the next case is williams galligan good afternoon your honor may please the court my name is katherine rule and i represent the defendant appellant matthew galligan who is the former town manager of south windsor connecticut glee in this case was it reasonable for mr galligan to believe that the cleanup of plaintiff property that was being used as a scrap metal and junk business and performed pursuant to the sounds like ordinance constitutional the plaintiff brief primarily argues that there was a th amendment violation however the issue i want to appeal is whether mr galligan in his individual capacity is entitled to qualified immunity meaning established law that absent some form of exigency to go on to somebody as property real property and remove and see as personal property would 're a reasonable person might think there was some exigency or emergency that made it important to do this quickly correct that's that's that's based upon the fact in iraq aren't we believe that it garbage that that wouldn't be that would be clearly not constitutional wouldn't it i mean there has to be some has to be some for us s unless there is some urgency that's what i'm saying isn't that a pretty think that that for lazy that's that's the question that puzzles me now if and maybe i'm wrong about this analysis in the st place but if we agree that what would make this a reasonable thing to do is some form of belief that this is an emergency then what i really want to get it is who decides whether a reasonable person would think this was an emergency is that a question on which a dreary would have something to say or is that something that the judge or now we as judges one step removed should decide well i  was a segregated section of the back yard holding pallet and plastic bins covered with tarps and they don't say that there was an emergency or that this is part of safety and if you thought this everything was in plastic bins and unholy mess but isn't that exactly the sort of the sort of factual issues that have to be resolved before you can determine whether it was reasonable to enter without a warrant normally ever on or whether it was reasonable to different orders of fact right i mean there are photographs in the record aren't there there are your own good looks like so i've looked at those photographs and it certainly looks like something that if i lived next door i would be very unhappy about that that's a different question than whether there is something going on there that a reasonable person would think is an emergency i'd wanted cleaned up but i don't know that i would think that it's better be cleaned up today without any further ado after it's been that way for years actually so what wouldn't the jury be positioned to say well we've heard everybody's testimony about this we've looked at the pictures and we don't we don't see anything losing and we don't think that a reasonable person would have assumed that it was necessary to act urgently is that not itself a factual determination about what a reasonable person might think in that circumstance it is a factual determination i believe that  juror would determine that based upon exit in c and a lesser expectation of privacy and that it was being and was a residential property and they were  been saying in response to these questions is entirely accurate at the end of the day we're talking about qualified immunity is that right yes your honor and as i understand your position you were reminding  of the record as well as the video that the plaintiff took at the at the time and set forth that he he says i just talked to the town attorney and he says it's ok for me to go on and you know there is there is in fact and if i may quote it the protection of qualified immunity applies reconquista whether the government officials error is a mistake of law a mistake a fact or a mistake based upon makes questions of law and fact you remember that knowingly violating the law that's your logic right that's exactly right your honor and reasonable officers could certainly disagree on the constitutionality of the conduct but that would also entitle him to qualified immunity thank counsel like the plaintiff for not running a scrap metal and junk business out of their property they're not running a business out of the property and no one ever saw any leaking liquid at the property either the property has one of the your honour's characterize previously is correct when they looked over the fence all they could see were pallets with bins on top covered with tarps and so d no one saw anything no one had any idea with the photographs taken that are part of the record you know there are photographs that go back years and they have that we have had many hearings and many court state court federal court and the bankruptcy court where they does he knowingly violated a law well i'm claiming he's plainly incompetent and i would also say because it's he part he was part of the process that led  the to the revised blight ordinance and all you had to do was read that ordinance and there should have been no dissent to my client or the minimum they should have at least brought an action under state court and may be well maybe that's maybe that's right mr time and maybe it is not urgent circumstance but if he said i'm concerned about this and talked to the town attorney and the town attorney said well i think then you can go and you don't need to wait well that's not say anything that's useful to me in this in this moment i what i'm asking you is if the town manager who's not a lawyer expresses his tells of the town attorney what his concerns are and the town attorney says consulted an attorney and what the attorney told him yes your honor because that's that's a new argument to me that he was consulting the town attorney i know the town attorney showed up during the midst of the cleanup he was not there in the morning when they st arrived and broke through the fence and that you can if you watch the video you'll see it was not there but mr galligan testified  yes it does ok so if you just read the ordinance putting aside when the ordinance is in this respect constitutional he would see that if there is an emergency he could act as correct