missed i'm a listener stuart is i'm not sure what mr thomas role in all this is but you don't make a separate argument as to mr thomas you don't say he was just following orders you just you make the same argument as to both deputies ortiz arrests and handcuffs three young women and tell me what crime they had committed when he had done so at the time that the students were removed from the school  removing them pursuant to the powers given to him under welfare and institutions code section six twenty five so you don't contend they committed a crime you don't contend that you have probable cause to think they had committed a crime if this court finds that only that all reasonable was asking whether there was whether you're now contending there was problem because if there was probable cause were done so my first question is was there probable cause at this time not whether the officer reasonably should have understood something was there probable support violation of penal code for fifteen we have undisputed facts well here but here's my problem we know for fifteen doesn't cover this situation the california courts have told us that now it may be that your your client reasonably believed it covered the situation at the time that's not what i'm asking my first list list of things in any qualified immunity cases we don't go any further if there was probable cause so i'm asking was there probable cause at the the evidence there was probable cause that these people had committed a crime and you keep saying well the officer could have thought they violated a statute that they didn't violate that's a separate question is new york intending to live there was probable maybe the struggle and i hope i'm understanding and i'm going in the same place i think that judge her it's going focusing on the question of whether there's probable cause that they committed a crime let's focus on the facts what facts that know that would lead them to believe or to form the probable cause or even reasonable suspicion that these three plaintiffs declare had committed a crime let's set aside for now because we're going in circles about whether that's a violation of the welfare  whether that's a four fifteen p c violation what facts to be happy yawn just generalized suspicion that there was a group of people fighting on an off campus dop judgments question by reference and i would contend that we don't need to be looking for a crime yes at forty one seconds miss kendall states as far as i know all seven of you have been part of this continuous argument on campus and off campus continuous argument on campus and off campus but from a scandal are deposition we know that she's talking about fights on an off campus and from deputies as declaration but who was there no arrests or was there a victim because these are some of the girls and we're talking about preteens right there's a lot of like gossiping and argument and little petty fights going on and i'm sure that any school resource officer would be thoroughly familiar with that so we know now that there was an aggressor and there were victims and so that morning as i understand it from the record  several teenage girls basically go into the office to basically complain about bullying behavior by l v they get sent back to class and then later they get pulled into this classroom and this is when this whole thing unfolded so did officer ortiz have some specific knowledge that's apparent in the record because i can't find it and if it's there i want you to help us look for that these particular plaintiffs were the ones who were involved in fighting with the aggressors instead of the victims of these father was in the office at the time complaining that i'll be was the victim so at the time what deputy ortiz knew was that the school had told him all seven are involved in fighting back and forth that we don't have a clear victim situation and that they have been involved in repeated counseling and her views that the school has thoroughly investigated this by spending three days a week one half of their day on this subject  care who did what and who is saying what and whose fault it is to me it's the same take it same pair of handcuffs and then he says eventually you guys you get into high school so here's a good opportunity for me to prove a point how is what  handcuffs and here's a good opportunity for me to make a point that strikes me as quite powerful evidence that he doesn't give a darn what they did the school he called deputies and to give a stern lecture and that stern words were used should not be s lecture is very different than developing sufficient probable cause for handcuffs cuffing and hauling these kids away to the station but they certainly had reasonable cause to believe that these students were somebody we might have a different case this is a case where they were arrested handcuffed and taken to the police station so my question is if he just responding to a school squabble  over reacted what else could he have done he was faced with seven students that were threats that were potentially according to the school's vice principal going to fight that very day he went through the scenario which is the school's principal so they were going to fight that very day in her deposition she states that she had knowledge or had information that they were going to fight at the nutrition break during that day also including these these three individuals were all seven or seven were that's why she chose this seven students that she collected into the school also based on her weeks of that they have an intention to commit a crime later that day correct or to further disrupt the school's environment but he hasn't is evidence you say i'm not sure that he knows what the vice principals thinking that later that day these people this is a this is a fundamental put them in hand was not just he said i don't know who is going to help this is a fourth amendment arrest putting them in handcuffs to keep them away from each other is one thing taking these three girls and putting them in the police car and taking them to the police station is an arrest under the fourth temporary detention percent to six twenty five ok and while we can agree on anything so you so you're argument is he's got enough information at this point why does he take could not fit seven in the two patrol vehicles he got lucky that elvie's father was in the office so he was able to immediately release that student without the circumstances that he contemplated that create problems by keeping the students on campus arrest you don't want none of you are going to take advantage of the special needs exception i believe the special needs exception applies in both six twenty five and at primarily for six twenty right and that's what i think when you're also looking at six twenty five this is a constitutional one viewed n t l as reasonable a standard and it did it deputies had any reason to believe that it wasn't constitutional decision i've been reading six twenty five d reading i'm reading the language of six twenty five somebody who's persistently refused to pay the reasonable and proper order of directions of his parents not true here guardian not true here so it has to be custodian is it your position that the school i read this