chalons the plaintiff and appellant asked the court to reverse the judgment against her in the district court with instructions to  retry the case after entering partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this case the fifty year old plaintiff who had been a school teacher in the santa monica area for ten years without any prior contacts with the police she is good teacher of school a fifth thank you on our school system have worked in the schools as a school teacher's assistant was arrested and jailed for approximately seventy two hours during that period she was not brought before a magistrate instead the only probable cause determination that was made was on the basis of an affidavit identifying attached reports we don't know what they were not signed under oath signed by an officer who had no personal knowledge of any of the facts of the case or  certainly are  few riverside the mclaughlin which are referred to  the clark ok could you tell me the language specifically in those cases that require a face to face probable cause determination could you give me the ninety six in which in which the i can't quote the language forbade him but the court holds that the reason the convicted defendants appeal of the judgment against him i understand and riverside both reiterate that there are constitutional rights to tional protections and the specifics of them are should be decided by the states and that i still don't see where that filters down to a requirement for a face to face probable determination i'm still waiting for that language well then i would refer the court  supreme court federal authorities cited to in turn by state court authorities on this issue in this case the probable cause determination affidavit was not under oath and didn't cite we have the preprinted form it refers to attached reports but of course the advance reports aren't under oath and the person who prepared the what i would call a reader's declaration had not apparently had no basis for personal knowledge as to whether the attached reports were truthful or accurate but in fact the the city  admitted that they really didn't know what reports had been attached to the to the declaration but regardless of what reports were attached they weren't under oath and the only document that was under oath asserted no facts and without stating any thanks and without even stating what charges were supported by the reports just simply saying there's probable cause cause hearing and i am wondering whether she has she would be able to report what her officer reported to her you mean double hearsay or i see i think that she would be permitted if she stated what facts she was relying on if for example an officer had stated that in the officer's report that the arrestee had confessed to the crime spontaneously and stated that in the report and then in the declaration of under oath officer jean had stated because the arrestee confessed to the crime to the officer who arrested her and other things there is probable cause to detain you to maintain the arrest in custody on a charge of you know whatever she had confessed to but no specific thanks are alluded to so there's actually a declaration to no specific facts under oath at all if the i believe you are right that if the declaration under oath had alluded to such fact the fact that the allusion was based on hearsay would not be a bar trial there is in the question of the final hearing on the rule fifty motion which was made the conclusion of all the evidence found has included a copy of that transcript and  that the court can see from the transcript and this is an excerpt of hades one twenty one the evidence that was presented at trial included testimony from sergeant kean which w doesn't have the record in front of it but from the comments that were made in the rule fifty motion you can glean that she testified what procedure she followed that she in fact took all of the reports that had been prepared by made on that cover form she declared under penalty of perjury that those reports were true and correct and she also testified that she had received from officer oshiro a verbal  summary of what he had dictated on a tape recording and that she put that tape recording along with all the other reports as well as her probable cause declaration submitted those to a it's clear that what the hell is trying to do here is to convert what she believes is some type of state right into a federal right and i don't think that she successfully done that either on the record or on the law the in re walters case which is the practices may differ in los angeles county the practice that was followed by my clients the a pelleas here was the practice that they used which was to submit the reports  difference in the standard used to judge probable cause when an officer applies for a warrant versus whether or not there is probable cause to detain someone who's been  the rest in advance and secondly assuming that the representations made in the affidavit in support of the warrant were and were true and there were no material errors or misrepresentations officers that have absolute immunity for the arrest that falls on the issuance of the warrant and this is heard the argument made my your opponent this morning that these papers evidence from the victim and the victim's husband who had dealings with the police and what they told the police and he determined two things he determined first of all that there was i believe a problem and the second thing i believe he determined was that the officers were entitled to believe that probably causing this the therefore that they had qualified immunity and that's another reason why this judgment should be affirmed so even if the court finds that there was some technical error the fact is that not only did the officers have probable cause and believe they have probable cause under judge ray's ruling but there is no california rule there's no federal rule which specifically holds that a probable cause determination has to be handled in the way that  there certainly is a difference between the requirements for an arrest warrant and the requirements for a probable cause determination following a warrantless arrest that is why the cases  in both of these proceedings there is a balancing of the public's interest the interest in public safety and the individual's right to freedom obviously you cannot bring the subject of  that a summons is backed by the power of the court to enforce it as a contempt of the court if it is not obeyed first of all i would also like to remind the court that what we're well let me i'm sorry your honor let me answer your question this way the arrest warrant is issued because the public is in danger the subject is believed by the police to be a criminal and then asked why he or she must be brought not by choice into custody as soon as possible a summons will not accomplish that and once the subject isn't custody that concern for immediate prompt resolution of the issue of probable cause has  vanished now the basis tips much more in favor of the individual's rights of freedom and there is a reconsideration and a probable cause determination proceeding of the same issue of th in question was there probable cause to arrest but in a more but with more protections now that the subject of the arrest is in custody well then why do we not require some supernatural quality where there is a requirement that the there be a subsequent proceeding before a neutral magistrate even after arrest with a war i mean if if if the are rashed warrant procedure was sufficient to protect the rights of the arrestee the arraignment would not have to consider the question of probable