brief deliberately because we feel like the response brief the response of brief is very clear that makes the point that pleading here complies totally they understood fully what the pleading says relate says the pleading has to be clear concise and has to be a statement of at least of enough facts that the person against whom you're pleading understands what you're pleading against them in this case the response  very clear this a plane that says two sheriff's deputies went to my client's house first approach got themselves a warrant by not either being reckless with the truth or deliberately distorting the truth about the criminal activity that was going on there whether or not that that's to be litigated but in any event i went to the house found my client there within moments of getting there realized that my client was not committing a crime under california law and they were not there to enforce any other law they finally did they find his medical marijuana card and permit like during the search that is what yes the and that's in the because you have a medical marijuana card doesn't that you're not exempt from violating you know that doesn't mean you're not you couldn't possibly violate the medical marijuana laws i mean the marijuana laws true  related to the scope of the authorization by the current medical needs for example that is what proposition two fifteen says and and the california supreme court upheld in people versus kelly that the amount is between the doctor or the physician recommending it and the patient but it so when they went out there what did you don't allege what they found what did they find when they went out there what they found was medical marijuana with the complaint what they finally did they find you don't like let's use that much some people actually use in the bath tub and soak soak in it so it's not unusual it's not always smoked and that's one of the misunderstandings about it i had thought then and i could be wrong it's just a vague recollection that under california law you didn't have a shield against the search because of the medical marijuana card what you had was a defense in a criminal case that is correct and that's why that pleading alleges that the violation of his right wasn't the right to be to not be searched but rather the right the right against i'm reasonable search and that's the search became on reasonable during the execution of the warrant that's that's part of  saying it was ok for him the search despite his being on file as a medical marijuana user but was not ok with something that happened after they started the search which was when they realized that he has he was authorized to have invalidate the search we don't know whether it will validate the search because we're we haven't got to discovery we're talking about the pleading here i certainly can see there's a possibility that it was a clean search me it's so we won't know what are your federal constitutional claims federal went to the warrant unless i'm working on that the contents of that there's information in there that fault yes and fact the information was false was that you make that specific allegation and the fact that allegation is made that they had that they knew that it was false or that they were reckless with the truth deliberately reckless of the truth they got a select as a gun affidavit based on false information false information go out and they do the third and then they go out and do the search and then when they do the search they find that there's in addition to medical marijuana there they find a firearm they also search and seize or seize the fire are which is protected is no reason for them to seize the firearm sure there is if the quantity of marijuana is so great that it looks like it's for purposes of sale rather than for medical consumption and then it's for the low standards needed for seizure during a search it seems like they could infer that the gun was likely for the protection of the inventory that could come that could come out in the discovery of the case we don't know that at this point the could be qualified immunity we don't know that at this point what will you know seize the gun and they seized him they seized the gun they seized him seizures that we allege they didn't have the right to do unless he prosecuted he was prosecuted the charges relating to there was no charges marijuana was he convicted do we know that he entered a plea to a charge of maintaining a residence for the consumption of our place for the consumption of marijuana however there and there was a there was a finding and i believe there was yes it was conviction entered and at this point the matters before the court were to withdraw the plea and take the conviction out and that is actually immediately that he was hard of hearing that he was having difficulty understanding them and that the complaint actually went so far as to say he really he required a a and interpreter and that one was not supplied so that not an under their authority whether they're right or wrong they typically are loud and aggressive and vulgar in their speech except when they know they have a recorder on and  they are they start off right from the get go being disrespectful they often call people by their first names even though they expect to be called an officer or detective and they push people down and get physical control over  and i don't see where it's any different for deaf people or anyone else i don't know if that would be the circumstances that would come out i'm not sure i mean i don't know whether during the case we would come out with facts for example your death  how much marijuana there was or even how it was related to his medical needs i didn't allege it because i didn't consider that roach has any federal right to possess marijuana the right we were arguing we did not claim that the marijuana was seized and violated his rights i think the officers that that isn't a federal right so our thought was you'll see that there was any plants that were found at the appellants residence i'm going according to the recommendation he was allowed seventy plants so just to try to put that issue to rest why don't you just file an answer to this and just say recommendations and seventy and there were eighty one i think that's a whole separate issue for the criminal case as far as the claims here the court found that there was just no facts to really show that there was any violation if you look at the rights he's saying is violated it was that he really what he's saying is that his client had a right to grow this marijuana and under federal law it's contraband for say well you know what i thought it was saying is that under state law you had the right to possess the marijuana that they found and as well under state law the california supreme court said that there is no general right to possess or grow or cultivate marijuana all of the compassionate use actually has done as provide for a limited defense in the criminal court from prosecution it doesn't create any kind of shield of immunity from arrest and it provides really no uninhibited right to grow marijuana so you can so somebody can be