oh yeah you don't agree with my reading of the statute while i don't agree with mr gibson's assertion that just citing that statute to a police officer trying to quell of domestic disturbance would know that th ere's that protective order is here and that he part of the equation well judge not what the statute says judge what the statute says well first of all the protective order that was issued against mr gibson basically prohibit  store in the presence of his wife that's all he did there was a report called in saying that he was at the convenience store and they've relied on that arrest of the tenth as justification for the later arrest simple fact the matter is there was nothing he'd do when there was no probable cause for that restaurant or the protests the order of protection had been modified by a wife that he refused to leave and he was under an order right know not in a way from o of the grocery store not at the that the shop and so whatever was the convenience store the police officer merely came saw him there and arrested him that there was no basis for that arrest there was no probable cause he the prohibition against communication with his wife had been removed by the entry of the separation decree well that's the that's where i think you're that's that's a great leap unless the state trial judge ultimately ruled that i think  to do and and if if if she said there's a protective order with the permission i can't remember what inquiry he made in january that with a relatively minor well but it became the pre writing the the the basis of the eventual never did out on january she never said anything about violation of protection order you can just walk up that you're under arrest come with me that's what it appears from the arrest file on january the tenth at the convenience store now on the twelfth when he was at the home in the morning and the police officers came they were specifically advised of the existence of the separation to create both parties told those officers that the matter of child custody had been decided by the circuit court and the parenting plan as part of the separation decree they were aware of the existence of that water on that morning and they didn't arrest them when they came in that was at the in the morning there had been a phone call about an argument in the afternoon it's unclear how they got back to the house but they came to the house  two officers came separately the officer who actually made the arrest said when i arrived mr gibson was outside the house that that the other officer came out and said there's no provision in the protective order for child custody didn't say anything about the separation decree where the custody orders were were found and they arrested him based upon his presence at that address which again under four five five point zero six zero was not a violation of the protection order because it was a different address than the one listed in the order what about the district court alternative grounds for probable cause for arrest disturbing the peace trespassing statements from the ex wife or ex partner regarding that issue well testify around we too we went down to take her deposition and miss gibson under oath refused to answer any questions from any parties she said she simply said that she wasn't going to get involved in this and that we had we would have to do whatever we wanted to do but that she was not going to testify in the in the case and she was actually noticed up i believe by that if we could turn to the april ninth arrest now if she didn't have a fifth amendment right what you mean just d your honor you've asked why should a police officer know about all these laws well if they're out there in force in order of protection i'd i would submit that they're required to know how a subsequent decree of dissolution or separation could impact the order of protection under section four five two point four two five which is a chapter four five two is child custody four five five is the order of protection but there's interplay between go put in a parenting plan a provision that law enforcement challenge force the the custody decree that was in this parenting plan in this case under four five two point five five  six every that the state court administrator supposed to distribute a pamphlet to every court setting out the the regulations regarding parroting plans if these police officers are to come into a home and decide which court order they're go enforce the order where my client's order to be there to pick up his child where he's ordered to communicate with his wife worries order to give her materials what days are those well he he was getting he was there on the twelfth to get some materials regarding his son and to drop something off regarding his son for his wife who was on the cusp that it was not a custody exchange but he's not precluded from being in her presence and in all situations your honor because five five four five five point zero six zero took out the communication restriction it took out being in her presence restriction it took out the restriction against visiting the home of those who were no longer part of the order protection you know we have a continuum between the buyer versus city of lewiston case where the court said that you have the police officers have a duty to investigate the the contents and the restrictions in an order of protection and at the other end is the  am yeah if he's going to go into somebody's house and enforce the order joe exactly what that means he at least has to conduct an investigation into what the contest ruling the case no well i have i mean i have buyer versus liston fischer could be more contrary  that there was in fact a a decree of legal separation and once they became aware of that fact and the fact that it might have some effect on the order of protection that they had an obligation to cut conduct an investigation into number one the contents of the separation a decree which nobody ever did so they have to stop leave the disparate the disturbing the parties away and go down to the courthouse and read all the docket absent exigent circumstances and there were never exigent circumstances wh solving the police officer doesn't have to leave the scene and go conduct some kind of a law school seminar to figure out what and i said no but what he can do is when the the arrest the the person is eventually arrested is already outside the house or in his own car in a public parking lot to disemployed taken have him leave and you've solved the problem while you do the investigation which date is that on the twelfth and the end  carl hefner and deputy tommy horton as you know i sort of represent two separate sets of of defendants who are involved at different stages of this case the dexter defendants were involved in the arrest of mr gibson of based upon violations of the order of protection and then i represent the sutter county defendants based upon them holding him after the judge had allowed mr gibson to withdraw his guilty plea one thing that the court picked up on and i think it's very important lisa i have the police officers and i have shares at the in the case i had also how how can the police officers or avail of the summary judgment stage when the wife and daughter that mrs gibson when we took attempted to take her deposition made a statement on the record that she had suffered enough at the hands of mr gibson and she wasn't going to go through that in the record it's not in the record don't go outside the summary judgment rick you asked me what she'd said your arms i said i i did not i asked you how can your five prevail at the summary judgment stage when there's nothing in the record from the wife and daughter and the and the the  innocent victim pardons on whom you who you analogize to the wal mart employees in fisher well your honor the whether or not a crime had been committed is really not an issue on the arrest it's whether or not the subjective state of mind of the officers whether or