george and was on the threshold of becoming a peace officer himself as a california c d c prison guard you graduated the cademy and just took a hiatus before his first assignment to care for his sick mother when this incident  rose and what we have here is a very simple question of fact that should have been left to the trier of fact the dispute is made clear by the senate adams declaration  items from doorsteps meaning when he first disclosed the stolen property to the detective she had no probable cause at that moment everyone would recognise it would be an absurd interpretation to say that handing stolen property to the police makes you subject to being arrested for possessing stolen property so the detective admits that that's an absurd  by simply saying i mean when i when i first learned about this case and he showed me the stolen property i believed him no problem no suspicion well that's what i think you know what the facts are here but let's look at what i have my questions the little i'd like but ok so we have and then we have we have the chronology that you're talking to and they do this surveillance and he does have some stolen property at some point they do the search warrant they do all of those so when we take the disputed facts and those so let's assume that the officer is annoyed with his phone calls but then we have all of these other facts as well why is that not like  say when an officer pull someone over for a tail light but the officer really is pulling out person ever for the tail light because the officer thinks that person is a drug dealer or something along those lines and we know that the case l right on what the issue they will be raising and what is clear is that with the what we have here is that we don't have the tail light until the officer says certain other facts are heard that's what she herself contradicts she says i became suspicious because nothing seemed the georgian said seemed to be supported by the evidence that's paragraph nineteen however in paragraph eighteen she says we went to church george and furthermore the fact that the factual question for a jury or a finder of fact would be the further assumption that the factual assertion that there was an adequate surveillance or an adequate the deposition of the officer doing this surveillance he says well you know i told the detective we're not going to get around to this for at least a week you know this was a low priority for them so for her to self somehow say well we did surveillance and therefore we were unable to corroborate and therefore there is a suspicion that's simply a question of for the jury as to whether or not that surveillance is factually sufficient to raise suspicion if you don't the end of the day is that probable cause and then if we say that it is that's the end of the inquiry if we say that it is then let's then if you go to the next question on also one of the i think undisputed facts is she asked her supervisor can i arrest this person and the person the supervisor says yes and then she i arrest him let's assume that we agree with you that there is a probable cause but we go to the second and corey what would a reasonable officer you know i mean you can still not have probable cause but you can still on the second prong of soft be entitled to qualified immunity how do we deal with that through well you know in our society and i would like to reserve a few minutes for ok i think you're you know the excuse of i was just following orders or my supervisor told me was ok has never been acceptable and i noted that even in the district court's opinion there was no ability there was no citation it was no authority for that proposition stolen from the superman and that is a factual corroboration of mr georgian's story so the thing that's interesting about the record is that that supervisor didn't provide any and he stated for the record we only have the officer that if any reasonable officer would have to be clear to a reasonable officer that this was an illegal arrest for the officer not to be protected here by qualified immunity and i think your honor was right on when you talked about the undisputed facts in this case because obviously the disputed facts have to go to the plaintiff at this point but the undisputed facts are that mr jordan came to the officer saying i received some property that i believe was stolen the officer tha had surveillance conducted on that other person turned up nothing the officer then did a search warrant on that person's house turned up almost nothing that empty boxes all that they found but all the other things that mr jordan had told her that were there at the house were not there anymore as this is going on obviously the suspicion of that officer is starting to shift from mr churchill to mr george and i think that any reasonable officer looking at that evidence would start to feel the same statute that he his testimony is that he called the police to report that he had accepted the statute and statue and believed it was stolen so later on there's more stolen property that i believe he brings to the police station if if someone has stolen property and called the police and you're drawing inferences in favor of that person isn't your inference that you know he doesn't have it with criminal intent  theft and to that he had possession i believe it's based on the other things that she found out along the way and those are the the surveillance did not corroborate what he had said and the search warrant did not corroborate what he had said and all the items that she received were from him she could never tie any of the items to the churchills and i think that the first time that he comes in and says i have the stolen statue i don't think that's enough for probable cause at that point but i think it's these other speeded facts that come up later that a reasonable officer including up after adams leads her to believe that this person is involved in the phone now that he was already a correctional officer no he was not he was he had he testified as deposition that he had passed the tests and i believe that they were waiting for him to then say yes i'm ready to start the academy but i think he took some time off from that his mother was sick and in the meantime this arrest how well is there anything and is there anything that's in the record that he it's i guess it's officer adams and that she knew that he had this background you know had gone to the academy or something i don't believe so i don't believe so the one thing that i remember in her deposition she talked about seeing a uniform in his garage i don't know if that was part of the record though that this court has in front that's what the court would have to find in order not to give this officer the protection and i think that again we go back to those those items of fact that are not the spirit here and they start adding up not just the fact that he has a statute but the fact that nothing else of what he talks about is corroborated and i think that's a console yes i have a question for you when they did the search they found this u p s box addressed to somebody else got the search warrant and in the meantime mr georgian had told the officer that there are many other items of stolen property in the house then when they come to the howells the wreath is gone and all of those other stolen property items are gone they're not there there is that box which tends to suggest that maybe there was something unlawful going on but all of these other items that mr georgian told me after were there are gone so i think and again i think we get to the point that the officer does not have to believe beyond a reasonable doubt or be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt somebody is guilt at this point it's the probable cause to arrest where she says hey here's a guy who brought in the statute and says this friend is doing all this illegal activity and yet they do the surveillance and there's nothing there they go to the house where he says there's all kinds of stolen property and yet there's nothing except an empty box and then all the items that he's bringing her are from him she cannot tie those to mr churchill and i think all of those together start to give this officer reasonable basis to suspect that this person is involved much more so than he was if not or i should say in addition to possibly being the one that tips off mr churchill that they're about to do the search and so i think all of those together are what adds up to the belief in this officer the mind in a reasonable officer's mind that this person is much more involved in this theft activity than he wants to lead on that's not now i agree your honor and i think and i think it's just that all of the the pieces the fact add up to make that officer believe she has pretty probable cause and i understand as the justice said about the language in her declaration that she believed that he might be involved in this but she did testify that she believed that she had probable cause to make the arrest and she confirmed that with her supervisor but the facts are disputed as judge fletcher points out even simply stating we went to the house and didn't find anything when they had next they found a box with a label it's like finding you know the victim's blood in the closet shot he mentions that his that the reason because he doesn't want to do this and a piece of actual dispute on any of these things is whether or not he was working as her confidential informant which she writes in her notes in the first conversation with the postal inspector the ex listening to a conversation with a detective where she told him what to do and told him that it's arrested tell the officer take the officer aside give him my card and tell him that you know you're working as an informant