on the stairs resulting in some damage to an inmate the court said that those are random and on the rise at six can't be their negligence and they can't be preceded by any deprivation process because nobody knows it's going to happen it's just an accident it's an act like something that happens so therefore those plaintiffs were not allowed to come under the due process clause in this initial seizure of the dog because it was done pursuant to law on the search warrant the problem came after that initial deprivation angelo and maxie were informed that this one dog brody was there in doggie day care they belong to someone else mr grant and was provided information to contact indeed angelo testified that she was called the next pain it's in her police report that she was called by mr grant typed on a find himself as brody both of the plaintiffs testified as to their repeated telephone calls to angelo trying to get their dog back big trying to figure out how they can get their dog back but ultimately were told that the dog was being held for evidence so they were misled by angelo there about any ways they could get their dog back the story by angelo is different she says that she told them to call back and they never called there they are right there what happened and why these plaintiffs didn't have a pre depravation notice is a matter of fact in dispute and it's highly about what happened on those phone calls between angelo and between plaintiffs now this second deprivation was not random unauthorized because all of it was done pursuant to state statute and that's the humane care plan will set standards and give the state actors requirements that they're required to follow and these comply with due process the process requirement opportunity for hearing on whether the continued seizure of the horse was proper the same thing in walter's versus well the he was he was stopped for traffic that was a gun in his car it was  arrested for it turns out that he had a lawful concealed carry permit for that was notice the gun was demanded and the sheriff refused to return the gun unless it was a court order initial seizure was ok the continued seizure has to comply with federal due process requirements and in armstrong versus manzo the parties to force that they had his whereabouts were known there was an established a procedure in texas to let the new stepfather come in and proceed with adoption all the white have to do is file false affidavit or some kind of an affidavit that does bear the part with the complied with the requirements but the original they had the real that wasn't notified and there was the problem this went all the way through the texas state court system before it came to the supreme court which said the deprivation had to be preceded by deprivation of due process not the deprivation of property so our claim here is not zero my dog instead just by itself the claim here is all my dog was taken i was not given the due process they have the federal constitution guarantees to me and that dog was later destroyed which is a permanent seizure exactly what happened here so while section eight thousand nine hundred eighty three does offer protection for the violation of the constitution and federal laws if the by lieschen of the state stated such as what happened here results in a violation of the constitution the fourteenth amendment that is action this fourteenth amendment constitutional violation claim is against all the fence the seventh circuit recognized and siebert recognize a secret versus severino which is also case under the animal the animal act now under qualified immunity there's a two step analysis closer constitutional violation i believe that the facts as shown show that there was a constitutional violation violations here was a violation of the due process because these plaintiffs weren't given the notice that was required under the humane care for animals sick in the criminal code both angelo and ma were required to number one send an affidavit to the court under the court were mr window was being charged with the crime and the answer very clear in this action and they were also difficulty with the statute in interpreting the statute however missy angelo in her deposition clearly testified that she had provided such a notice to eric window just a month before regarding some other dog that she had seized in the neighborhood that he was a few definer of so she knew of this notice was supposed to be the court had a problem that the court couldn't figure out and all the jury's going to figure out what this notice was supposed to say but clearly in the illinois been a straight of zero the notice is something that comes from the department of agriculture the department of agriculture is the department they act certifie angelo to be a humane investigator so all of this is fair to tori in angelo testified that she had been this humane investigator for many years she'd gone through all the courses she had to go through all the courses in order to be licensed and the department of agriculture provides those notices so it's not just simply left to an officer on the beat to take out the statute book and read it try to figure out what the notices know that's left to the humane officer whose license by the state on the apartment of the agriculture where the person arrested is being charged that's the criminal court had that affidavit been provided either by angelo or by maxie they would have been off the hook here because then the judge hearing the criminal case notice even though they had information that their argument is over we didn't know where he lived but you can see when you look in angela's affidavit for a search warrant she has all the powers of the police station behind her she's got all kinds of information in there and the police can find this information out there argument that oh we didn't know where he lived is really just specious the police department they can do all kinds of things that we don't have any idea how they can do about finding out where i mean you know so you essentially maybe they could've should've done things differently but they were the people who actually killed the dog really angelo mixi did not actually kill the dog this case that you're claiming comes through while issue of civil rights was a know it and that's the distinction here that's a distinction that we get to from screws versus you of the confusion here with the character says taylor and the cases because the deprivation of the property the destruction of the property whatever it is ultimately comes at the end that's the injury but what we're arguing here is that the due process is the actual of time and actually the dog kept from december until may when it was actually killed so that's a six month that's that's a significant deprivation of property so the without due process if they had got the they were holding