i knew there was a good reason for us to hold court on tuesday rather than monday and i'm glad everybody was able to get here good morning when i was charles was lesley i represent detective sergeant richard read once he was a member of the lebanon county drug task force that was involved in  court was that the wrong person was was arrested and that's insufficient attention was given to that fact but it seems to me that judge rambo was focused on something else which is a lack of day of the appendix to the briefs for read once the that's one of them in forty years i think is forty eight day judge rambo primarily focused on twelfth two thousand to about sixteen fifteen hours while in the eight hundred block of east farnell street lebanon city lebanon county defendant samuel ruiz a soul delivers cocaine a scheduled we  asking our argument goes to the fact that what judge rambo complains about with regard to this affidavit are actually ovations that's one of the omissions that's that's not in the affidavit ok if if in fact those facts were placed in the affidavit finder on a full statement how the information is there th ultimately in court a question we have i think is was based on what we now narrow or based on what was there what didn't satisfy the constitution as with by what what the facts are facts are that on a specific date at a specific place that the the samuel rule is so cocaine of the affiance that indicate that they were present when the sale heard with regard to the  onces says who they are it says their experience and then paragraph two says that certain things happened it doesn't even say that they saw it happen or that they were physically present that they limited that that's correct your honor that was it that was an omission but if you if you put those facts in there it doesn't change the outcome of this we cited pages that indicate that well let's assume for a minute that this is too conclusory let's assume that this affidavit is invalid under supreme court law what about the second prong why would this mistake be an objective reasonable such that your client would be entitled to qualified immunity answer question my time's up for with regard to that is that we when you look at the law and when you're looking at these affidavits for probable cause parts about that if there is admissions and not misrepresentations that omissions omissions in and of themselves do not disqualify from having probable cause especially if the facts that were  a one thirty seven one thirty eight in a number of paragraphs acknowledges that there was a defendant saying were we doesn't challenge the basis for the affidavit doesn't judge rambo does and she takes response to the qualified immunity motion did not state a constitutional violation and when it came to reckless recklessly providing incorrect information that that claim was not stated in the complaint does not does not address the issues in the in the affidavit so if you present a motion for summary judgment saying that your qualified immunity in a response from the plaintiff is directed to some other  did you argue that to just well you know i know you've argued it here but judge rambo believe the issue with joy i understand that you're saying it and she did it on the basis of one in a one statement implying i mean she did and it does not appear to have been raised below what i want to make that representation the court that that was an argument made to the court at the time that that that the court is often wrong direction opposing counsel is correct that we did not object that the information that was contained in the affidavit of probable cause to a certain extent was correct it was were sammy raz and my client was named sandy ri probable cause the court looked at under angular v texas looked at the criteria the test for a magistrate to determine whether or not there's sufficient facts for a probable cause in this ridiculous case the the alleged drug sales happened in june and july two thousand and two the execution of the arrest warrant happened in october of two thousand and two there was a sufficient period of time in this particular case where the police went to determine whether or not this was in fact the right sam you're riyadh's and your honor if you look at my appendix exhibit i believe exhibits two and three exhibit three has a picture of a driver's license picture of my client sam in particular the affidavit nowhere in the affidavit as a state that any of the policemen involved in the drug sale or the joint investigation ever saw the face of sam roux as they saw the back of  samuel as they saw the side of sound with no policeman ever saw the face of this particular client why is why is that significant because they could not there was insufficient evidence from the informant to clearly identify if this t the the two matters here one is whether they should have done sufficient investigation to make sure the right release was was being arrested and and there were some some similarities in terms of the of information they did do an investigation they thought they had the right person they had an address that was similar to the correct address but isn't that different from what was in the affidavit with respect to the reliability of the informant and what the end for the information that the informant gave to them or are you saying they're all part of the same thing they're all part of the same thing are there they're the facts given to them and the information given him them by the informant and the facts determined by the alleged to be determined to be accurate by the police facts why should we reverse or i put your argument was well i think an argument could be made that process really matters and that when the supreme court  should never been issued in this case a super soon we agree with you on the why was this objectively a reason why you still have to show that it's not enough to show that the affidavit was insufficient you have to show that it was objective  but the police also did an illegal search