here is a case of without dispute an innocent woman whose life has been turned upside down as a result of what i think everybody would consider an unfair and continues to be unemployed continues to suffer the consequences of this very unfortunate friend of vance in which she was singled out improperly and in which this that isn't raised by the moving party in their summary judgment doesn't make sense for the party responding to that to brief and highlight that issue riverside police department officers descending on the small home occupied by somebody that they knew well i was not a security risk was unoccupied you know it was unoccupied was way out of line with what the circumstances required if they come in with five guys and conducted and i think the whole kind of search i don't think we would have the argument but the actual intimidating factor this is one of the primary thing that has caused this gravitar damages and at some point you got to say we believe that there's a constitutional violation when you have that overkill component if they had one hundred officers and fifty cars to stand on th really think that the heart of this is the false affidavit the the way this investigation was conducted this is a textbook example really of some of the problems of law enforcement w focused they knew that this break in was probably conducted by what an institution inside job one of fourteen fourteen people had access to this vault was grabbed it was the only non sworn only person that had quote an intimate knowledge of the vault and the locker statement that was wrong because the other thirteen people did as well the statement that she was the only one that had the key to the but to the locker hearing right now what we're really saying is they were required to bring her back understood stances in which she was exonerated of these created by the government accusing her of this and putting her out and then saying ok if you can come back to work but you're still under a cloud of suspicion and given what has all gone before this would be a way to essentially purge the taint of the what we believe to be the improper investigation they should have concluded at a much earlier stage of this proceeding that she was not involved and and have acknowledged that they were on the wrong track in you know w return to work is nothing physically there's nothing physically wrong at this you know after a certain period of time there was nothing well you know nothing physically wrong with her ability to return to work right i think once reserved your me i'm going to hang on to the last three constructive term action so i think brown certainly is involved allegedly in the creation of the atmosphere i thought you were saying that he didn't make the decision to put her arm leash with her that i feel i don't know ok someone up in she was accused of having and having committed this crime a very serious crime but the fact that she was not terminated from her employment and the fact that she did have opportunities to request a hearing and the fact that there's no specifically say something to the effect that the fact that that she was a suspect in a crime does not necessarily mean that she actually committed the crime and a review of slander means that the person has to be actually accu of a crime and i've looked through all the cases and the authority that was cited by appellant and he makes a reference to which can however the reference to what can in his reply brief refer refers to the definition in cases relevant to  committed the crime what do you make of the fact that's and if i have my time sequence correct that he made the statement after the search have been unsuccessful it would certainly be more advantageous for indicate that just the fact that the statement was made that she was a suspect is not mean that he's accusing her of the crime and the individuals heard it their opinions were not relevant to the determination of well maybe she has more knowledge than someone else with being questioned who had no knowledge would be providing things such as well i can see where a person who might be involved in this might be scared if they were denied placed against their head or amendment and the probable cause for the issuance of the warrant as we have pointed out the summary judgment is improper where the conflicting inferences can be drawn from the facts so the question we believe the question of whether this was reckless disregard for the truth is a jury question and are these circumstances the  it's very interesting and i don't know how often this happens where detective hosty signs the search warrant and he didn't prepare i i was shocked when i discovered that taking his deposition  and circumstances under which that was given and as i've noted previously we don't think there's a record for record on this and there wasn't developed a full record sufficient for  questioning accusations that she committed the crime and then at about three o'clock in the afternoon asked whether they could go search your house and she said ok and she  something which is not in the record the written documentation is not part of the of the record i'm just record and and that's where we stand with it so our feeling is yeah this