morning my name is robert amadan and i have been asked to argue the case on behalf of the problems the kellers whose son died on august fifteenth two thousand and three a high speed police chase a ledge below and to this court that for the police to initiate a high speed police chase during heavy congestion and gridlock on a weekend in los angeles city i haven't been able to find one either which is why i believe the issue was left open and that's a home in the car tax and forstmann team case in which w describe this experimental three month trying period to help the c h p see whether or not they could integrate and be effective in the pointing their assets to assist the l a p d and the las the and what are without doubt city enforcement action this is not on the highway this is not on the freeways you very clearly said in the stable sixteen zero three memorandum from the c h p which is admissible evidence etc that this would be a three year trial period i cannot cite you anything anywhere put them out front in all of the law enforcement efforts because of their sovereign immunity and they would be able to just sit back and take reports that sucker so i have answered your question your honor the best that i state that as i read sacramento lewis in one nine hundred ninety eight the us supreme court has stated clearly that if i can prove to a trial court that the officer as to what he intended or it can be derived from circumstantial evidence if i like if in fact you saw the car plow into the west  to the delivered in a different standard from a whole host of other ninth circuit cases in other areas the facts if there is a fact intensive discussion of this analysis of intent and reasonable conduct that does bring into play not just sacrament of the loo us but it does bring into play then the reasonable conduct standard that justice scalia set forth and scott the harrisons because it took a look at the chase in that case that was supervised constantly over the radio before victor victor harris was rammed off the road if in fact this municipal task force had a supervisor that had said to sergeant three s hey this corresponds just pull in front of it and block it or ram it was heavily congested and enormous amount of traffic both cars and pedestrian versus the reasonable conduct that the supreme court viewed in that videotape i maintain that like that videotape and scott the harris we actually have the trial testimony of sergeant three s in our case because the people did prosecute and on jones for murder  the manslaughter that occurred in the high speed police chase in their sergeant three s testified that he was an ass that other a municipal task force and that to me is probably the legal theory that should be allowed in this case i have alleged the only intent that i know how to allege other than taking his deposition where in theoretically he could testify that i had the intent to harm the public that lie i indeed had a zero tolerance policy told to me by the c h p and i acted on it for what was a minor traffic infraction i knew that by initiating that high speed chase that i was going to harm somebody in the public now that is a theory that is nothing more than me talking to this panel this morning and so i asked for the respect honour's that i have done the very best i can in connection with the sacrament of the lewis the facts than they were different and i've explained that both in the opening brief as well as in the reply brief because of the intervening discovery that we had with the memo i don't know five and five done the best i could answer them if you read the april sixteen zero three memo from the c h p and again you will see that no additional training was necessary there was no need to try to train the c h p assets and the non pursued policies that had been acted by the l a p d and they l a sheriff's department they were to pursue on city streets alone and the c h p was to turn it over they disobeyed all of that pursuit policy that the c h p itself initiated i would argue that a person shouldn't pursue that type of a serious and unreasonable risk situation when there's harm to the public in the very circumstances in which trying to remove a dangerous driver from the streets and is not intending to harm in that situation so it may be a very it is a very difficult standard for a third party bystander to allege and prove the fourteenth maneuver then you'd be under the fourth amendment reasonable to scanner which is a very different standard it's it requires a balancing test and that's some of the the balancing that my counsel has had his counsel had addressed before and that doesn't apply here because we're under the fourteenth that he's not able to amend to state a claim under the skin under quired under louis and he said i didn't realize they had this intent to harm problem to overcome and i don't know how to overcome it i admit it readily to the good morning your honor center philemon on behalf of the county of los angeles and los angeles county sheriff's department just very briefly i want to point out that there is nothing in the complaint or in any of the documents attached by counsel that would point to any involvement by the county much less any conduct that would shock the conscience so unless of course of any questions i will submit of the c h p working under the memo for an interagency task force headquartered out of the city of west hollywood and out of the county of los angeles he initiated the chase in a congested area with what we now know as a zero tolerance he excel rated to high speeds rather than blocking the car he failed to call and he supervisor which was discussed in the memo he failed to call any other units including police in front of them and if you read the large make report there must have been about twenty units in the area a block or two blocks away he failed to call helicopters which have become pretty much now the norm for the l a sheriff's department and the l a p d and of course there was no training of the c h p assets or all into the l a p d or l policies as i've just enunciated i forgot to bring up to the court's attention that this case was of course dismissed on a twelve the six motion right away at the very beginning and that certainly the one cognize of the legal theory in front of the court is the fact that this is a municipal task force and there were six c h p assets assigned to it i think that's an issue the court