issues related to the ocean to compel there are two primary issues to address with respect to the summary judgment motions the st whether the damage caused during the execution of the search warrants was excessive  that excessive damage to property violates the th and a test to determine whether or not it is excessive is reasonable and when we look at this we look at what was the nature of the the search was in a high risk search that involved a search for invasive search for weapons drugs were there flash grenades and spoke bombs that were being used which were somebody there who was  our there is no did minimal standard there is nothing if just a very minimal amount of damage was caused and it's not as per se and reasonable you have to look at the totality of the circumstances you look at the damage these kind of him supes are so often people who are the object of the search are just furious that the search was even on to take and they're going to bring suit and what they really of the objecting to is the all kinds of things will qualify i don't think this is is changing the law i think this is applying the standard that's currently out there in what you look at the totality of the circumstances there are certainly cases that have more damage but there are near ripping about what i mean you sort of throw in the kitchen sink here you've got one of the elements of damage is a window sticker was removed well maybe you would prefer that the and then you say well there was a fire here and the fire was was caused by water  or caused the fire and the search in some way cause the warder but the problem was there was never very speculative because there was never any warder there's never any rain between the time of the search and the time of the fire so i don't understand where the water would come from there's no r would when it did rain is when the damage erodes and so you had to search that occurred before the before the search there was no problem with leaking when a search occurred afterwards there was when it rained there was damage that occurred inside the building upset may actually sort of apply when you think about it from that perspective in terms of you don't have an issue before you have an event that occurs and then you have damage that occurs after that if you investigate what caused it and you look and you see the conduit on the roof and all these wires ran through you had been dissed laws and that's how the water got in and caused the damage because there had been pulling on these wires there had been wires that had been cut on the roof there's all these in this search in the supreme court in pretty clear it was a general matter the negligent negligence is insufficient where mere property damages involve negligence is  sufficient to a recovery you envision a property that's correct in contrast intentional malicious damages and i think here when you look at the facts objective and see what happened that this if you're see be intentional the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the balance is that there was absolutely no reason to remove any of this not even the lighting in the cameras are all tangled up in one and i would argue that's the testimony of the there's a lot more history there which we've alleged related to the relationship with the sheriff which is consistent with it but you had there was no reason to do that the security cameras wires weren't tangled the easily could have been removed all they had to do was be unplugged there was a twelve inch court that came out of the security cam it's all he had to do was unplugged and so the the testimony if you don't light most favorable of the balance is that there absolutely was no reason at all to be yanking on these wires to be cutting these they do the test the evidence in the record and again light most favorable to the appellants is that they were not tank and that they they were fifteen feet or so apart the way that they ran one into one conduit one  to a constitutional violation and then that the evidence also shows that each of these defendants are liable for we saw a deputy dever up on the roof he's the one person that we could actually see he was positively identified and because of that they've admitted that he was up on the roof they just said well it was tangle they come up with excuses which we don't believe for purposes of summary judgment we look at the other object and so we know he caused damage we know that he may have caused the damage that was inside you can make inferences a th circuit case that the ills with this that when there is similar damage that occurs somewhere else you can infer that that same person caused that damage elsewhere  and then there's the law that if you are not simply a bystander but an active participant that you are liable for the damage that has caused during the execution of the search see my time has expired  that was that on the motion well we believe this is a abuse of discretion standard and we understand that that is a high standard to overcome however we believe in this case that the law and the facts do overcome that standard a number one we were we because we were prevented from doing two things in these these depositions by the objections of the counsel one was we were prevented from inquiring into direct actions that conferences held before the raid was and it in no evidence had been had been examined the charges that were filed that they were char were filed on the basis of no examination of the ins the assistant district attorney testified that he had no overcome summary judgment if your question is did it in this case i would say that it is because i know the group your characterization of his testimony and that he did have direct if you didn't have any direct knowledge of the facts to the damage that was done and whether it was necessary it was virtue of his window somebody made a comment about the window sticker and what it was a large mural you know just torn down left there and there was continue to look into these questions about what policies the d a s office were whether they were followed in this case and if they were not followed why they weren't followed and also the instructions that were see by the a d a s with regard t and searching plaintiff's illegal gambling business playing county sheriff's office seize one hundred and thirteen computer monitors eighty eight c p u's sixty four keyboards in twenty standalone illegal kiosk for sweepstakes personal causation there is no evidence that she had anything to do whatsoever with the window sticker next they also seem to suggest that the plaintiffs are that the defendants completely denied having any involvement whatsoever and that's necessary to remove the lighting in order to remove the security camera lighting but i think what's critical is to look at what is the damage that's being alleged with respect to the lighting during mr smith's deposition testimony when a was damaged this is two and a half years after the search he said i don't know i haven't plugged into the power source which was allegedly damaged during the fire if i plugged it in i guess i would find out so there's no evidence the l e d lighting itself wouldn't even did you have to be real still yes can you do that by hand and i think that's a good point that you raise because on the record they admit in their quest for admission that it can be removed and reinstalled without issue and this is a really good example of the least intrusive means standard called labor sure it would take labor your honor but i think the key is that this is a plastic track and you simply place it in three take it out and what they say is that he shouldn't have just pulled it by hand he should have used the handle with respect to security camera they say he should there i believe that there were twenty two individuals and sixteen of which were from the plane county sheriff's office was the helicopter was there how come there was a helicopter there was there briefly was the helicopter well it really has nothing to do with