sure there might be some questions that you might have first of all i would look to the issue of the  i believe was raised in the brief and i'd like to point to judge cooper's notes six in her order which said she's not considering that she didn't consider that on at all so that's not an issue in here the next one would be the  and emergency situations in the first part of the code having to do with towing vehicles it gives officers permission to throw vehicles all of the situations involved involve some kind of situation where it's an emergency situation to get the vehicle off the street or it's an unregistered vehicle on any public street or highway this situation itself is it's not even if i think it's just the officer young comes onto the property seized the vehicle and checks with a department of motor vehicle and who knows at the time that it is a registered vehicle although it has a certified non operational permit on file with the department of motor vehicle so it's lawfully there and he chooses to take the vehicle without notice and he does take it and it's to facility is an off duty parking facilities there's no question about that doesn't the statute says that's it authorizes that right it does in one part of it but it looks like an add on section and it seems to be where the unlawfulness falls through the cracks here because there's nothing on lawful about having that vehicle it is registered vehicle as they refer to it as an unregistered vehicle it's not registered for road use but it's certified non operational permits on farm where partly i'm not a vehicle but basically there would be nothing to prevent due process though from writing a ticket on that or giving notice to have a hearing on earth but apparently the big fear is that if they issue with think that they won't be able anyone because they can go down and get it registered that seems to be it now also the notice requirement my point indicates in his brief that it's required to give notice within eight hours and he seems to imply it officer young gave notice with the one eighty form from the california department of motor vehicles and this is not the case officer young doesn't say that he merely filed his hearing there was no notice that went out afterwards within forty eight hours we registered the it was registered with the department of motor vehicles the operation for road use had expired years earlier but it was still registered they were able to find a vehicle in the department of motor vehicle registers and it was well that's what that's what the registration they're using are your vehicles registered if they're listed with the department of motor vehicles as none are in operation yeah there is no definition of what registration is so i would assume that it's registered whether the the operational use on roads would still not using it then there's no requirement for that but it's still on the files of the department of motor vehicles and they know where it is you know how to reach the owner was they knew who the owner was it's they pay for it every year a fee for having it not operational and there's certainly no reason the due process wouldn't warrant the giving of notice to somebody if there is or a problem with the vehicle when it's lawfully parked to  come in and have a hearing with the city and see what what they want to do it if there's some problem but here we don't have that situation we don't have even a notice afterwards the law of federal law says that you have to give notice within five days minimal the next actual notice was the ransom note that went out on april sixth weeks later saying that you have to pay for this to get i and one of the requirements is that you have to have a registered to drive it out and have a driver's license and that's in the code and so the primary purpose of the thing is to get it registered for road use and i'm quoting here for the purpose of the subdivision of the vehicle shall be released to the owner or person in control of the vehicle only after the owner or person furnishes the store and storing a law enforcement agency with proof of current registration and a currently as the owner i have to to go and and i can't have a totally oh yes you can there's another code section couple of codes down from this one that says that the owner can call the department of highways and the sheriff or the responsible party for moving it and have the vehicle towed away at the owner's expense to give owners expense but that's not this section this section is seems to be unconstitutional and it's taking in vehicles that are lawfully parked and there's nothing in the record here about the landlord complaining or asking it to be known they gave you the parking spot  is the manager of it he stated it comes as part of her rent and so it's a paid parking spot for her and it's not on page parking claims court just beautiful how much of that no say she had to pay i think was twelve hundred dollars or something like that court costs were added into it but i think it was a actual towing and storage in my time  figure was the amount from the small claims court award which would presumably include court costs and fees them i am i wrong in that i think that there is separately listed on the decision of the court that was a couple of months later i think that's fair hearing they're talking about a post hearing which is way too late to have any of really good effect on anything has been capable of moving pulse last registration expired not ninety four these events took place in two thousand and one and you have no evidence that it's been in place or has been operated without proper registration during that time and have had a certificate of non operation during each of those years isn't it reasonable to infer that an moved in seven years and it's sitting in a private parking lot weren't really seem to bother the landlord but it was the season the middle of the night section twenty two six fifty one authorizes the fifth amendment well that is also dealt with in scofield when they talk about what the governmental interest is entirely understand a