residence of sixteen or sixty four twenty and sixty four eighteen on september thirty nine hundred ninety nine the issues before the court that arise out of that nucleus of facts or first whether there is pursuant to directors letter when you look at then i'm going to take another look at the ordinance but i'll just tell you i was under the impression that yes it's on walking if you don't follow an order but that and of course the mere presence of a ra if we were looking at truly criminalise time that the war in this instance would have been sufficiently narrowly tailored meaning if there were made a letter from the director saying this is what you need to do to remedy the situation or this the clean up you need to undertake to remedy this that information would have been included in the warrant would have been included in the application that would again given the inspection officers sufficient guidance to know exactly what to search comma that argument begins to carry a little more weight but i think that the the legislative body here could have easily said it started off the whole section a provision which it shall be unlawful to fail to maintain the premises free from rats mice and ro i understand you think there is not probable cause for the war if there is probable cause however would you address whether it's too broad a language yes i think i think there it is again far too broad because what we see in the warrant is the directive to search for any violation of the seattle this will health code and i think that fails to get any reasonably trained officer any type of directive as to what really say you can search anything here this is a wide scale issue and problems rampant throughout the premises again the problem with this is doesn't give the individual whose residence is being searched any sense of what is to be searched the concern i would have is that without the requisite specificity we can see here six years after the event and begin to read into probable cause begin to read into the graph where where really the war contours of the the permitted violation of the individual's constitutional rights so everyone knows the fronts what the game is and that's my concern in this instance and it is we get to the tension question if you want to talk about some the officer these principals and we'd like to hear you know how you think it's related and also how it might be distinguished but then also there are issues here of  call up the other location of the evidence the fed correct correct here what we're seeing is there some of the justification again six years after the fact that's being offered up is we detained in this individual yet we see no evidence whatsoever from the officers at the scene that she's posing as a lookout for him you know what the term is not in the premises themselves she's not posing as a lookout there's no no evidence that there's any form of warning signs for gilbert going at a group died from the black plague because it is so there's a reason why every city in the united states has public health officials and why they try to stop rodents and absolutely  which only remain to the city of seattle and chief kerlikowske we're splitting the time i understand between the two of us and we'd like to divide it equally i with respect to my client detention were entirely reasonable based on legitimate law enforcement interests at stake as well as the articulable facts known to the officers prior to deciding to detain the individuals there is no dispute about the testified and as any cop at sandy watson excuse me testified in their depositions they knew that the properties were associated with an individual named keith gilbert who was presently on in the press right now for a very violent behavior taking place in the boarding houses but at the time they knew that he was violent that he had an extensive criminal history both of that is in the record before the michael connection to the property did they know what the connection was yes they have i think onsite managers to collect the rent and give that over to mr gilbert or mr gilbert himself to come and recover the rent and the individual who was actually residing in the house at the time was tied eight or tied eighty i'm not sure how to pronounce his name but there was a definite connection with respect to that home and in addition the officers knew that and d p h to harm the health employees had gone to that particular residence i think it was sixty four eighteen on a different occasional mr goldberg showed up and threatened this individual with physical assaults and probably friend them and police officers have responded to take incident report with respect to that actions they also knew that he was in the immediate area because he evidence isn't properly before the court is the sole evidence it is hearsay testimony by mr adie or mr aid that plaintiff has to netted so that's not actually properly before the court and in any case and the concern basis detention is when there are safety concerns irrespective of whether there is a policy i would also submit to the court though that there is no causation which is and also a requisite element of municipal liability all of the testimony in this case all of the evidence in this case establishes that the officers detain these individuals because they had safety concerns there was also some testimony about wanting to have those individuals near in case they needed the individual personal property items  mart which is another basis for keeping individuals and attention during the execution of a search warrant there is no evidence that they were detained pursuant to a mandatory policy and that is what the district court correctly h rulings granting summary judgment of dismissal in this case summary judgment was proper there's no genuine issues of material fact in this case and therefore the case is properly dismissed with respect to the inspection warrants that were obtain from the court there was ample probable cause for those warrants that's what the district court found as well and the warrants were properly obtained and properly executed in this case about the issue o of the inspections and provide meaningful guidance to the officers charged with their executions and that's because now it's not just the declarations of mr astley and mr lee who went to the scene and made their own personal observations from the outside looking in even though they were denied access to the inside of the buildings but also from the long and very detailed and specific declaration of richard cole park who was a professional exterminator with terminix he was the original complaining party his declaration is not brought about any kind of violation it's very specific room by room as he with permission of one of the occupants of the property is observed and provided friedman for infestations including the rodent infestation and rodent hear which there including observing fresh droppings and debris and rotting food in his declarations fell's it all out that throughout the rooms and the asbestos through the rooms which were not rodent proof which showed what he thought was the worst told had caught routes there and also observed what other evidence was there and by his third visit on september third he was convinced it was not going to change and they weren't going to have any other maintenance or service for it so he reported to the city the city attorney's office together with my clients discussed the situation evaluated what they could do about it and that ultimately led to both my client's visit to the property to ask for a voluntary inspection which had it then allowed may have resulted in some kind of corrective letter from the director of public health about what specifically this should be done at this property to remedy the violation of failing to maintain the property free of rodent infestation but that didn't happen if they weren't allowed to be i'm not sure exactly the answer to that question your honor but i think that because of the road control ordinance is a violation of that is a criminal is a misdemeanor and the authority of the magistrate judge helper was also under the court rule my understanding is the only one else claim against king county itself is their claim of in adequacy or failure of training to train mr lee and mr allows be for king county to formally trained them about search and seizure about fourth amendment  attorney's office when investigating violations of their seattle municipal code for assistance in training and guidance both in obtaining in executing the warrants there's a document in this case specifically called guidance for obtaining and executing search warrants prepared by m for we're going to even though you're over your time we'll give you another minute and if we make it two minutes why don't you i think you need to address the mono liability issues yes because that in some ways thi seattle what policy that they have that led to on reasonable to fanchon if this was can be so characterized and the same with the king county what what's your policy argument as the yes have the testimony of caps and kestler the thirty be designated thirty six speaking agents talking about in the execution of any warrants that the general policy the fundamental say to you premise is to detain that premises to conduct what would have been a surprise inspection they would have been in there alone without any escort yet so my question is what is the intel that changes in two days what is that and i think well it's dave between the you know between the actual that's well within the rights of the individual to say i'm not going to concede to this search and i would say no and go get a warrant there was no hostility to that the concert well i think the concern i have is the reference made to keep gilbert again six years after the fact i the case will be submitted to dawson the city of seattle submitted we thank all counsel for their our court will take a free three stance for ten or fifteen minutes now and when we come back we will