the destruction that's a leisure on  question the helicopter was there because there was a missing person search taking place in a nearby county the sheriff was coming by to do the searching because he was called there's only involved either way the day of the search he's called he has to deliver a u haul truck that he was currently at an elementary who said they saw no damage whatsoever but again just with a ride on the premises according to his testimony moments after the search was conducted in he said he'd documented all of the damage that took place took photos where there are photos there are none in the case is plain a sight you have before and after photographs you have testimony in the court still says it's a close call in a lot of the cases that they cite and some of those there's no potential of a reasonable mistake or negligence and that's all that if you take the evidence in the light m credit just missed testimony deputy years actions on top of the roof were negligent with the computers he sees yes there was c yes one hundred and thirteen things you talked about no damage you seized two hundred and thirteen computer monitor with the question is what's left in it you look for damages not what you took away in that would mean anything almost put them in there because we didn't we didn't damage anything that we took away in all that's left they refer  that when you are going to a business and you are searching for electronic equipment and you tear wires you requires you cut wires that's relatively minor destruction of property that is acceptable under the th amendment and it's were officers were brought up show was where there was some objective evidence of just coming in and tearing up a person's property from beginning to end up looting things damaging things unnecessarily leaving the whole premises a total wreck and a mess and you know really we don't we don't have that here i mean not only is there no least being standard but the supreme court's been perfectly clear that negligence if there was negligence here is not sufficient to  unconstitutional property yes your honor that's it just seems to me in light of the legal landscape in light of the different factual circumstances in these cases across the hundreds of computer equipment in the process the reason they had so many people there the search still took over six hours of the course of the day even with all those individuals there because they were being careful with the property that you mention and i think it is important to note that it's not just that the damage minor but the cases that they cite for excessive force there was no possibility of a reasonable mistake like deaver on top of a roof was confronted with the riot wires may accidently pool in the wrong one in those cases they have an individual searching for a machine gun who then submerge the different gun in a stomped on a video game console he stomped on a video game controller you can't possibly be confused that that's not a person or the person would be hiding inside a video game trailer so here what you have at this is a reasonable mistake there is no there's because my colleagues mainly relied on that with respect to mr david they were there and exactly correct that some use of discretion standard district courts have brought discovery in terms of manner to discovery and its scope and the only abuse  how this would be done i would be executed the details was it not that was a question and council roof directed the pony not to answer that's correct they were they were so i would never be relevant if  the allegations that he instigated i think that's the word he was part of the instigation of so you have your agents their theory is that you instigated him and you never said he was there the simply it's too it's based on conjecture and speculation that's not what i'm sorry conjecture and speculation no no no i'm saying this theory and then we got some of the evidence that supports it we're talking about the theory of malice it has to be proven you're right right correct well i think i don't think so wrecked you have to prove it if they're if you make the allegation vessel theory you have to prove malice correct correct but there's that all right in part of it the fact that you're asking the person who was a direct party who they didn't really play any role in searches but didn't answer his question that's what counsel to be that's the whole point of the adversarial system answer my question is counts not with you till someone else that's the whole point of deposition correct but i think what happened here was just a court judge who was warrant should be executed or wasn't there it may have been relevant in some sense but the the basis of the ruling was cumulative duplicative is absolutely correct that's right  supervisory liability all the rest unless you find if there was something done wrong absolutely correct that's exactly right but we would also submit the separate from suffer from that there was just no  discretion as as as from israel she testified as well that she arrived at the searches when they were mostly complete reacher empty that she didn't see the structure of any property and that and that she didn't remember what she'd said anyone else who was actually car simply wouldn't provide it's simply not worth the candle to require these people to come back in because the evidence was really there's a mountain of evidence that mr david had nothing to do with the search there were five signed affidavits from members of the sheriff's office who said that he had nothing to do with that he you know sometimes or just thank you couple of quick points one as you heard opposing counsel say well there are a number of cases that are doing it when there is sort of limited to any damage damage to a gun and damage to ceramic bowls things like that laser all cases we cite in our brief his response to that is that well it was clear that it was improper to damage those items there but the significance of that and what these cases stands for is that a matter if the value of it was a couple one hundred dollars or three one thousand dollars it's whether or not it's a reasonable and here when the evidence viewed in light most favorable to the plaintiffs is that it wasn't reasonable it was gratuitous that's what we allege that this was intentional conduct and if you look at it objectively if there was absolutely no reason to you sometime search warrants are necessarily rodham there turner if you look at the seizure we're not complaining about the scope of the search here we're complaining about the manner in which it was conducted and there are certain situations where there was no need to cause any damage and that's the thrust of that case the point the other point is i heard argument that you know there was all of these computers that were collected and none of them are yemenis yes a bunch of computers in equipment work elected but there's nothing in the record about those who are not in those events see we haven't seen those i don't know if they've been damaged or not what i know is what we have seen which is the physical premises that was left behind raible to go in there and we know the condition of the floor and we see what happened we see all the lights that have been removed we see the cords that have been cut lots of courts lots of unplug and astronaut and that's what mr smith testified to with all of the spec it was easy to you know they say to pacific marine and pacific marine they said you know the pulling of wires and the damage was not unreasonable under the circumstances but there was no evidence in there that there was an easy alternative that they could simply be on and that was the only damage in that case there wasn't other damage other wires con other things that had been ripped off like there is here in this case  i see my time has expired and so if there are any other questions i'm happy to answer those otherwise be specially requests the court to reverse the the district courts thank you we're going to ask you