the bill of rights and including the th amendment which was ratified to prevent general warrants and to protect persons security in this case there was never probable cause to search the home of joanne blight the plaintiff who is seventy four years old at the time is now seventy nine years old i'd like to approach this chronologically st i will discuss the fact that the warrant itself was invalid the reason it was invalid is that it was overbroad the reason that it was over brod is that the defendants failed to engage in what would be reasonable which is the touchstone of the th amendment in this case how did they do that they failed to do any investigation which is required under the th amendment as stated by the supreme court notably in maryland v addition the defendant saying you point to a case that that invalidated a warrant because of lack of reasonable investigation because garrison didn't do that the garrison didn't do that and i don't have a case of the top of my head that invalidated a warrant usually because i thought a normal rule was that the officers needed to have probable cause to get the warrant but that they don't have to just keep investigating forever so by that point so we could talk about whether there was probable cause for the warrant but i'm not sure there's a lack of investigation really gets you anywhere if you don't have cases saying that beyond a point where there is probable cause you have to keep investigating  garrison it's south of paris and states that the defendants are that police have a duty to discover and to disclose information to the magi of cases that are in the posture of this case but in this case and this is a situation where there would be qualified immunity unless it's clearly established that the officers did something unconstitutional right so i thoroughly is need to be on the point  to cases that clearly establish the principle it's clearly established in maryland the sense of maryland we garrison didn't and didn't invalidate a warrant for lack of investigation i think we have trouble saying that there needed to be further investigation i think maybe you should talk about probable cause or something else or i mean maybe my colleagues think this is more compelling than i do but i'm having trouble following this line because maryland v kerrison states as i stated that the police are required to discover and disclose certain information to them to the magistrate in this case they have had not only did they have the information based upon the c i deposition they have the  no evidence of that it either but it seems like for your argument that they had some if we take the testimony as true that the officers had some reason to believe the blight that lived there in last we know they didn't share it with nick we still have no idea that nick lived there because they were also told that right the c i no the only evidence that the magistrate had when determining probable cause is one line and the exhibit c which is that neck lived and the other residence that's the only evidence he had the reason i'm focusing on investigation is that everyone knows that the blights lived there and nick did not live there he fighting the facts i really don't i think i think the facts are being ignored by the district court and is there any evidence from any source that the officers were told that the blights lived exclusively lemuel unit and that nick did not live there contrary to what the cia said there is conflicting evidence in the cia's deposition he told he stated in this deposition that he told the officers that the blights lived and their home he also told defense counsel and his  his memory was refresh that he informed the police that nec lived in that same home in this case is a summary judgement case so all reasonable inferences are to be found in who really live there and there was never that's why i focus on investigation there was never any investigation in this case the mailboxes were ignored so yes it is a reasonable inference that  home but he but they didn't put that the blights lives in the mobile home in the affidavit not unlike the claim that there was lying to the judge or judicial deception but then that has to be material and so we get back to whether they could have shared the mobile home there is there is there is no reasonable inference that that neck and the blights shared the mobile home the c i never stated anything of the sort or if he said they both know there isn't that sort of like saying they shared it with the way he makes the statements is such that there is no indication that nick was living in the house with a blights made in his death in his deposition there is no independent evidence that he thought they both live together or that they did there is there is absolutely nothing because there was no investigation ever and under illinois gates there was no corroboration of the cia's information so eleanor i v gates was also violated and that's that you're making that there's an inner court investigation under gerritsen but assuming that argument and sue me that our argument were to be rejected by the pan isn't there some authority the talks about when the police have to stop and search that they've started and make further investigation  learning that something's different than what they thought of course that's that's in this case that should be an automatic reversal in this case because i would keep it you haven't addressed that point yes nick and the kids were home the officers who executed the warrant found neck in the main house so this is a situation where lead is nowhere to be found because he didn't live there he never lived there since two thousand and twelve so you have nec being found in the main house he's called the primary by the swat officers they also learned that there was an elderly resident ms bligh in the other house there is no probable cause to believe that she had anything to do with this marijuana operation at that point in time the search had to be that tell the officers that the only place he lives on this property is in the main house how do they know that the wife and the kids don't stay in the main house and nick sleeps in the mobile home i mean the whole property could be his home right how do we know specifically that it's impossible that nick lives in the mobile home at that point the woman told the officers on the street that mrs bligh was in the other house right but we get back to this idea that perhaps she sleeps in one bedroom and nick sleeps in the other no but nick came out of the main house right maybe he was giving the kids breakfast in the main house even though he lives in the mobile home those were his kids right so the only reasonable inference at that point in time is that is not here because of the inaccurate information given by the informant and absolutely no investigation done by the police lee is not here no cars were ever checked out the mailboxes were ignored and you have neck coming out of the main house which is where he lives because that's where his children are and then you have mrs blight to the officers have any idea whether nick