and a search warrant was executed and on about june twenty sixth two thousand and nine in the process there was some cocaine found over here who came on the son who was sleeping there and it was in his  case is based on a case in california could vs bopara it is exactly the same statute with the exception of one or two words in the california case which is bell well thought  found that the statute was unconstitutional for a number of reasons the first reason is that the notice was insufficient and let me say did the boy case the case i will call the case in california said that the statue many years finally in december the second i should say the very day king there was another bill the senate that there's work and legal activity suspected on december second a final letter was said that you have ten days to the judge in this case found that it was four days late in firing the addiction and then awarded three thousand dollars fine for a violation of the order of the ordinance and that's the issue so let's look at the of the facts here after the initial notice again i call them i give them all the information that i could there was no further information given to me by the city of  investigation which the statute says it's an ongoing investigation there was no reply there was nothing there was it was assumed then that the matter was resolved because the next  and let me just summarize the cookie said basically this failure to provide adequate specification is unconstitutional because it deprives due process sess of the parties involve mile ation because it has ramifications in terms of the property rights in the future in other words if the landlord sues the can to get out the  against him all the charges against the tenants the three tenants involved were dropped and so i believe that the facts and evidence showed that it was abated after we got the second notice on the december second there was another attempt on my part i would leave the city and said look there must be some problem here some mistake i haven't heard from you for five months and my clients have insisted nothing is wrong they've done nothing wrong all charges were dropped i sent them a copy of the dismissal from the city itself who dismissed all charges against these kinds they didn't listen they didn't make him offer any discussion on abatement they said you must file within ten days i reason for his constitutionality because it effects the property rights of innocent people even in the union they had nothing to do with the illegal activity in one person and that is entirely finally i would i would go to the fourth reason that this court could listen to this appeal and that is the fact that the ten the time limit to file isn't a reasonable the cook a specifically said ten days that but that's neither here nor there because when you look at the fact that from the june gate all the way on through november there was nothing no investigation nothing and then all of a sudden understand some of the second the letter sent saying your  mr davis there was some testimony that there was a voice message to the officer of the city who had sent the notice that's wrong saying that you were in the process that i was out of town and quick what time i got back on tuesday december seventh that's when i initiated the request to file it was filed within ten days of that day so it's within the statute of my  he never did nothing and so what this is with us is laws in the states if there's an additional investigation he says of suspected illegal activity there we go suspected section twenty desk to a certain other code in the city of curious constitutional and says this is a legal issue the standard of review is to know the second issue before this court is a factual issue that mr dance kind of enter for the purpose of selling the possessing control substances to be harmful for the entire neighborhood this affects not only that house but all the other houses and all the other law abiding citizens enjoying their homes in that neighborhood whether illegal activity was conducted on that property the property owner has due process rights to request securing you for the city manager and that would actually hold and stay any prosecution and  tenants and relied on their words and this judge her hand noted in his fighting at the end of the trial i would say this is on the different from the ordinance that mr to dance has sided with the california court had three problems with the you know parts ordinance number one dead ordinance from california failed to provide sufficient specific manager or his or her days and he and that's when the information can be obtained also as to the indemnification if at any time that the tenant during the election process or even legal action process may con not require that the landlord has to prevail in the fiction process so that was the three factors that do problems that the california court had and this ordinance does not suffer from the same problem sleeping in a family room one of the bare bones in the room he had out of and it was in his pants that he was wearing when he stood up when the often went into his bedroom it was actually a boxer shorts that out of the boxer found that illegal substance was either being used or sold from that property and therefore found that is that the illegal activity occurred now mr daniels was to come in here and say no logic to the action invade it just because someone in the city didn't go out and and do another drug bust that could mean that so mine that i can use the property for selling or using drugs and they s that you have to take some bateman action including ending including infections that he could be in legal proceedings to take a violation just waiting and seeing is not abating the violation were there almost every day watching your property and no no comment a small investigation information was given to me and yet i gave the investigation to the city and your response to the second terence gave me the copies of the charges against them by the city that were dismissed going to give that to the city i mean why would the city want to come in and do a forcible entry forcible complaint to make me do that when they themselves dismissed all charges against the him so basically with the cookies is that they're making me try the case in specific asians as to what it would be and furthermore this theory issues days that the landlord is required to try the case against the chair on what is suspected illegal x number of dollars and then the under the under the foreigners there is nothing in this or the sensitive when the end of life the landlord if you gets car sued for a hundred thousand dollars