is as giving parents or custodians the ability to call the police and saying somebody is you know we've got a problem here you think this six twenty five applies to schools f parents and guardians are obvious of who those are custodian would be an obvious broader category and it would advocate that must include schools i think that it's extremely important that six twenty five apply to schools contact the parents of these other people gently discussed and deputy ortiz's declaration he contemplated what how could i get these students off of the campus and to their parents in the manner that least disrupts the school environment and creates the least risk of harm to the students to myself and school officials and he felt that that the best way to do that was to remove them from the school because he's not taking all of the resources away from the school to watch the students to have phone calls coming in because his unit out front and risking that when two parents show up at both agree that their child is right and the other is wrong that we have violence among parents aggression interest towards deputies or school officials i have one more question what is it you're seeking do you think you should get a trial that's not i think we're not we're passing each other night the judge said no granted summary judgment he said no qualified immunity and i therefore grant summary judgment on the merits is it your position that there should be a trial that there are disputed issues of fact on qualified immunity or that on this record the judge should have granted summary judgment and favor of your clients because of qualified immunity the summary judgment should have been granted in favor of might not even it not even a discrete effect no because  plaintiffs have not met their burden that would that put this case into the exception to qualified immunity forcing these law enforcement officers to enjoy a trial ok thank you thank you thank you very much believe you mentioned that kids do misbehave especially at this age that's just something that they do now when it comes to enforcement of laws and rules on on school campuses this court previously held in greenberg's come right out that that the traditional probable cause standards and not special needs would apply when there's a investigation of crime using all in other words if it's if it's a just a traditional type of criminal investigation and not for school and force purposes that the traditional probably cost and would apply well of reasonably understood that he had no that would not be a reasonable understanding first of all because he is not you know the parent and the b and second of all the the particulary issue that arises with regard to for everything also arises with the welfare and institutions code he has no idea who did what there's no evidence in the record that the principal or the best mitchell ever told him who was fighting or when or where  had insufficiently particular information as to who was doing what estat all of them being aggressors that's conclusory allegation he would have an obligation especially he has them all there and they're all sitting down to ask them who did what and try to figure out what happened he said he doesn't care he doesn't know he doesn't care and he said he wanted to teach them a lesson now with regret you asked whether welfare institutions code a class of that situation assuming argue endo that it did he would have insufficient particular information as to which students were fighting or disobeying habits will be disobeying rules of the school or of any of the administrators and and it's not clear that it does apply it it it's not good enough or to get around quite for unity if if an officer could reasonably believe it applied if you could reasonably believe that there is no reason to believe that it could apply in that manner that talked about a law that has been on the books for over thirty years i believe and it for section four fifteen point five of the penal code clarifies that it doesn't apply to students who are in the road at the school now deputy ortiz states that he selected for fifteen because he thought it was a broader section of the code than the one that specifically applies to a school situation under the circumstances it's reasonable to infer that he here page thirty four and it talks about when you have a staff a general statute in a specific statute how the specific want to supposed to apply in the context of the more general rule in that the specific one is going to be looked upon as an exception to that he disregarded that longstanding rule and just decided that he could use the general statute in order to arrest somebody to teach him a lesson now we also have this  principle of soft reconstruction and when statutory perry material that you have to construe them together now section four fifteen point five is the next code section over from four fifteen there's no reason to look at one as being  exclusive from the other in terms of you know looking at them completely separately they're part of the same section there they apply upon the same subject and there's no reason why he could believe that for fifteen would apply  school when for fifteen point five explicitly prohibits that now this reference is in the record that ortiz had had some dealings with some of the students involved on that particular date this record show which students he had prior dealing with no it does not you're wondering what these direct dealings with the students themselves or was it dealings with the school officials talking about specific students that was the defendant's conclusory statement he doesn't offer any specifics about who it was when it was or what it was about and that is something that the district court did point out now when he's when he's talking about you know who was fighting and when these fights were happening  doesn't have any idea when when these things happen so when he goes then he's he's approaching this from it sounds like from sort of a paternalistic sort of you know i want to teach you guys a lesson not to not to fight it all now unfortunately he's dispensing with his obligation to if he's going to arrest them for a crime he needs to investigate who did what he knew no that's something that might be inconvenient for him and he thinks he's above it but he has an obligation to do it especially before he handcuffs his little girl what i want  fighting and then he releases them has he violated your client's civil rights well yes your honor i mean if if according to the scenario that you just gave he handcuffed them and he took them outside and  didn't transport them transported anywhere just just says to them look you kids need to learn a lesson and this is what's going to happen to you in the future if you continue fighting so be good from now on and then releases them and leaves them in a school if you have eight you have a violation of their fourth amendment rights you know a reasonable person under those circumstances after him after they're handcuffed in that situation they would not feel free to leave and yeah that would still be that would still be an arrest that would be it obviously taking transporting  of the station further solidifies the fact that it's an arrest but it would be my