constitutional right violated yes the court found that mr drake for his fourth amendment rights were clearly in egregiously violated in this incident the court considered the nature of the incident that he was involved in he was a completely innocent person just present at a bank in orange county when he was subjected to one thousand nine hundred sixty x ray a felony stop involving multiple police units armed officer pointing guns at him ordering out of him out of his vehicle in prone on the ground handcuffed placed in a police vehicle his vehicle was then searched the quantum of information that the police had did not amount even to reasonable suspicion against mr drake for it let alone probable cause to arrest them in this fashion so the courts found that a fourth his fourth amendment rights were violated if the court finds no constitutional violation the qualified immunity  great ends but in this case because they found a violation the second level of the analysis takes place which is was there clearly established law at the time that the events took place to put a reasonable officer on notice that his conduct was unlawful the court also answered that question in the affirmative yes at the time that this incident took place there was clearly established law that arresting somebody based on the vague description in a police bulleting violates the constitutional rights of that person in the court noted particularly the case of washington versus lambert which is nearly identical in fact to our kids having found that both levels of the qualified immunity analysis the first level the constitutional violation existing in the second level having laws on point which preceded the subject incident by at least five years qualified immunit should not have been granted in this fashion what we believe happened even though the courts found the egregious violation even though the courts found that a reasonable officer in the position of the defendants would know that their conduct was unlawful instead of concluding this analysis by denying qualified immunity to the deputies the courts said wow but if we're going to if we're not going to paralyze the police then we will grant qualified immunity in this case and we're contending that this is a legal error once you conduct the the two step analysis and you make those findings one of the constitutional violation into that the law was clearly established giving notice to the deputy you cannot do that you cannot inject the subjective component of the fear of paralyzing the police that's why the second step  the second step of the analysis takes care of this concern should we give leeway should we not hold the officers liable if there is a gray area if they are not sure how the l circumstances that they were facing at the time the stop and detention of your clients occurred prior to that their series of bank robberies in the general area yes yes yes that's correct right yes that is correct and that in that these bank robbers have been carried out by a group of two to four african american males age what information regardless of whether it was accurate or not what information did the deputies have of at the time they stopped your coins  the information that was provided by the officer then made the observation he caught he called the nine one one dispatcher and he said quick he said the words to the effect quickly write this license plate down and he course was not at all like that he was an african american person and he was dressed professionally he was driving a black s u v and he happened to be at a certain time and in that he had the white certain the title and  stopped your clients vehicle other than what we've already discussed how did they happen to focus did they just randomly pick his vehicle or what now at some point during that transmission  bulletins that we're talking about that here is the series of robberies in the orange county that's what you were talking about you know the african american person in groups driving that certain kind of a vehicle they had what information for there was accurate or inaccurate in fact caused the deputies to stop your client's car part of the broadcast was there is a second subject in a black expedition that was the only fact that relates to mr drake for it that was broadcast to the deputies a second subject in this particular vehicle the only entire equation of information relayed from the person who made the observation did this batch or the only fact that remotely  its second subject in a black s u v that information alone forms no basis for reasonable suspicion much less probable cause for an arrest if the person that was stopped had been that person in the gold neeson it's arguable that even they could arrest him in that manner perhaps it's only reasonable suspicion for a detention but certainly not probable cause to arrest him mr drake for these even farther removed from any suspicion he's an innocent person in the bank he has no idea what's about to happen so what were they stopping all black  driven by an african american man i'm not sure but what do we know what caused them to focus on your client yes it was during during the broadcast during the nine one one conversation after he had told the dispatcher the person i'm really concerned about is the man in the golden sun make sure somebody sitting on that he says almost as an afterthought there is a second subject in a black expedition and there was also some kind of a comment that when mr drake for it was seen exiting the bank carrying a piece of paper in his hand he nodded to another black person who was there and that mr barr to think that he might be casing the bank however in this batch that he did about the what he observed he never said that he never said there was a robbery there was no crime reported he basically called the dispatcher to state this man's in the goldney son with dreadlocks in a do rag he reminds me of somebody in a bulletin but i don't even know what the bulletin is for