arrested here like here yes and then they have a defense yes they have a defense and if they get them out that they possessed was consistent with their authorization yes exactly so for him to say that there was his rights were violated because the police arrested him for growing marijuana it's not really a issue for us what about his case to the to the affidavit to the affidavit i believe that would be something that would be done within the state court if he was arrested for you if you provide false information to the police and i don't think he's the federally violates the fourth of it and i don't think there's any facts or that would suggest that he does say there were false statements but there's nothing there's nothing to suggest that he actually challenge that in the a serious problem here with with the fourth amendment yes and so i think if you look at the transceivers a state case and that case appellant plaintiff as well mention that there were false statements that police officers or that it was campus officers arrested the person knowing that there were false statements that were living thing investigation i think that in itself just saying there are false statements as if you anywhere you have to have some facts to get you further why couldn't he cure why couldn't he cure that defect in his complaint just by filing the third amended complaint the false statements were a b and c and list them all i think he could try to do that but if you look at the affidavit what he's saying is that they were false statements because it was legal marijuana and i don't see how he'd get there because if you look at the facts on a criminal case and he was charged for it that that just can't be true he's trying to say i don't know exactly what statements he's saying were were false when there  the officers knew that there was legal marijuana being grown there but it doesn't say what statement in the affidavit was a lie no it does not say that i'm asking for no you said it does not say that i would think it's a nine hundred eighty three case so we don't have to exhaust it's not like k b s all he has to do is alleged violation of federal right and lying in an affidavit to get a search warrant might do for amend to specifically comply with well nine well i think the court had given him and leaves and then previously won which is why he was allowed to fall a second complaint and there was no improvement and i think the court can see that there was really no way for yeah he was he was arrested i don't think there's anything further to say that he was physically assaulted or anything like that in the complaint well that's not the way i read it but maybe i'm sorry i didn't read it that way but what your understanding of the state of affairs here that th nothing as as well as well as the civil rights violations there was no threats or coercion or anything of that nature that would have that word that he had he had an alleged yes there was nothing sufficient to do what he doesn't hear is that the the police failed to provide aid to interpreters and assistance to ensure that communications were made by them made by them to roche or were understood by rote and that they used rocher punitively for his failure to obey their verbal commands  that's what he says yes why didn't they declare so under the a claim there's really nothing to show that he was denied any service and as far as interpreters the case law has shown that there's really i know there was that she hanged or city of san francisco case recently as well that's for import because i didn't i didn't really address the ag issue and she yes so that issue wasn't but as far as the qualified immunity for the a claim at that time and as well there's at that time and this was back in two thousand and ten i believe there was no nothing that would show that it was  here at excerpts of the record thirteen it shows that jeremy roach when he knocks a knock on the door he says ok if you just ask i'll let you in he's communicating with officers clearly there's nothing to show that he was hearing impaired or that there was any type of so i think to what extent can you take to show notice of the criminal proceedings if they're still not if they're not final yes or they're not file i'm just saying as far as his ability to him in the complaint i think what he says in the complaint is still insufficient he just says that he was hearing impaired but there's nothing to show that he was denied an interpreter requested an interpreter i don't think you can use the police report to cure whatever problem there be it may be in the about whether the police broke the truth just going more to his ability to amend the complaint i'm not speaking to you you're saying he he can't that an amendment would be futile because he really couldn't say  things that would be inconsistent with what the policeman says happened yes but i think the policeman's lying and that what happened is not what the policeman says i believe he could but i believe the arguments been made he there's nothing in the complaint that says that he ever requests an interpreter or communicate that he just says that the officers knew that he was hearing impaired there's it's really conclusory and it's it's nature there's not facts surrounding that support the context of what he would have he would have to look i told him i was hearing impaired as i believe so kind of interesting to me i can i can note that yeah so without it does that bother me because it is carry a certain toll that we're not going to you know we're not seconds i have one i'm still having trouble getting my head around the idea that it can be a violation of the federal constitution to arrest somebody for protesting what under federal law and the constitution as the supreme court has interpreted it is federal contraband you're not allowed to possess it it would be appropriate if they were if if the officers were enforcing federal law i would concede that these officers are operating under the authority of the state of california and i understand that i see your point but the thing is and you're in federal court about alleging a violation of federal right and i thought what contraband meant was that it is impossible for a private individual to hold title to that particular thing i would concur with that i think that that's why i didn't in the complaint that is why we are trying not to allege that the seizure of the contraband was a violation of his rights but rather the seizure of his person in the seizure of the gun and the search that exceeded the war that that was what the complaint was trying to allege i would concur that i don't think there's a property right in the contraband it's not even if it's for medicinal purposes that is federally protected because i think congress is an act of statute to that to that effect contradict that so i say i wouldn't argue very str strenuously are not and that's why i tried to draft a complaint around it and for the courts information i get on the a side yes that was very common around that time that the judge was putting those statements and all the orders from the slot in the court all right thank you very much