes of probable cause that there was sufficient basis with that i have nothing further in this there are any questions thank you counsel thank you for you to non survival real quick we did raise the issue of credibility in the lower court the court just didn't capitalize it or look at it probably cost should make common sense that is when you look at all the facts not just take a few facts that are inculpatory but when you look at all the facts it should come to probable cause this the theory of the police is that in broad daylight during operation while the business is in operation while the individuals who would know who thomas reed was and that he had been laid off that thomas reed would go through the business with people who would see him there go into the back and start a fire now and i had extremely volatile product now that product doesn't take a genius to set a fire ignition source like player over when nobody's there that mr reed would rather during daylight hours right when everything is busy would go in there and start a fire in an area specifically where people w working moving back so that is the the if they determine at general area where the fire started it was not in some remote area of this two or three acre storage backyard stores farm but rather right where these individuals were moving banks with forklifts and when you look at the common sense that just does not make sense and when we want police officers to make arrest broad daylight basically in front of the workers that he worked with and that doesn't make sense counsel makes much of the statement of his son made to two or three other boys which was overheard by another person who reported to the police and the police interviewed those three young men they all made of the consistent statements that war was not in vehicle there so people can see it's not a big parking lot there's a photograph in in the exhibits it's not a big parking lot people would see it that same parking lot is where people take lunch so it doesn't make sense that a person was going to commit such a terrible crime remember this is this product i think there is one point four million pounds opposed irene b that all went up in smoke very quickly because it's evolved a little gas that could have killed somebody say it is not something that is a horrible criminal act so they're saying that mr reid would park at the place of business that morning and then as i was mention that everyone at this that were interviewed said mr reed was a very even mannered man that he was not angry and when he spoke about a lawyer he said his wife was asking about a lawyer counseling that the