so no reasonable officer could believe in this case that this was anything but a civil dispute and it's already been long established that civil disputes cannot give rise to probable cause for an arrest the pallies outright admits that the officers looked at the rental agreement they call it a rental agreement in this case and i'm quoting here from the language that their answer in brief they say that they attempted to enforce the right flow claimant dictate now if none of this is disputed then it appears that the appellate argument that they were tempted to force the terms of a contract let's let's assume for a second that the district court was incorrect in finding that there was probable cause for these arrests the district court independently reached the issue of qualified immunity they reached the issue of qualified immunity but they didn't go into it and he well as i read the district court's order  magistrate judge priest who's sitting by consent saying there's qualified immunity because there was probable cause because these facts amount to probable cause therefore there would have also been qualified immunity as opposed to doing a separate analysis which would have been even if there wasn't probable cause to these facts would it would be really clear to every reasonably objective police officer that there wasn't probable cause so if i'm right in thinking that that inquiry remains in the case should we address it in the first instance or should we send it back to the district court and say no probable cause here you have to determine whether or not there was call on you i believe that in the factual disputes that the that the court resolved in the favor of the defendants in this case now police and especially in terms of the timing as to certain alleged events and use those to establish probable cause involved if you know you read the brief it involves an officer who shows up and there's an allegation of faffed and the officer just takes one person side he's presented with a document there's a document in this case which was a rental agreement in that case it was a receipt and the court reviewing those facts determined that he should have known that that was a civil dispute just the bare allegation of theft is insufficient and the court should also note that there's case law that says  right pursuant to a rental agreement was super care but they were actually presented with physical copy of that in a minute to try to resolve the terms of it so it seems that no qualified immunity can't apply here because it falls so squarely within well defined rules that have been on the books for at least since one thousand nine hundred five when alan was the site and since then we have the stevens verse rose case which involved a a and officer who arrested somebody  a civil dispute we have this the gallagher case which was an unpublished disposition by the way but that was in two thousand and eight that involved a lease agreement for an apartment an allegation of burglary now i just i would like to note that but does that answer your question about why i qualified i'm usually right what what are we to make  of the fact that the crime for which the officer claimed had probable cause to arrest has an element that you have to permanently crime someone property is that of any significance with regard to resolving  qualified immunity issue yes well for purposes of resolving the qualified immunity issue it's useful to be extent that there's almost a complete absence of evidence for that so that further the purpose of determining whether he was a reasonable officer acting reasonably under the circumstances if you were going to that extent but yes there was no evidence to support an intent to permanently deprive this especially because we have this you know we have th read it now so i know those are not exactly the facts and they're more favorable to your client than that but given that is isn't is the constitutional violation the refusal of the officer to do it a reasonable officer would have done at that point we just look at the way sickleave we can see that these guys actually had some right to the air mattress well just to be clear and i do agree that it does appear to be a deficient investigation in that regard but we're not claiming that he there was any particular right it's it was super she basically she admits that it's somebody else who was a party to this contract so not only did they present physically by the way but they're also at the physical evidence they presented said yes it's a rental agreement but permission by the owner correct one lets his language to tell because i had a problem with his language to customers and i'm not in any way tend to transfer equipment to a location other than the customer's address or residence as noted i believe it was community care center right there was the the important fact here is that it's a contract and we have somebody who was a party that contract in their authorized representative she he was contacting to her residence or the address on the invoice or does or they are the beads and it certainly does permit that because there was we had mr nichols had arranged for that to happen now as far as i just want to be clear that the terms of the contract shouldn't be considered and probably cause and i think that is the overarching issue because whether whether or not somebody would be in violation of it that's irrelevant to  be violating the terms of the rental agreement there are there are civil remedies for that that c c r see or super care whoever's claiming to be harmed would have but california section fifteen defines what a crime is and then we have an entire different section of the crime describing a what a what a contract is this is a contract it's not a crime therefore whether or not hypothetical i think it's pretty close to this case somebody says i think those two guys are stealing your car your police officers chased them down and they produced the rental agreement from hertz and the office i glanced at it briefly but the other guy told me you were stealing a car so i arrested you any reasonably objective police officer under that circumstance think there was probable cause to arrest them for grand theft auto i think that case would trigger the the rule that an officer must do more than simply accept the reporter's statement at face value they have to do some kind of intervention why is that you say given why is that any different in this case what happens here is that the nurse says stop see if they're stealing their mattress and they don't bring the mattress back to the place where were it was taken from they say we have the right to use your mattress he was released why is that only one of the cases strike me close i would say first of all the nurse did more than just say hey guys are stealing a mattress the nurse gave them much more detailed explanation of what had happened that the only that she had called the owner