was related to the blight they were never told that nec had any relation to the flights all they were told the diagram by the way was was invisible until february th two thousand and seventeen it was never presented to the judge or anything but i'm over my time but the the only statement made in the statement of probable cause was that necklace another house that that's it there's no evidence there's two key problems with the analysis that plaintiffs have offered this court the st one is there's a lot of factual characterizations and accusations that bear no resemblance to the facts that exist in this record the is plaintiff imposes legal obligations on these officers that simply do not exist and would be impractical and impossible to put into play in the real world i don't spend a lot of time talking about whether an investigation w conducted as your honor pointed out there was an investigation conducted they met with the c i they drove by the property they used google maps to confirm they used the d m v in clear websites to confirm information they confirmed with a d m v photo and the c i provided them a diagram of the property on two occasions during this investigation the see i told the officers that nick lived in that mobile home he did it once when they were on the drive by the st drive by where they had a google maps open and the see i was pointing out the characteristics of the property and who lived where and and the c i did it a nd time when he brought provided a hand drawn diagram that specifically labeled lee's house which was the main house and nick's house which was the mobile home your opposing counsel thinks that this diagram was created after the warrant was obtained the diagram was created at some point before the search the evidence in the record is that it was procured it was given to the officers garcia didn't request it but the c i prepared it provided it to the officers sometime before the rd of october which was a day before the search but the information on that diagram regardless of the exact date information on that diagram about where nick lived was the same information that the c i told the officers when they were in the car together driving by and the same and then was to confirm an arrow is your point when you're saying it's the same information that they were told her boy about where nick learned that really this diagram doesn't matter well the diagram matters because it it corroborate it confirms that the the c i told them before the warrant was issued clearly that nick lived in this mobile home at some point before the search they also receive this diagram from the c i that repeats that and it's in his own handwriting and the one thing that is clear about the sea ice testimony maybe the only thing clear about the cia's testimony is that that handwriting on that diagram is definitely has the c i prepared  sure i thought he said it probably has or know there was a place where finally the c i says yes that is mine and i'm one hundred percent certain that i was responsible for preparing this diagram so the c point seven nineteen in the morning comes out of the main building where his children are at that point does it become clear that nick doesn't live in the mobile unit lives in the main and should not search stop this search absolutely should not stop because the swat team the officers get onto the property they get there nick they make their announcements nick exits the house children exit later as well but the officers never they don't go into the house all they know is nick is coming out of it there could have been a one million recent snick was in that house the officers knew at the time they were in for that search that the main house was with the c i told them was where some of the drug operation things were going on that's where marijuana was stored and that's where evidence of the operation might be happening and it could have been in there at work that day your honor's point was exactly right that information that he's leaving the house doesn't really tell the police anything and it that idea that they would have known nick live there and missed the light lived in the trailer alone contradicted all of the information that the police had prior to that moment so the law tells us that if a search is being conducted and somebody at tells the officers oh john doesn't live in that unit or my son isn't home and doesn't live here anymore officers don't have to take that as truth  contradicts the information that they already know and when they can't verify it in that moment the officers could not verify nics rare where nick lived or nick's relationship with that mobile home in that moment without conducting the search they they had to go and the officers testified that they had to clear those houses out of anyone because remember they're walking into a situation that they think is incredibly volatile with paranoid folks there that had been robbed that have guns that have dogs they're concerned about safety so they're not blazing into this house to search it until they've got everything clear so under the law the state of hawaii case that we side in ayers case that we cite they were not obligated to take the word of the suspect or the suspects wife about who a wet weather nick lived or did not live in that trailer and by the way there's no evidence that either nick or the wife actually said nick doesn't live in that trailer they just said blight lived in that trailer so we're back to this fundamental question what does that matter because as long as nick lived there too it doesn't matter who owned the trailer it doesn't matter if the blights lived there as well the only thing that mattered for probable cause and for the constitutionality of this search is that the officers thought there was we're told there was a connection with nick and that mobile home which gave them probable cause to search i have to talk about one other thing because it is not true the evidence is not it is not true that the officers were told nick lived in the blights house we know that the confidential informant said the blights lived on the property but never says way or so the officers don't know going into that where the blight slipped then all the confidential informant gives a long laundry list of responses that are i don't recall responses that see i did not if we're going to take the facts in plaintiff's favor then we have this testimony by the c i that blights lived on the property and when they arrive the wife tells them that mrs white is in the mobile home and the husband has left for work so it doesn't that in inferences in their favor tell us that the bites live in the mobile home well the blights might live in the mobile home but that's immaterial but i may be right but i'm just not sure why you're pressing this point that there wasn't an inference that the boys lived in the mobile home it seems like that's probably not fair to the plaintiffs well i think the way the record is being characterized doesn't it just doesn't fit with the actual testimony that was provided and we go over this on our brief we give you the case citations