and do we know who he gave that information to the dispatcher whether he was talking specifically about your but the bulletins i believe the record has four or five of those be on the lookout bulletins and they describe people of various ethnicity various ages various heights various vehicles there's nothing in the bolo that specifically says lookout for this kind of per cent tall young african american driving only this car i believe during the hearings in the summary judgment judge soundless ted virtually any person between those ages driving along the i five freeway would have been suspect under the follow there was exactly but the focus of his concern and he made that very clear in the dispatch was the man in the gold nissan with dreadlocks in a dual reg in red baseball shorts mr drake matter that the scripts and in any weight completely different attire lifestyle vehicle has no relationship with the with the suspect whatsoever information provided the dispatcher though did not connect the description of the individual in the gold nissan to the description of the second suspect in the black issue of the right no no the information provided those were two separate th second subject ok subject subject so nothing in his conduct or in his description has any justifies any suspicion whatsoever not even for a terry type stop let alone for a full blown felony arrest that he was subjected to on that date and we believe that by finding the fourth amendment violation clearly in the agree just plea and finding that the law in existence at the time would have put a reasonable officer on notice that arresting a person under those circumstances was unlawful logically and legally mandates a finding against qualified immunity you cannot inject this subject is a component of fear of paralyzing the police that is already taken into account in the second step of the analysis let's be careful not to me judgments here let's give the police the legal weight that they need let's not hold them liable when the area of the law is not clear or when they can reasonably make a mistake that was already addressed in the second level regarding the second issue right now is them when they all cause of action the court granted granted summary judgment for the defense on this cause of action as well and we believe there was an error in the analysis the court focused primarily on two issues it is our position that it is not necessary that the policy be enacted or carried out by an actual policy maker with final authority when there is delegation this manner when probable cause was clearly lacking based on insufficient information where did this matter takes it upon herself to make these decisions when she's only supposed to make notifications we believe thereby delegating this immense power to the dispatcher the county cannot insulate itself from liability by saying all we didn't do it it was this other person and we don't have anything to do with it i think the court erred in insisting that a formal policymaker with authority be involved in this case because of the delegation that is not necessary we cited case law for the proposition that a good morning your honor sir david lawrence for the defendants sixteen of them in all well i would like to do first is address the issue on the cross appeal that we brought on behalf of the defendants and that has to do with the appellants eleventh long ago that that government code section eight twenty one point six precludes liability for negligence investigation leading to a rest and reading from that opinion this was a case where a gentleman was  spected of murder there was a warrant issued in mexico he was held there for a period of time and it was determined he was not the correct first and the l a p d officers were sued on her ideas theories one of them being negligent arrest and this court said quote martinez bases his state law negligence claim on the same facts as his false imprisonment playing ground upon his alleged false arrest and this false imprisonment claim grounded upon his alleged prolong detention with regard to the false arrest claim martinez contends the l a p d officers acted negligently in their investigation and this led to his arrest we reject this contention the same immunity which protects officers  malicious prosecution protects them from liability for a negligent investigation which leads to an arrest that case resolves the eleven cause of action there's simply no basis to proceed on that starts qualified immunity is concerning first of all we're not debating here today whether there was probable cause to arrest or reasonable suspicion the district court found there was not probable cause and there was not a terry stop over debating here today is whether or not the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and district court judge sounded exactly what he was required to do he still quote the doctor will turn on a particular rise showing each participant and if you look at his ruling on qualified immunity he was very particular he looked at each individual in the process and decided where that person was in terms of qualified immunity and my pleasant counsel says qualified immunity on that basis now washington versus lambert has been cited by appellants as controlling in this case i think it's it's interesting to look at that case because in many ways it was a similar to this fit the description of two individuals who had conducted some robberies based on that information alone other officers responded they arrested they did much of what happened in this case which is prone the man out handcuffed him etc hard to actually there were two two suspects in that case and what happened is in the district court the district court granted qualified immunity to everyone except lambert who was who was the one who made the initial observations and convey the information and in that opinion the court states quote the judge granted qualified immunity as to the other officers on the ground that lambert