position but yes handcuffing them in order to teach them a lesson if they don't know that it's going to be a lesson or some sort of  the officer at least believes these people are going to be fighting with each other he may not have particular knowledge he says i know how to nip this in the bud let's handcuff them or take them outside and say now you can't fight with each other where you can come don't do it in the have qualified immunity under those circumstances i'm a school resource officer i want to nip these fights in the butt he would i'm going to do this to stop them but i've course i'm not because he would not have qualified immunity and assuming under  me which it applied the special needs standard are you when know you without reaching whether probably cause applies in that situation it's because there was not of an articulated special need in this situation students were not in any violation of a school rule and they did not discipline the students that's you know that is something that was offered as an undisputed fact it's undisputed now that asserted is there any evidence we think about six twenty five so any evidence that they've no there isn't your honor there's there's not any evidence as there any particular student nothing beyond just identifying the whole group in a conclusory matter the group is the group guilty of that at least and then  previous question i understand the group had been identified as a bunch of bad actors understand they were worried about these banners my question is what evidence is there that this group of bad actors taken as a whole you forget the individuals have persistently in focusing not on whether or not these girls had engaged in bad behavior or about we were about to fight focusing on whether or not they had a bitch really and persistently refused to obey reasonable orders by someone so focused on the reasonable orders question i don't know the answer to is there anything in the record did that deals with whether or not these young women had been given reasonable orders or directions by people not to do something and had disobeyed them the the answer to your question is beyond identifying the group as a whole there is nothing getting asked that any particular group as a whole is identified as as people who are liable to get in a fight or alter cations i'm focusing on the reasonable directions or orders is there any evidence in the record about people having been given reasonable direction through orders not not to my knowledge your honor ok but even if that's not the case leave the stack you decide and concentrate on the special needs exception if if there's evidence in the record that officer ortiz knew that there was trouble at school there were fights these this group of students is identified as these are the ones these are the ones who get in to the fight satisfy the special needs exception for him to do something if he'd just marched them to the edge of school would that have been ok assuming that but the first prong of the special needs could apply what he did was a focus mile ation that under those circumstances that you just described to me and i'm going off just your hypothetical here that there's a much stronger argument that that would be reasonable under the circumstances because of the less intrusive nature restraint the fact that they were not transported from the scene and also it's that is something that an administrator could conceivably be for example for putting a child in detention or sanctioning them for a violation of the school rules one thing a school administrator could do under special needs exception would be to handcuff the student and transport them to an offsite detention facility because that would be a traditional link it was an income c v in c v that was a different scenario because you had the student who was reported the a runner he was also a student who was report of the out of control he had not taken his medication and most importantly it's as relevant here it was one particular student we know who was doing what it's different should have done or more accurately what he definitely could not just think these are the ones that are likely to get into a fight that's not enough you have to say he's likely  fight he's likely to get into fights he's likely to get into like he's like you know i guess i don't quite get that in this situation because the nature of a a fight is you know whatever a fight is there's an aggressor if somebody who has actually been assaulted right being a victim of an assault is not a crime but yet that could be something that somebody times a fight so calling something a fight is just a conclusory sort of description of the school administrators don't even know who the aggressor is  all they want to do is stop the fight that that is perfectly appropriate for administrator however they do have an obligation to if they're investigating a fire and all that all they want to do is stop it that's fine but they can't do whatever need whatever they want to do in order to stop it they do have some obligation to you know investigate find out what's causing the fight if it is in fact a fight you know in a mutual combat sense or if it's somebody being assaulted and basically it i f if the special needs exception were to apply that would allow administrators to do something like hold the student in detention suspend them take going to their backpack and find drugs it's been applied to situations that are are less intrusive in that respect because those are directly related to managing a school that doesn't allow school administrators to become deputy sheriffs and to my knowledge no it's never been extended to to allow that sort of thing to happen at a she discussed that she had spent several weeks trying to keep these students separated mediating issues and had suspended some of the students but the problems had continued she felt that she shouldn't involve law enforcement and tell she had reached the point that she had about the group i'm asking about it may be that the information about the group was enough that's why i'm just with respect to these three individuals did he have any specific information or you know i think you knew one of them had been involved in a fight a month earlier but there are been taken care of people decided not to prosecute so as to as to these three individuals what specific information did officer or ts have that they had persistent refused nothing beyond that if they are part of the group is he can't remember the face sheet to the specific individuals he just remembers that when he walked in the room he recognized some faces from the face sheets and because miss kendall had been talking him overtime he had no reason to believe that she had gathered victims to be lectured in this process and source said and c b tell us that he and thomas are entitle to rely on the school official statements there's no reason to believe that deputies wouldn't think that it was reasonable to apply and the two yellow standard is meant for this purpose it's to assist schools with maintaining security in order the school had told the deputies they could no longer maintain security in order and they asked for his help and this was what was the best option at that time all right thank you very much