and had gotten according to the record about ninety percent of their head remedy they're all everything about it that made it in the least bit dangerous if anything ever had and then it was knocked down because he had taken too much time  from my perspective as i was going to due process it's a question of whether the government can hold hearings at one point about the status of the building put a label on that building and never look at it again even though the owner has done and in this case i think in the record says something like twenty four thousand dollars worth of work replacing everything and still saying well you didn't do it fast enough we decided you were out of time even though it's not dangerous anymore and in the kitchen cupboards have to be up and painted if there were carpets on the floor in the plan you need to be carpets if there was tile to be on the floor in the plan there has to be time or that house can still be knocked down for failure to complete it the the street rock basically over everything and it was like eighty percent sheet rock when they came in to knock it down and the question is of course under mcelroy the a get a hearing in a meaningful time distress and so on and the other hand it gives you a great deal more because if you can evaluate the attorney's fees and you get the costs of the experts which is really the principal part even in the case that we did in terms of out of pocket costs it's hiring those people to have discretionary authority to decide on his own whether to after not to act if he did he's immune you know it's just the immunities are very very painful when you're trying and then the question is if you're limited to negligence you can't hold a building just go take your building so that's what he did in his own mind he believed he was already eighty percent there and so when they saw everything when they came in and inspect and they saw everything he would have very and he was pretty much right he put a new refinery train that he changed that all the electrically changed out all the plumbing he changed out everything in the building the last thing he had left to do was this air conditioner and he couldn't afford to buy it and someone bought it for him event the problem is the man had a permit at the time he had the day they destroyed his his building as far as he knew he had a permit he had done all this work had been signed off over a period of time and had i thought there were a california so we had a contract he didn't fulfill his end of the bargain so we got to knock the house down that you know that should have at least they should have had to show that he actually didn't fulfill the contract and then and then was free you also asked to a my fundamental question  sufficient money to do it in the time involved but they're diligent they're moving along they are getting things done and in this case ninety percent of everything is a whole lot of getting things done i think it at the point that you the problem i see in this case since you're saying that the city should have done something more because he was fixing it and then and at the same  time you're saying they have no right to know whether or not he's fixing it because that's a violation of his fourth amendment rights for them to go on try to find out and he can do all this without ever notifying the city that even though he's we want to come and look at your building or if they found the warrant procedure and given him that notice and he realized that they're not not they're they haven't analyzed what i've done here they don't realize i'm done they've seen everything that the airconditioner that by allowing him to repair they have him putting aside the agreement for a moment by allowing him to repair issuing him the building permit to repair and he does work they'd waive their right t isn't dangerous anymore now they're just they're fooling around here because of some technicality i don't have a dangerous building and stopped it and got an independent look at it that you know maybe he's been out of luck i don't know if you're arguing individual defendants the trial court found that on both the search and seizure claims of the fourth amendment they were entitled to qualified immunity i believe that is adequately in the movie papers but there are a number of between the city of sacramento mr marino which calls for inspections were inspected under those those notices and orders and whatnot to take always call up and we need we need we need to come down we have time to you know when you have you not in compliance will either be noticed then existing notice in order to repair or demolish or the agreement was called for if you walk in there on his own it just sort of walk through and you take it he walked in there on his own and there was there was no other people there was no one there you know the building to be and someone putting up a building they'd go to the city and say please give us a permit you're going to come and do these inspections for that i may continue in an orderly process to put my building i mediately before the demolition and determined that there were numerous failures to comply with the city goes including codes involving plumbing ventilation and electricity requested to come out inspect the building on order to the notice in order to repair or demolish which had been found in november of two thousand that had not been complied with so that's that's the best way i can answer your question you the agreement by its terms and i've certainly not expired it required action by it were acquired action by mr marino within a certain period of time that time had expired that time  ninety seven ninety nine two thousand step by step by step and what we see is a progression and it's your he's getting notices he's being told you have to do you have to repair or demolish those findings are being  what they did do it so i can come and say time just time is running out and do it in a vacuum without looking at the building because the activities they have to take place within that specific time relate directly to the condition something harmful well that's good bad or in the information is good bad or indifferent with respect to the due process issues it's it's not important because he had no it's an opportunity to be heard all the steps along cost not under not to my understanding under inverse condemnation proceedings your honor but those high red light now if you like look just those would certainly be available under a tort remedy very succinctly described what what they're deciding and what they are deciding are in the circumstances of that case where you have and you pointed out earlier what is arguably just negligent conduct which results in an unintended consequence of a partial destruction of goods and partial destruction of the building and in an exercise of truly police power in that they were hot pursuit of a criminal suspect  and where we have a specific act intended to and of course excuse me health and safety regulations it wasn't it wasn't negligent it wasn't the wheel of a single bothering me  in fact it doesn't say that on the record in fact we asked about that in deposition and in fact everybody denied finding him to be anything but the most cooperative and benign of people and to bring that up in this kind of hearing