argue i believe the plaintiffs have put their positions fairly in the opening brief and in the reply very and not meaning to waste anybody's time should because i have nothing further to add g what we're doing now is we're testing the procedure in the policy to go in and look for parolees we're not talking about invasion the whole we're talking about whether you can at all without reasonable suspicion go look for or find or go into their homes or their places of residence that you i don't understand what you mean by we're testing as well because you're saying that without reasonable suspicion they couldn't go to the ho believe they argue that they could go to the door at any time and not in the door but right you're out of the argument i read very clearly is that unless you find that the pearly is violent someone can go look in somebody else looking for and as a result of that because even though he was a indications before they went out they were given information through the superiors that this was where motley where is a jamison jamison used to live and this was his girlfriend whatever and one of the officers in fact knew that he was there at one time and so if you get past that and they go looking for must suppose they had reasonable suspicion that morning that he shot somebody then anyone camera and she said he's not here and he's not paroled if you go through the not going to do i'm just going to say that he is what they were told they told that he that was he was known to be there i think i don't know what the exact with the language was because i don't want to give space but they knew that they were told that james and could be found  superior so everybody on the on the job that went out there to find things to see if you was there had to make another determination individually as to whether he was there before they could go through the door well let's take the facts as they are none of all of th officers none of them had reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity not of them had any reasonable suspicion that there was a parolee in violation of the sprawl you know a non criminal violation such as drinking beer with no friends  sanchez actually bothered to pick up the phone two days later after this occurred and i think under those circumstances and the manner in which this occurred drawing the wet and down on the child in the manner that it was done particularly by officer kading the roll search in this case the california supreme court looked at the issue of what is the standard for all searches in people versus right and they very very clearly stated you can do these searches without having individualized suspicion of criminal activity crawl violation etc that was the pronouncement of the california supreme court that's months before this search is done this of course is relevant to the question of qualified immunity what  the state of the law was that clearly established in terms of parole searches athlete time of the search for the officer's reasonable involve reading that the state of the law was what they were doing w constitutionally permissible well good and reasonable for l a p d and the other officers involved in this situation to look at the pronouncements of the california supreme court for determination of what were the governing here they have to walk away i am i one it's not that he's not here she says he's in jail isn't that a little different well it is just as you say he's not here if he's in jail or he's at the market i don't think her saying where he was pulling together the parole package officer kading had worked in the area for some time and that office route as well was very familiar with the gang pattern there keep in mind mr jamieson was a certified member of the four tradecraft gang he was very well known to the manner which they may have heard and they all point maybe they heard the brother who was in the front house maybe they heard his voice so in terms of what the officers attractively knew the information out of the officers there's nothing to refute that they heard a male voice somewhere in the procedure i'm checking to see if there's somebody present in the room i've got my weapon drawn but let's look at whether there's a constitutional violation even based on her version of the fact we're talking about a five week old baby it's preposterous to assume trial and we don't look at what the mother thought or how the river or how the gun pointed at the baby means i'm going to shoot your baby if i don't get something or how do i analyze it maybe if there was  let's look at more generally is it unreasonable for these officers who are now in the house looking to see whether or not somebody else in the house in particular of this known gang member is in the house to have their weapon drawn when they're clearing through this and i don't believe there's any evidence in the record there's no testimony one way or the other but somehow it got out i don't know your honor if that even happened because there's no sworn testimony but i would be happy to address that if you give me more time but i have only five minutes lots of verses for texas united states versus daley and i believe the jones case and the second circuit all these cases say you can do a parole search even after you are aware that the person is back in custody so we have to look at this from the perspective of a reasonable officer and the the records of the department of corrections now there were a number of cases cited for the first number of statutes and for the first time dealing with clients i want to emphasize that there have been there's a number of arguments and evidence going the record that had james like a larry webster well line officers they were given information judged well and are expensive or they found there was nothing obviously unreliable about that information and there is nothing to controvert that in the record i just would like to make one more point to raise an issue for the first time in there if i agree that issue is whether judge morrow abused her discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration of the grant of summary judgment to my clients what happened was my clients were the new arguments and put things in the record that should have nothing to do with the motion that was filed with respect to my client's yielding grief does not raise the issue of the motion for reconsideration own that only comes in the reply brief and we believe that  's too late to raise this issue and to make to bring this evidence in but if you allow that to happen we ask you to keep in mind the question is whether judge moore abused her discretion with respect to that motion for reconsideration and we don't believe that there's any evidence  record they're going to say that the position which took place later somehow there's new evidence i don't see anything in the room deposition that contradicts with my client's that and if there was this argument has been developed even in the reply brief it isn't fair here for me briefing officer that what the warrant said and what its parameters were my clients should not be in a worse position because they've scuse me on what the but the briefing officers told me they had no way to know that this that this warrant w way every single person has to check and then you have group liability you don't look at the individual anymore you're just strictly liable for other mistakes that somebody else might have made even if you had a reason to rely on that's not fair your honor i mean my clients fifteen people participating in this and every single one of these people have to go independently check every single one of the information to make sure it's accurate and where do you go you have to go to make sure it's really accurate enough that you have to go to they had access to but the department of corrections database which is much more up to date that's what you should be looking at the marshal's office computers and i don't leave i don't know you the question is whether they had some reason to check what did they have some reason not to rely on this information well there's some history that this this information wasn't reliable the record tells us no there is nothing just moral found that there was nothing obviously unreliable that this information in my files had a right to rely on i'd also like to say that to hold them responsible for that this concept that the vicarious liability for in a constitutional court is not accepted thank you very much supervisor event and she should stand so you're saying her rationale of regard the supervisors actions was correctly analyzed by her with the facts that was before her i believe even though it's not my client and if i can  would not have been enough in any event they need a probable cause because they knew he had a cohabitant if not before they went out there which would you extent cadence version is true he knew this house so well even where everybody lived in the son lived in the front of the house with the have not even some minimal standard of reasonable suspicion there was discussion about whether a man was in the house is clearly a dispute it is to have fact that the parties have differing versions and again the burden is on the defen promotion for summary judgment third sentence it's they did not meet that burden regarding the baby's rights i don't think you have to know your rights are being violated to have a claim number one and there was no medical access period to parole records officer grooved or explained that caning was in charge of checking the parole records then later with trying to retract that statement saying he didn't know and then it came out that some list of multiple parolee and crimes to justify acting against pro a poorly that doesn't amount to reasonable suspicion under federal law and under california law it's not enough for a parole search so therefore california law