not they had a reasonable belief based upon the information that they had that a crime i know i that's not my question it's a fact that that was when when there's when the documents the court orders are not there in january as i understand the only basis therefore for the when there's nothing from the victims on the record because you're out of the the inquiry is is the officer the officers testified the officer but but so so if the officer says i heard x y and z and there's nothing else in the record the officers get summary judgment because this record has to believe them well your honor the documents they're in the reports they are documented there are written statements from the victims as well especially on the the april night when there was a significant also occasion what are the i'm sorry aren't the in the april is two to six and two to seven to thirty two and to seventy six that's the april ninth  where they were then they're still by the victims confirmed that anyway i believe the april report had actual written statements from the victims attached to it where they wrote out actual statements hand written statements and the point that you made earlier your honor is that these officers have to make decisions in the field the basis of the order of protection which is also part of the record miss miss g stated to the court in her application for  well my point is your honor why it is they don't have to investigate they're the only thing that matters whether they know or believe that what is there what is there in the record that says the arresting police officers and all as background prior to th making your honor is you just jump to irrelevancy didn't she but when you when you properly state the whole question these police officers state of mind then you start arguing facts that the police officer didn't have a clue about what the officers did know is that there was an order of protection in place and they had and they read it in january i don't know if they actually had a copy of it when they arrested the with the way it works your honor is the dispatchers have it in their files and that if there is an alleged there is a report or there is a better testimony in the record of what was said but the officers were told the officers testified that they checked with dispatch to make sure order protection was still in force and still effective that's part of their procedure they get a call saying there's been a violation and they checked with the dispatcher to make sure that it's still in force so that's what the officers know is that there isn't a judicial determination has been made better testimony regarding whether these fractures knew about the separation decree and if so kind as to its effect on the order of protection when he or she talked to the office there's no testimony from a dispatcher ya know and there's no testimony from anybody on how do we know that they're ok the officers testify what would carry separation separation decrees not something they have access to the only information they have regarding separation to reel them about he testified that he told them about it yes ok and he told them that it is now a pfizer if you will the protection order right he said that and they denied it oh now we got something to try no no your honor it did it again there's no mini trial this doesn't sound right but when there's an order of protection in place the officers know that there are certain from their training there are certain elements to an order of protection including not disturbing some of these peace that's actually in the order itself takes someone who he comes to her premises late at night in the parking lot of her apartment and is virtually abusing her i think that and the officers testified they believed that that was he was disturbing her peace  also testified to that back both the officers who are on that arrest said in my opinion he was disturbing her peace and violating the order of protection he was charged differently by the prosecutor later and that's where your premises and now we have a custody and they and they they investigated the elements of the custody on on the april visit i don't i don't believe some of them are on the april visit i do not believe the son was with him he was on the on the january twel so custody wasn't an issue and there was no cost you change on any of these your honor you know they talk about you know custody to exchanges and so forth there were no custody exchanges involved in any of these  has arrived but in fact he blatantly told her that he had violated the conditions of his probation and that he intended to continue to violate the conditions of his probation with regard to conspiracy the claims in the white case the defendant had a personal and intimate relationship with another defendant and she also had stood to profit from the plaintiff conviction the appellate cannot make such a showing here in this particular case he has to show that there is substantial material evidence that there was a meeting of the minds and that there was an agreement between the defendants and he has to have some material evidence that that the that there was an understanding conviction in place and travis good to have pled guilty to that felony and the as a result of that he was under probation and one of the conditions of probation was that he not contact eighty now roxanne cook as his violation of this probation and that he would continue to contact a g in violation of that probation the fact that that underlying felony conviction was ultimately set aside doesn't make any difference in the fact that the underlying felony charge may have conditions of his probation i mean he admitted to doing that he told her that he did that she didn't have to do any further didn't the rest is opposed to profiling of violation petition with the court well again that's discretionary and he did i arrived and i asked you for her explanation visited we're talking summary judgment here but i think the record i was all around your honor with regard to the rock to cook he was in jail for about ninety days from the date of his arrest until the probation revocation hearing i t and the reason he told roxanne cook that he was going to continue to contact his wife is ex was because he was under a court order to continue to communicate with her and to exchange the  child and he also told roxanne cook that specifically about section four for five four five five point zero six zero and the fact that he was an innocent man what's in the will is there was it developed as to what the content of the conversations well were i mean did he say hey i had the reason i called or was because i'm trying to drop off our child know what is in her revocation report is that he continues to say do delusional things like i didn't violate the order protection and i'm innocent and that was her main reason as stated in her own right that revocation report for ordering the rest because he was delusional about something that in fact he was he was accurate and he was about in the end with regard to april i just want to say that well my time is up but just so the court is clear that the order of a violation of border protection under four five four four five point  point eight does not include disturbing the peace of the petitioner that is not an element of the crime so they can't say they relied on that in making the arrest when it when it's not a criminal charge and  case if you read section four four five point zero eight zero disturbing the peace of the petitioner in an order of protection is not an element of the crime violating an order protection it doesn't constitute a crime and they never had evidence of general peace disturbance and what because the statute says that it's a crime to abuse it's a crime to threaten it's a crime to of that particular person is not a crime and that's what they've relied on this separated to create a separation gave him her to live there for the way it did not given that but it's not an element of