but this is what we know this is what was undisputed the c i told the officers that nick lived in the mobile home and the c i never said where the blight slipped so you might have a we have a comment from the suspect in the suspects wife that the blights was there but we're back to materiality because as far as the officers know nick lives there too so it doesn't make any difference to the officers who are executing the search warrant and it doesn't invalidate the warrant on summary judgment the judge took all of this internally inconsistent testimony from the c i about who lived where and what he said and st of all says gee the cia's testimony is so internally contradictory that it's hard for reasonable fact finder to take really anything from it but then he says giving the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt as i have to do on summary judgment the most we can say is what i just said that nick lived in the mobile home and perhaps the blights live there too he said about who lived where without paying attention to all of the other places where he contradicted himself so we have a weird situation here where the c r needs to be treated as credible to have there be a probable cause for the war just didn't remember it had been a long time ago but at the time i think that question is irrelevant you can't go backward in time at the time the warrant was applied for and this information was being provided the officers knew this c i they had worked with the cia on other cases the cia had provided accurate information in those cases they had every reason to believe he was reliable and trustworthy and in fact everything the c i said was true except that the blights at the property because the operation was at the property so he would see lee at the property because he was there within two weeks helping lee with some of the operational work that they were doing so yes you're right maybe lee lived in another house but it doesn't matter because there's no because that evidence is clear that the growing operation was out that property and lee was still associated with that property so i think we're we just i'm constantly feeling like we're coming back to the place that all of these inferences plaintiff would like to draw are either not supported they're not reasonable and supported by the record or they just don't matter they just don't matter green and the c i says the light is red and the court improperly says ok i'm going to disregard that it's a case where three people say the light is green and the c i says in deposition the light is red the light is green i don't know what the light is and the court says what can i do with that on summary judgment that cannot create a a triable issue of fact so that that's our evidentiary problem is part of your argument that this whole property was part of the marijuana operations it doesn't really matter who or where yes i mean yes there are thirty two aspects of that the court in us out versus alexander tells us a search of an entire property even with different homes and buildings on it is fine if the entire property is in the suspects control or is own it in the control or if the it's suspect because of the drug operation that's going on i'm sorry so in both of those things are true here we know from the evidence about the entire property was being used for this drug operation there's growing outside there was outbuildings being used for drying that was the home being used for storage and we also know that nick was associated with the mobile home and we know that drug dealers and their assistants often keep evidence where they live so the whole thing is suspect and the other part of that equation lee owned that entire property when the blight owns the mobile home it's personal property on it but it's a four acre parcel and owned the entire thing in fact the if you look at the evidence in the record on the assessor the tax issues it's the same parcel number that's associated with the mobile home and with the property itself so i think both of those alexander elements are met and so it really again it really doesn't matter i'm running out of time so i just want to make one touch point on the qualified immunity issue because i think ultimately even if there was some section the officers were not told the officers testified they were not told that light lived in the mobile home and i thought they were no they were not they were told that nick lived in the mobile home and  lived in the house they were never told that blight lived in the mobile home they were never told that's what i'm saying if you look although counsel continues to say that they were never told that and if you look at the citations to the record you'll see that that is true all that they were told all that they found out later was that blight maybe maybe lived in the property as well but they were at the time that warrant was issued and that affidavit was submitted the only thing the officers were told was that nick lived in mountain home and that is it and that lee lived in the main house but that's it so there's no judicial deception in this record and there's nothing about the face of the warrant that would show that it was obviously defective in some way so i'm not sure what you just it is right because i thought the when we're looking at this e r one thousand four hundred before it's it's the c i saying he told garcia officer garcia that the blights lived on the property yes he that the black lived on the property not excuse me not in the mobile home and there's a conscious there's a difference the officers testified that before the warrant was issued the c i never mentioned  mentioned it at all there's conflicting evidence on that the c i testifies in deposition that she said to them that the blights lived on the property but did not say where and that part of it is undisputed that was still omitted in the warren application that the officers could have said to the judge we think there are elderly people living somewhere on this property if yes i agree with you that if that if the officers had known that if it's true that the c i said that which we will accept for our purposes the officers could have said it but it would not have made a difference because again we're back to materiality it didn't matter as long as nick lived there too it didn't matter if the blights were there correct yes then he is asked to show me where that blights house is on the diagram and he points ok so the statement just made by counsel is absolutely false where ok so they say where did the blights live any points where does that say that he told the officers that he just said right here it says below that on the next page eight hundred and twenty four and  osborne yes line three and four in questioning by mr allen when asked isn't it true that you were not promised that you were just going to meet with the da no that is not true i was promised to have my cases resolved he had three cases he had three kick three felonies he was going to get three felonies knock down a misdemeanor that's his testimony and that was not told to the magistrate ok thank you