was the lead officer and the others had reasonable he relied on his orders in carrying out the investigatory stop so even in that case the only person to whom qualified immunity was denied was the individual who made the initial observations that person in this case is officer or sergeant bar sergeant bart made the initial observation even though he was off duty we have the transcript of what he conveyed on the nine one one call to the department we have a transcript of the dispatch what what separates sergeant barr from mr lambert in the washington case is that he had a great deal more information than did officer lambert in the washington case and secondly he did not participate in the arrest he simply conveyed the information to the nine one one operator she conveyed to the dispatcher they put it out over the radio and deputies responded and given the information they had judge found that they acted reasonably in terms of the information the court was asking how the information act well let me back up there seem to be some question as to whether the plaintiff was in fact the person observed by sergeant barr in the parking lot and there's no question about that the record is clear that sergeant barr actually pointed out the vehicle as one of the deputies was coming to the parking lot and the court can point that information in the supplemental excerpts of record at page three ninety five so there's no question about whether or not mr dra was in fact the individual observed by sergeant valar entering the bank using the telephone nodding to the other individual and leaving in the black s in terms of the the mon ellis you that certainly is no delegation of policy making authority here if if the court were to find that the dispatcher is a policy maker based upon each and every decision that he or she makes that w simply do away with more no i belittle officers in the field make make decisions based on their own discretion that was heartening if you couldn't find a job in the county where people don't make discretionary decisions but that does not mean that they're making policy martinez the case of martini's there's no it's not important really here for the discussion of negligence the eleventh cause of action clearly states that the defendants are being sued for a breach of their duty of due care in conducting their law enforcement duties this is not about a negligent investigation as there was in martina's the is hand that where the complaint comes from is not an investigation there was no investigation there was a full blown felony arrest we cannot talk about the investigation if you in order to believe that this is an and the reason why this cause of action should summary judgment should not have been granted in this cause of action is because government called section eight twenty point four clearly states that conduct which is a breach of the care is not immunized our cause of action the eleven cause of action for negligence is a breach of the standards of due care it's not an intentional tort it is purely negligence the analysis is very simple there are no  r was in the exercise of their law enforcement duties they walk along with your client attorney and it's not clear but it's agreed it's between fifteen and forty minutes the entire duration of the incident i think in the pans i think of that i think courts are really you know they disagree with that some courts think that i mean the same thing squad cars boxing young kids out of the car lying on the ground guns pointed handcuffs but they stand him up and say wait a minute this is a well dressed professional looking individual he's got an employee badge on here this can't be your guy the radio back boom boom it's not him and they let him go a minute after gun there's a full fledged felony arrest simply asked him out of his vehicle asked him a couple of questions handcuffed him kept him in the back of the squad car for ten minutes and then cleared it would you have a cause of action probably not i think it's i mean it's from your point of view it's the nature of the way in which and the level of force that they used when they first encountered him that being subjected to what mr drake for it was subjected to is extremely traumatizing and people would give anything not to be subjected to that for even one minute it really is a matter of degree i don't think it matters if it lasts five minutes or fifteen minutes the issue here really with respect to the eleven cause of accidents the breach of due care they are charged with conducting their law enforcement duties with due care and in this case we that there was no no due care martina's thirteenth one investigation it was lengthy or in time it was more detailed in order to believe that martinez applies you will have to this operation gets performed it's extremely high risk it involves a wide number of officers the way that mr drake ferd's is approaching in order to throw his keys out the there's a lot of discretion and sometimes if your hand concept or you are detained for a long period of time it can still be a detention there's a little room there but in this case the nature of the stop itself is so serious it's so execution of enforcement of any law nothing in this section exonerates of public employee from liability for false arrest or false imprisonment that is an exception that's a specific exception to the immunity provided in a california government code section eight twenty one point six eight twenty one point six provides immunity for public officials carrying out their duties and the california cases are clear it's not simply immunity for malicious prosecution it's immunity for liability for you vance leading up to prosecution or some other some which part of proceedings and the mark in this case is very very clear and individual can be sued under california state law for false arrest but they cannot be sued for negligence false arrest because the exception to the immunity only provides for false arrest or false impr