a trial in this case given that there are several disputed issues of material fact that must be evaluated by a jury and the answer to that question must be yes and the several issues that the lower court viewed in a light most favorable to the moving instead of the other way search under the guise of an inspection one i mean the i mean my home what happened here seems to have real problems but how it's connected to your clients and these and you don't have any evidence of any direct connection between any of those individuals and any of your plaintiffs well your honor my our assertions are that those are what may be viewed as credible or not credible by a jury  they'd be in there i would call it self serving declarations said oh yes we both just looked at two apartments and we and our records honestly those were both of the probation officers the operations were memetic and then but those are questioned those are things that can be viewed by a jury as not credible what's what's the country you have an answer to any of your clients say oh yes it was those people but my clients did not say directly those were those people but they said we remember seeing probation officers but six of my clients were the ones that were taken identification from by the probation officer marino was a defendant in this matter so there is a connection between six of the plaintiffs and probation officer marina additional your honor there was direct testimony from lieutenant lockett saying that probation was there to look for probationers that to see if they were in compliance with their probation probation officer doing an inspection weren't looking for probationers that's why we believe that it was a joint effort not just you know it was the ball was put in rolling by the city but it was in connection with county probation so is is what you're saying that the the warrant should be tested not under the administrative search doctrine but under the regular standard probable cause exactly your honor because relation and child protective services serving a warrant that is an inspection warrant but yet it was a no notice warrant it was a forcible entry warrant no notice was ever saw i'm sorry no consent was ever sought from the tenants and invalid warrant you know on in your honor there was another issue that lieutenant la hood said that the reason to aspirate identification from the tenants was that he can be can conduct an investigation and run weren't checks on them what administrative warrant would dictate that it's acceptable to run warrant checks on tenants who had leaky pipes and it's like i said you know there that list that probation officer brown compiled six of those people were plaintiffs so i mean i get it and yes i have the same general overall sense that there's a problem here but but just trying to put my finger on exactly what the harm was so what what's wrong i mean is it a fourth amendment injury to take somebody whose name i mean did there's no contention that they then ran it and then got arrested right that that that didn't happen you know that attention you're on about were arguing what was the motive for taking down their name once they had their name and their identification number and in some of the cases in this matter no no but you had to his question is is there some is it a violation of something to take your name down and we're not alleging that it was a violation your honor to take their name down were alleg that it was a fourth amendment violation the intrusion the illegal entry the well not to not go and they were taken and they are right or in the you know outside the apartment so if the if the i the illegal entry is the fourth amendment intrusion did any of these three defendants do that with respect to your client yes their names tanker were in a list yes your class yes our plans were taken on that list officers and the child protection officer did any of them go into your client's apartments physically to any of those three people go into your client's apartment inside you know there's no direct testimony has got right on it what did you mean when you said that the picture was taken by marin right and one of them said county probation officers and child protective services or workers entered my home and search it but you know you seem to have abandoned that contention the reason for that is that my client my client some of them had just come home from a graveyard shift and they were taken out of their apartments by either couldn't force me and someone in a police department or probation some of my clients were unable to a immediately look to see whether the back of their vest said some numerous people entered my home and photographed and videotaped the injury yes that is correct sir so who who all is so if it was a thirty five thirty six unit building something like that look at that let's say you have a client name joe johns live in apartment three who all is an integral participant in the search of apartment three is a just the people who stand in who stand outside apartment three when the others are going in or is it everybody who searches any unit in the whole building it's whatever interests whoever participates in the raid your honor is there anybody who's involved in the raid even if they don't go anywhere near apartment three yes we're saying that because there any  there any case from the storm the circuit that supports that was i think there's one that actually goes the only way is yes absolutely there is your honor and we're talking about boyd and boyd even though one of the officers did not enter the apartment unit because he was he was he was considered an integral participant because he was part of the operation he knew that a flat last bang grenades were going to be deployed and did not object to a standard outside the door wasn't any correct and he was still held as an in your i'm talking about somebody who the other end of the apartment complex going into another unit they would still be in a participant's around because in these three people bra merino embassy and you do all attended the briefing they all received in operations to anybody who's involved is an integral participant in each and every while the immigrant participant room might extend may extend liability beyond those who provide an armed backup it's clear the officer who waits in the front yard interviewing a witness and still does and does not participate in the unconstitutional search in any fashion can be held liable so that suggests that there's a line somewhere in other words the ones that are involved in some way in the actual search of the particular unit might be integral participants but others are your honor and yes i see how that point how that case might apply however in this case even though they didn't say that marino and brown didn't go into each apartment they merino knew about the legality of the search and she still went anyways and she had this she was she received first she's been on three previous searches your honor and in two thousand and thirteen she received an e mail that said we're looking for targets they said targets to search and then and two weeks before this warrant was applied for she received an e mail that said we're looking for  somewhat country to the whole notion but suppose it were in there and was just a search