the dog if they it at the ship at the police department but angelo did turn the dog over to the county where she see animal control officer so i think there's an argument that she was holding the dog while it wasn't at her house or her apartment at home it was according to the channels for seizing animals what she was supposed to do with the animals so she did what she was supposed to do with the animal but but had she provided the notice that she was supposed to provide either or both to mr graham and to the criminal court then someone would have had notice that hey something's wrong here that the criminal court presumably under the notice requirement under the dog fighting step two or mr grant here's your notice you can come and claim that stuff as it was under the facts that the plaintiff's testif the dog was being held or evidence that would be to a normal person you're holding a dog for evidence it just has to stay there if you're holding anything for evidence it just has to stay there that's a normal understanding of so the constitutional violation here is the file ation of the due process clause because the property was seized in the due process wasn't given prior to this second deprivation which is a after the warrant and then the second question is was the right clearly established here the right here is the right to due process of law and under siebert first the severino from the seventh circuit of twenty all won their case establish that under the human care for animals act animal owners are entitled to due process before deprivation of their hamel so that would be both the continued seizure and then the ultimate destruction of the animal in the paperwork and in her deposition that she was proceeding only under section three of the humane care for animals they act which does not require this notice that has to be sent  court also imputed angelo's mindset detective mixi now here in this in the record here angela's claim that she was proceeding only under section three affidavit the tailing the reasons why she believes that there is dog fighting going on at the window residence the investigation that she did it and everything in that investigation and  the request for the search warrant comes the hundred dog fighting the dog fighting statute that is not section three it's the criminal code twenty six fish five at that time which has been remembered now but she came under the criminal code the police reports all also dispute angela's claims that she came only under section greek because police reports are coming under cruelty to animals owners to the switches section three and dog fighting and they are window was alternately arrested for dog fighting so we have here facts in dispute not only between the plaintiffs and the defendants but between the defendant's own testimony three which doesn't require this notice all fight immunity can't be given under the now the defendant's continue to point fingers at each other ok i understand that they can point fingers at each other to me that means that they're both liable and i believe that they are both liable but the camp point finger said judge kennedy this this is like armstrong versus the adoption after a divorce per the state statute and there wasn't any notice to the real dad well here judge kennedy is is he's a judge sitting on the bench he has a lot of matters and what is he ruling on his ruling on the pleadings in the papers before him so wildly defendants argue that oh there was testimony about this other dog wrote yes there was testimony the fact is it's not just did it that the state's attorney knew about history it's possible ownership interest in this he was mentioned at the hearing once before  heart of this case from the county's perspective and that is whether whether the prosecutor in this case was acting this final policymaker and there's two ways to look at it that first is whether or not this act was a policy making and the second  d which the supreme court acknowledged a county decision maker may have discretion to hire or fire but that does not make them final policy maker for purposes of employment the term policy doesn't necessarily mean they will stay actually something a legislator has to make that everybody yes follow and indeed yes the supreme court set aside a policy can be made in a single action that was owing vs city of independence and a court versus that concerts or graded this cream court held that miserable life villainy attached to a single decision to take on lawful action made by municipal policy makers so the question is what in this single decision was missed mcgrath the policy maker she testified by affidavit in her affidavit was admitted to the court of law that she was  changes that these people have no authority themselves to that their authority does come from the state's attorney that's correct but in this case and this is the single election we're talking about there isn't any evidence that the states that the the official state's attorney had anything to do with it in the cases that i cited in my briefs from illinois show that the assistant state's attorney can in some instances make policy and that they exercise their rights and i i went to the counties oh and the system states attorneys to exercise the rights of the state's attorney so it was the that still resides within the state's attorney position and so i don't think that it does in this election and remember when we're talking about a state attorney we're talking about the entire gamut of things that they do which is vast and so what we're talking about here is this single action which was delegated to this particular state's attorney and there isn't any overseeing shown there isn't anything shown that that she had a checklist from the state attorney that she had to follow i've cited that the state's attorney can the assistant state's attorney can be a policymaker for this one individual action  him and i agree you know the the main issue here going to county is whether she was a policy makers and i think i think the cases say that she can be seen as a policy or she is and if she has a policy maker we have a much harder we have much harder but that's what it was that's what the case was turns on whether she was a plus not a policymaker so if this court agrees with the court that she wasn't a policymaker i think we're lost and perhaps it could have been what are argued different below and respond it's very hard to get to the actual state's attorney that of course was not argued a lot in regards conduct it's a certain defendant and also tort principles don't say that one defendant's actions have to be the proximate cause but a proximate cause and under tort principles the action different defendants can combine together a proximate cause here a proximate cause they are in a box of lies here so it's not mutually exclusive as far as i put principles and i thank