of the residence and there was no affidavit of there was no search warrant issue there was no probable cause was there was no oil they don't need or there was once they're there to arrest them if it's a valid arrest warrant than i don't think that's the issue mike my question is why was this objective we are reasonable let's assume that it was insufficient it was lacking because it omitted information that it should have contained why was it objectively are reasonable such that it needs to be invalidated because there was not even a scintilla of facts to  for the for ras there was nothing there the warrant of arrest there was no basis at all to support my argument is there was no basis at all to support the arrest warrant the only information that they use was information from an informa and that information was not collaborated in any way by the police the police have in this particular case the police had almost wore months to verify facts and he did not do it with the white pla no i did not your honor the the appeal was based on whether or not there was qualified immunity for the arrest warrant there was another issue that was not appealed that was regarding the actual honor and could you tell us again your answer to judge heart of men's question as to why the why it was objection objected lay and reasonable here to rely because it does not have it does not set for legally set for sufficient facts to support a warrant for arrest there are insufficient facts under the law to support an arrest warrant in this case in fact there are no facts to support an arrest warrant in this case but now you're the last plating the two elements though now you're saying anytime the the affidavit is insufficient ipso facto subjectively and reasonable isn't isn't there some middle ground there where the warrant is insufficient but yet it's still passes muster on the under the objective reasonable necessity and then there's of course the third ground where it's both insufficient and objectively unreasonable you're my argument is it's both insufficient and it's an unreasonable there is a middle ground tell us it would help i think it would certainly help me if you could flesh out what that middle ground is if you could refer to some facts in this case or perhaps a hypothetical that would give us some indication as to the scope of that middle ground if there were facts to indicate that samuel  cocaine and heroin if there were facts that indicated that this particular semi were as live at a particular address and that this particular informant had on many occasions purchased cocaine or heroin from this samuel us if there had been facts to indicate that drugs were given to the former so that informant could indicate and identify specifically that this was the sam you were as that he purchased the drugs from if they were sufficient establish that the police cooperated this particular vanity but made by the informant by checking records driver's license records police records to determine whether or not this indeed was the sa of your claim is correct not that they failed to do a sufficient just failed to do official investigation but they failed to do any investigation that would fall within the premise of an investigation necessary for an arrest warrant it just wasn't done correct about in the regularly an argument can be made it were trying to see the district justice because the information that it gave the district justice was all concluded there were no facts sufficient for the district justice to make an independent decision as to whether or not this probable cause for an arrest and if we disagree with you on the issue is there a difference legally between the police in a circumstance like this failing to put in sufficient information or failing to make the investigation that you think is appropriate and falsely putting in information or deliberately concealing information legally is there a difference in terms of the objective only and reasonable standard i think the objectionable reasonable standard would be met on a both conditions i think there's a stronger case they can be made because of the apparent  misleading based on the facts they arrived it to the magistrate but i think that the facts are there for both issues to be argued not only that there was a sequel because they left out certain information never advised in fact it was the district justice didn't have any basis in my opinion argument would be that we can still prevail in this argument because there simply weren't sufficient facts at all to support the arrest more and not just the misleading characters of the arrest warrant affidavit but there weren't sufficient facts at all to case and with regard to that you know when you look at all the facts in this case and what happened which we didn't get into in any of the arguments but how they identified them you'll read is that the person who made the sale was had a street the district justice did not know any of that but if you assert that it doesn't change anything in fact it would add to the probable cause  ok with regard to you know i just want to clarify something also the police officer the female police officer did that search she was identified she was scheduled for a deposition answer no cause of anybody unfortunately the deposition wasn't taken there's a totally different story than what you see in the complaint with regard to that aside just don't want the court to be tainted by what happened with the female plaintiff because you'll hear a did you hear a different story if there was that t cause and it goes back to what i started out i think you see that there was a crime there is an allegation of a crime although there's omissions as to how they came about that knowledge is an allegation of a crime there's an identity a family were as  a person who committed the crime adding the facts that are omitted would not change any of that it still would have the allegation of a crime committed by a family were as are any other questions thank you very much case is well argue