of the mattress who said this mattress is not supposed to be leaving the premises so now we don't just have hey they're taking it we have more facts about what happened that she had called that she had verified that it was not supposed to leave that they were not doing something that was contrary to the permission of the owner  fact that they brought the mattress back i don't think negates an intent for theft because had she not gone into them for theft though but doesn't it say within the statute itself you have to permanently deploy says permanently with the intent to keep the permanently or for a reasonable time so the question is taking it without consent with the intent so at the moment that they took it in a way very well have been their intent to keep it for an unreasonable time the fact that once the police have one of the brothers and the other brother has taken the mattress away and the police say to the one who's there get him back you're not allowed to take this mattress the fact that then once the police have intervened and they're caught essentially coming back with a with the contract explain the situation he indicates contrary to the citizens arrest report that he's actually cleared it with the rental company that they can take it  to the mother's home and he brings the mattress back so he not only it's like he brought your saying he's brought back stolen goods because the brother's been arrested and actually shows that they have a right to this even though it has the address of the super care he gives a contrary explanation so now you have to plausible explanation how is that now under the qualified immunity analysis the second prong right you know clearly establish law you have better off and i'm sorry or i'm sorry the suspect will often proffer an innocent explanation not many suspect not also as facts are going to say oh i did it you know fell oh i did have permission and you know that was a mistake oh i was confused so that's all the time or are saying things in the police are often faced with conflict i'm with you up to that point and here's the problem with your with your argument from my perspective the the second brother not only shows up and says no no they're lying w says you can take it to the residence or the address noted on the invoice or whether they're meant to be the same thing and since i can interpret it but that's not the important point the important point is the police officer knows at that point officer now knows that it's not the hospital they care centers here mattress the person who's called and doesn't have any ownership interest they are not a party to the cut to the lease and these guys have a piece of paper that percent says that they have some right to possession of this this your mattress at that point he read stands for grand theft so i mean that's that's the op right up until the point that they produce the document that says we're entitled to hold this thing reason about all these cases that your opponent cited says look if it's just a contract dispute if it's of lease dispute if it's something like that that doesn't show probable cause that a crime is being committed i would say just because there is a lease or a contract somewhere and the fact  does not mean that forever anything that happens between those parties with regard to that property is a civil issue so let's assume as you read this agreement that they can move it from the care center to the house and they do so so is there any evidence that they intend to use anything except for the purposes in the lease you know your honor but the question is once the owner has reportedly said this mattress has to stay here and the brothers say we're taking it and by the way when the first officer came and spoke to the first brother he wouldn't say where the mattress had gone he refused to answer that information so the officer is faced with a situation where apparently the owner has said this property can't be taken and the propert been taken out at that point you're going moving it without right because it still belongs to you not moving it without right is not a crime is it no but taking it away you know now you have to you have to judge coming on she said you whole constellation of facts on the ground which is that the brothers had been asked the police knew the brothers had been asked to luck to not take it to let the nurse try to find out now when the brother says well i had permission they are says let me try to work this out just stay here we'll work this out and he says no i'm going i'm taking this thing and he flees with the mattress now the police could think well we don't know what he's going to do with the mattress at that moment we don't know what his plan is maybe he's gotten so mad that he's just going t and run maybe he's going to take it for an indefinite period of time but this is the the police can make the assessment of the brothers are not looking reasonable here and in there is also very thing to say up to the arrest of the first brother but when the second brother comes back with the contractor and with the darn mattress i mean where where i mean what at that point the investigation now has additional facts that completely contradict with the nursing and she's not even a party to the contract i'm not sure that i don't think it matters that she's not a party to the contract someone can report a theft without being the owner of the property that was no understood but now that becomes the independent obligation to investigate what is this contractual agreement  what your opponent is saying is saying it's now it's a civil dispute so she has no knowledge about this contract so the case law is that officers don't have to conduct a mini trial on the scene they need to but they need to find out yesterday now if the evidence is that the officer tried to call the rental company himself and was not able to reach them now i understand that my opponent says it's not clear exactly when he did that but the offices that officer says i did that as part of my investigation and there's no evidence of that the officer continued to investigate after this particular incident on the ground was over so he tries to make a phone call he's unable to resolve it in that moment so he does the best he can against his qualified immunity would every reasonable officer or no reasonable officer have thought this was arguable point and general pronouncements about what the law is that civil disputes don't constitute probable cause are usually not enough in the same sense that the well known statement that excessive force is unconstitutional is not enough to make every excessive force case clearly established violation in the same way a broad statement that civil disputes don't give rise to probable cause probable cause doesn't establish in a particular situation where is this is this is a civil dispute is it really the case that no civil dispute ever still is over into criminal and in