governmental interest towing a car out of a no parking zone on a public street this is a private parking lot and what's the governmental interest the interest of the reason the interest is the same and i think the reason that the statute provides for towing from a public street or a private street facility open in members of the public for which no fee to park his charts while they're engaging in some sort of commercial enterprise is to allow the police to effectuate the intent of the statute you have these type of parking lots like at the days inn at a mall at a supermarket the a police officer who observes a vehicle in the supermarket with its registration more than six  effectuate compliance with registration laws that is through history not complied with the law they're the vehicles unregistered and but apparently there's a legal process by which you can get the government to recognize the fact that it's not  operating and doesn't have to have a current registration but i would disagree with that there's nothing in the record to instruct this court how plans of non operation certificate operates in conjunction with a lack of registration and  certainly twenty two six fifty one makes no exception for vehicles who are on register who have in fact filed non operation certificates and additionally there because earlier questions about registration when you get your annual registration notice you can pay a registration fee to operate your vehicle on a public street at a greatly increased cost you still have to pay an annual fee for a plane and not on operations or think it's like fifteen dollars or something like that but it still has to be registered there's nothing in the record to indicate the status of the plant non operational certificate on file and once again the statute doesn't make any allowance for this and there is there is no argument made by the  and for the life of me i say again i can't figure out what the city's basis for taking this is under the circumstances where it's not on a public street there's no indication of public safety concern and how is that they get the all the on the first place the they get it because especially is a public street for private facility like a parking lot of a mall i suppose when they all pass or something and says we can come take it out of your driveway does that mean they can come take it out of my driveway you know because i think there are actually some some case law that says you cannot do public street i do have a problem with saying that you can tell it out of a backyard or a private driveway here we have a parking space that she was paying for in her own apartment complex now admittedly that parking space was also available to anyone who was you know you could mean that parking lot was also available probably to anybody who happened to be using the mall which is public and which you have to have you can't just pick up hunker in the middle of a mall parking lot or on up a public street where it's interfering with other people's right is to promote the markings on the public street to make i know the fact is different but the interest is the same that the interest is promoting registration of vehicles getting on registered vehicles off the streets and preventing  that the registration lost as they don't have to register they just filed an operation or do they have to register and pay some lesser amount but still register my understanding of the la based upon my own experience as you still have to pay an annual fee you would probably still have to get it smog every other year if you can simply avoid any registration whatsoever by filing a non operation certificate and the statute once again makes no section on under that circumstance if you prolly nama operation certificate and you pay some annual fee you get a little sticker or something that goes around your cars so someone driving policeman driving by you know it was i just want to know how much was due before this thing got pushed into small claims court and others what was the initial towing charge if it had just been paid whether that's right or wrong and the amount the towing company got is the judgment small claims court yes it wasn't paid for and they went to small claims court eventually they prevailed that is correct it would be reasonable to assume that within a few days of the towing you would have a the lack of notice to the plaintiff and if i could direct the court to page fifty five of the appellant's excerpt that is the one eight vehicle report from the officer and he in fact in the lower right hand corner file that's correct and officer young's declaration said he determined there was a certificate a plan offered operation on file or is on the record evidence that there was such a certificate on file and that he knew it and in opposition to defend its motion that ground has never been urged as a as a ground in opposition here on appeal appellant has never heard that as a ground for error can you help me with something else sham and that kind of line of argument where there are claims that see the statute to which the officer acted was unconstitutional  down in the lower court i believe opponents argument was simply the act was already there in the district court here that the act itself was unconstitutional without reference to the statute itself being unconstitutional the primary argument issues that are presented to the district court we can and extraordinary case here was that if you thought concerted cliff and i think from his questioning was that presented to the and if if necessary if i could be heard with respect to those causes of action disposed of by the district court that did not involve constitutional questions such as the rico claim the negligence claim of the conversion laid out a record of of this hearing in the city of glendale except i understand that the the appellant testified that there was that there was a hearing  factual evidence of the city of glendale hearing in the record because if you get a motion for summary judgment you can file an affidavit with evidence or you know i wasn't raised as an issue