after the police uniformed officer had taken their crime record on the loss of the plates right that is correct so the first contact was actually between mr chadwick and the cold police department not that it hacked that is correct and when when the when nothing came of the report that mr chad we could made to the police officer who initially invested the case he ran into report had been made what's wrong with that oh i'm not saying anything is wrong with it your honor ok yeah i thought you were insinuating something unethical about oh no i'm just saying no i'm just saying that he never was assigned to the case he assigned himself to the case you generally because sergeant would assign him to a case of his you are insinuating that there was something improper about that well i think that what i'm what i'm trying to point out it is th verb the case file the basically the deal file and then that deal file was contained a number of documents all of which indicated that the license plate was on the vehicle including the application for insurance mr corker i'm not sure where you're going with the argument but there were no taxes paid to the state of california on the sale or transfer of the vehicle  because lease mr chadwick understood that the vehicle was going to be taken out of state and yet miss your client is found in possession of the vehicle with the plates that should have been surrendered to d m v at the time of the initial transaction and all of this gets included in the report of investigation and turned over to the san bernardino county district attorney who reviews the file and decides that there is probable cause to file felony charges against m what's the problem here i don't see the issue well the issue is that mr collins says that he did not take the plates of the plates came with the vehicle the sales tax or the registration that's done by the dealership isn't there information uncovered in the investigation mr flores a lot attendant told the police that he took the plates off the car and he left them in the office on the day of the initial transfer absolutely not your honor i didn't i read something in the report to that effect if you did you must've misread it because well manager darryn told me to remove the license plates from the chevy truck i then went out to the truck which was parked near the office and i removed both the front and rear license plates i then returned to the office with the license plates and i left the license plates in the office this is them or who purchased the truck was in the office at the time i left the license plates there isn't that in the record that is a declaration that was made by mr flo byrd but i thought you said that mr chadwick told the detective that is a lot man took the plate yes and and as a result as in his declaration that that is so yes but in his declaration mr chadwick says that he talked to the lot man and to all other employees about this incident after the incident took place and nobody including the lot man remembered one way or the other on that issue that was investigation some witnesses will say something some witnesses will say something else that doesn't mean there's not probable cause that a crime has occurred so why would there be a lack of probable cause because certainly i understand your client's a different version of events that's often the case in criminal so what more is there than that well he never detective moore and berg never talked to the lot man never asked him one way or the other never talked to him at all to his lawsuit with regard to this truck let's assume that's the case then i mean the question here is that the detective at the time the car was seize was a probable cause that a crime had occurred and he had information from mr collins who had been reliable in the  with regard to mr boyd detective moore and burke accused mr collins of trying to bribe mr boyd and he said that he heard that directly from the police officers who were who were there to affect your weight the seizure of the vehicle he told them that and told mr collins that  to detective moore in berg and that he certainly never told him that he had been bribed in that he absolutely never had been brought this is like a smoking gun your honor why would were mr collins was staying who had very hard feelings against mr collins and who called mr chadwick and told him that mr collins was going to sue him and that he would do anything that he could do to help out mr chadwick so the first allegation of a bribe was that mr boyd had been bribed there was absolutely no evidence had at the time that he made those allegations not only to mr collins but also to the police that there was any such activity that had taken place ok thank you very much cancel your overtime increase on behalf of detective jack moore unburned and the city of colton there are some overlapping issues amongst the respondents in this case ms brady who represents mr chadwick is going to address the collateral estoppel argument because that's more applicable to her client i'm time i'm going to address some of the others i wanted to focus my remarks on something that was said in the reply brief in the standard for economic versus non economic cases and that simply does not exist talking about the matzoh sheet a case and the matzoh sheet a case is admittedly an economic case it's a rico case involving predatory pricing but it's also the underlying allegation is that there was a conspiracy to engage in the predatory pricing scheme the supreme court did not make a distinction of economic versus non economic  causes of action what the supreme court did was look at the advisory committees notes the one nine hundred sixty three notes one rule fifty six he was revised and what they said was that well fift went when you read it in total it