just ministre to search for building code but you know as often is the case if you change  pretextual traffic stops for example they are going to look around while they were there but that wasn't so you're saying that's invalid if they say we're going to an administrative search for to follow the rules for a ministry to search we're not going to go to anything beyond what we could do for a ministry of search but if we happen to upon somebody that we know is watching for a crime we're going to arrest them it's our problem yes your honor it is a problem because if the motive of this search is to discover brown declaration says that he took the identification because he adopted the goals of the search was was a take which was to take identification to identify suspects or witnesses to the crime that the city was looking for no correlation in the record between the unconstitutional conduct and these individual plaintiffs and that is what the trial judge dealt with and his decision so you saying that nobody's id's got taken  taken but the plaintiff in opposing summary judgment there was an attempt at a class action right to try and tie it all together but that was to not so we're left with these individual plaintiffs and there was no correlation made in the opposition are then you have to look at the old as this overall characterization i would point out that there is much more to the history than was stated in the reply the reply is attempting to narrow the focus of this to code enforcement officer looking for unions if you look at the declaration or the depositions letter and our statement when the facts you'll find in fact she walked in with an entire box now all the apartments let's assume that for now and why does that lead to a no notice requirement why does it need to close in the exits of the place so people can't leave why resign leads to looking for called an authorized people and identifying everybody on the premises and keeping listen to everybody on the premises what what is how is that any of that connected to a code violation warrant some of this is in the warrant and others were things they did when they got th yes your honor you've stated multiple things one of them is why do you have to take witnesses they're going after a landlord who has said multiple years violations you have to identify who the victims are who the potential witnesses are along i didn't hear you barging into their houses yes ok exactly and let's look at the facts of this case you're talking about that's infestation of insects and pipelines and please no it wasn't illegal connections the pipelines it was entire illegal pipeline how are you going to search for all the illegality some of the illegal pipeline unless you look requires advance notice right and that that's what the gets that's what the judge said that they didn't have to do that is for is there a distinction between a no notice administrative warrant and what you would call a no knock warrant or those the same thing or those different things i was this but this is this was not a no knock warrant correct and ok by all everything in the rare is there anything is there any evidence in the record that suggests that they went in that they forced their way into any apartment without first immunity granting and there is a ninth circuit court decision cited in my brief which already said that the notice provision does not rise to a constitutional violation and therefore even if these probation officers were thoroughly aware of the ninth circuit cases they w reason to know that the fact that this is a no notice warrant is a violation of constitutional law and therefore they would still be entitled to call it that in the main the ministry of foreign cases all stressed the fact that there was no i'm sorry ron are cannot put up with brief time provide is it in your brief yes it is your ok it's definitely within my brief and therefore they would have qualified in any way with the and by the way i'm joining in europe you think there's a lot of authority i would s respectfully suggest as to code enforcement administrative warrants there's not a lot of authority there's not a lot of guidance and i think the reason why code in force missed peculiar is because of these things like gas lines and where the as you say the victims of the landlord's actions are the persons whose household has to be searched and it inherently creates that problem they have to be searched it's not like a business operating illegally where they go in and they inspect and the person who is the subject of the inspection is the suspect so you have to deal with these concepts of security and how you're going to enter into the homes and what is also your honor would emphasize that any questioning by officer brown was done in an extremely short time and all within the confines of the detention already performed by the that any one of the county people or to the people out of their homes that was done by the city officers and also he did was asked for their names and identification and whether anyone was on probation aside that it was because she was doing it pursuant to policy she did say she got permission from her supervisor and so on and so one what what is it that's not the policy this kind of a warrant or powering the exits or what exactly well as in the record there's a cooperation agreement between the public and the right and they were just providing security right but oh well he's got a problem i mean i guess the question is is there an inference that this kind of a search or sweep was had happened at least twice before because this one woman had gone to three of them she said and with no evidence of any unconstitutional actions and that's a different question whether there's a policy to do whatever it was that was done here the policy was to cooperate with the entities who asked for security this is exactly what was provided only provided and the human resources officer who was there to provide information and admittedly should one of the police officers identify a problem but i don't want to have security for the city of so you want to have security why would you ask  provide security and our national manpower needed lounge resources the city which is directed them and as lieutenant well had said we're working now is the probationers and parolees went on site have the propensity to perhaps be more resistant than other people it's the same thing it's watching out that's why they only went in the apartments and look there's no indication here they opened up doors so they opened up closets looking for people all they did was go in and make sure everyone everyone was out of the apartment and he asked if they're probation or parole ease in case the event that there may be people more resistant to these searches than other people but it never became a problem with evidence that it never became a complication throughout the i believe well if you have any more questions your honor i don't think and i would again emphasize that there aren't a lot of ninth circuit court decisions  that there is qualified immunity i think was only after consent has been refused only after so many safeguards have been have taken place of consent has been refused and we argue that it would have to have been refused by teach tenant in each apartment which is the