creates somewhat of a heightened standard when the allegation on its face seems implausible if it makes no economic sense then the plaintiff has to come up with some persuasive evidence in order to raise that genuine issue of material fact and that i think gets to the crux of the issue with regards to detective moore and berg what on earth was in it for him that's a question that has never been answered it's a question i posed at the hearing on the summary judgment and it's a question i would pose today detective moore and byrd was a thirty year veteran of the force he barely knew mr chadwick they had a shared hobby and he had investigated a couple of other crimes at the dealership that was the extent of the relationship counsel why are you so worried about this issue of motivation motivation really has nothing to do with the probable cause civil lawsuit it had nothing to do with him so why would he risk just thirty year career fabricate evidence lie on the stand risk criminal prosecution to help a passing acquaintance i think it just shows that there is really when you when you peel the onion back even just past the first layer there's no there there when it comes to this case and each cause of action is like a domino that falls thereafter when you talk about probable cause to seize the truck the court  picked up on this it's not a beyond a reasonable doubt standard it's a fair probability that a crime had been committed or was being committed and detective moore and byrd had been told it was an out of state sale the plates had been he goes to the hotel and there's the truck with the plates if that's not probable cause then what is he certainly had probable cause to seize the vehicle with regards to the other charges the perjury and the bribery the d m v statement of facts which was signed  penalty of perjury says on its face it's an out of state sale and mr collins signed that and then he sees the truck that's probable cause of perjury and then you get to the bribery and mr corker brought up mr boyd and yes mr boy testified at his deposition two years later differently than what he told detective moore and berg that doesn't mean that detective moore and burke was fabricating evidence it just means there's a discrepancy in the testimony mr we the bribery very quickly on one l because i want to leave ms brady her time all know now there has to be shown a showing in evidence that the customer policy was a moving force of the constitutional violation sargeant jollof all he did was require that the form be filled out and that form is important because the complainant is acknowledging that it's a misdemeanor to submit a false application detective jolliffe didn't do nothing he didn't refuse to investigate he gave them the form and said if you fill this form out and send it back to me i will investigate they never sent back the form there is no evidence of money well the city should not be in this case without i'm going to yield to mr brady thank you money honors and radio on behalf of scott chadwick i just have a few issues to address i just want to inform the court that as it has already keyed in that issue the standard for probable cause is was it objectively reasonable for the defendant to suspect pla had committed a crime as to my client it was objective the reasonable from the evidence that was put forth at the summary judgment stand hearing he had a lot porter who went out he was directed to remove the license plate he removed the license plate my client then began to receive all these phone calls from people afterwards warning him that something was going on with mr collins then he received notification the mr collins still had the license plates on the truck he became concerned for his own business and he made a police report that's the basis of his liability and there just it was objective lead reasonable for him to report the stolen license plates at that time and i want to move on she wanted to statements that were made by counsel for mr collins had run into each other at one event that is the other outside of their business conduct whereas detective moore and burke was researching events happened and police reports over the years that had been made at that auto sales shop other than that they didn't reasonable at the criminal hearing for mr collins the court found that there was probable cause to hold him over for trial on the issues as the text of more berg arrest him for and therefore collateral  and found unfortunately don't have the quote in front of me but found that that it was credible to believe that the acts had been committed and the testimony the judge base that on at that criminal hearing was a test  re absolutely honor that is exactly my argument the only two witnesses that were there were mr chad work and detective moore and byrd and their credibility was a challenge by mr harper extensively on cross exam and he had a full opportunity to do so and the court found that there was evidence to base to find probable cause to hold him over and therefore the issue was fully addressed in the criminal court and collateral s i personally haven't seen this so i i just learned about this us morning that i understand the supreme court had declined to accept that question but i could be mistaken on that news to me as being that i mean i would send them notes and letters and they'd say thank you very much but how we had a little meeting with the california supreme court chief justice and she said no we like certified questions and then they started accepting them so if they declined on this one that's news to me and i apologize i don't know for certified question your honor that the week a surprise in this matter and that the finding there and the green case is directly on point and that the probable cause determination was fully addressed at