new please the court morning good morning my name is james mcgarry i'm a private attorney i represent appellants investigator john wilson and the department of the california highway patrol notwithstanding a investigator wilson's alleged misstatements and claimed omissions fueled by mr honan's everchanging story good cause yet remain to proceed with the searches as the cameron case tells us probable cause exists where a reasonable officer has ok jand to believe that the search will uncover evidence relating to a suspected crime the evidence in this case which has been a dues demonstrates that investigator wilson had information from mr ayres that he had been assaulted battered and threatened mr wilson or investigator wilson also had information that a twenty nine hundred dollars computer had been rendered useless counsel before you go on with that part of the argument or buy something from me in this case their allegations if you will judicial deception in actually the issuance of the second search warrant dispositive as to whether the search warrants were were valid rather the ruling does not satisfy the requisite elements for collateral estoppel on due process or of qualified immunity and by that i mean to say that the elements of identity of the issues finality and privity are not met first with respect to the identity issues the suppression order is not identical to the issue of qualified attack on investigator wilson's alleged misstatements and claimed omissions and what they're fueled by is an ever changing story by mr hunt you mentioned up for but my point is simply that your client may be absolutely right i don't know but at this stage of the proceeding don't we have to assume that the allegation is true and if so doesn't that affect our analysis of whether  law and with regard to the second warrant which is the search at the home if you construe the facts as allege in the light most favorable to the plaintiff then that would  can it be otherwise well there are other and the warrant i mean the warrant for the home i think the analysis may differ with regard to the first search or well may respond your honor but what i believe it was indicated during the second more an application was that certain things were discovered but there was a good reason to believe that other ammunition and weapons would also be found at that at the house i don't think that was an unreasonable expectation we didn't go there initially to find ammunition and weapons we went there looking for evidence of a recording and that's what we found in the possession of a person who was not permitted to possess weapons as a convicted felon so that was unexpected but that's that was part of the the fruit of the first search so that led us to the second warrant application can you discuss the issue we discussed in the other case with regard to inviting mr ayres to be present at the search warrant well keep he was invited he was there to assist he was there to assist us in connection with what we were searching for which was prescribed by the search warrant i guess and i understand your answer he was there to assist you in getting the tape recording he was well that that was that was the breadth of the of the search warrant as as your honour's of noted it didn't extend the i thought that he was there to finish the inspection of the records the original purpose for which he visited the premises well i can't speak to mr ayres intentions because the the purpose for which investigator wilson obtain the both testified that they went there because the c h p officer asked them if they wanted to finish their investigation that's what they testified to but i believe there's a different interpretation that by by investigator wilson well then where are we i think wilson asked ayres if they would like to use the opportunity while the officers on the premises to search to get the warrant to complete the tax inspection that's what but now you're confusing me because if he's inviting them there to do their investigation and that's not what the warrant was for as you just said you're correct ok so that he doesn't get qualified immunity for that no i disagree around it respectfully as i said  qualified immunity as as i noted in my reply brief affords breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgment and protects all but a counsel with respect i mean you're reciting the platitudes of many facts as alleged by the other side you know i believe you can your own how do we do that well for the reasons i was i was beginning to enunciate that it protects the breathing room well well that the  result of that is that it protects all but the plainly incompetent and those who knowingly violate the law doesn't help right and i go to another point  off the california court of appeal found that both warrants were invalid not just the second mortgage so i want to address that first warrant since you seem to think that the analysis might differ between them  officer wilson knew that he had to allege that a felony had occurred because no warrant would issue simply for a misdemeanor he made multiple faults statements him both warrants and he left out several pieces of road and from relevant information it's not just that you'd have to also show that but for omission or misrepresentation no search warrant would have been issued so your the way you frame it we don't  analysis analysis there we have to say let's say those statements are excised from the affidavit would there still be probable cause to go in and search for the videotape so  there's some additional facts and i correct me if i'm modeling them but there are allegations that the affidavit suggesting that there's a posting at the business premises indicating that the business is under surveillance so there was reason to believe that there would be a videotape found even separate and apart from this disputed interaction or statements back and forth between your client and the officer  that first place ok two things number one own and states that he absolutely never told them that there would be a video or audio tape and points out the logical to and took a tour of a trance building they talked to him about what happened on may seventh they talked to him and and it all happened inside the entryway and they would have seen the entryway they then took a tour of the entire facility and they saw where the cameras were the cameras are in a giant room that is completely separated by a wall and doors you know from the entryway so the cameras that they ripped out of the walls and that they had seen on may sixteenth and knew were the surveillance equipment they would also have known it could be the there was no physical way for those cameras to have recorded what happened on may seventh so you're saying the physical configuration was such that they would have known the camera was not pointed at the area where the altercation occurred correct just as i know that that camera is not recording what's happening and judge by his office what is the sign say the i you know i don't know and so i wouldn't want to misstate i'm sorry and i am not aware of that it's not anywhere in the summary judgment record i believe and so i'm not sure where where that comes from i be happy to look it up however and get back to your honor and answer the question can i have you address or clarify the record with regard to a fault arrest allegation or claim what period of time  are you talking about the detention during the search yes and if that's the case why does the officer not get qualified immunity for that he would not f they would support both first off let me address the contention that you should be the court to even gauge in this analysis the california court of appeal has already held that the search warrant is invalid and we would argue that that under it that issue preclusion does apply counsel stated that the ruling was not final but in fact it is under the rules of california procedure that ruling they actually the attorney general saw it reconsideration of that ruling and it was denied and that ruling is fact finally conditioned branding and yet change the analysis it might have if there's a that a judge signed off on these boards that's true and that is their main argument is that well gosh a magistrate judge signed off on the completely discounted that same argument and held that just because a magistrate signs off where you have a situation like we have here where the officer has actually misrepresented facts to the magistrate and withheld relevant information from the magistrate then that doctrine does not apply and the officer is not entitled to rely upon the holding of the magistrate that a warrant should have the evidence suppressed and they did not find a good faith exception applied they actually held that the evidence must be suppressed unless it was a conditional ramp right so they said superior court unless you dismiss the certainly does and also the full faith and credit clause of the u s constitution demands that this court give full faith and credit to the california court of appeals decision secondly good faith was also fully briefed in argued when the attorney general sought its own petition for writ of mandate to overturn the california court of appeals decision and that was the basis of their argument and that petition was ongoing sales tax investigation but in fact if you look at the record there was no ongoing sales tax investigation the very first time any records that gave even a suspicion that sales tax was not being paid was during the actual search on may thirtieth on may seventh when air stopped by the only thing he asked about was whether or not they had a business license and he admits that he saw a valid business license posted next to the front door he saw it twice when he started on his way out right and then he stumbled dropped this case facts which you must take as true at this point in the proceedings right and then he came back  immunity under government code sections eight twenty one point six and eight fifteen point two are not limited to causes of action for malicious prosecution the sullivan case from forty or fifty years ago was not the last word from the california supreme court as counsel has already indicated the asa garri decision which cites to appellate decisions that pertain to investigations and the same types of causes of action as are present in this case is the law of the land i'm sorry we've got your time and we're going to finish ok our thank you you just the case just argued is submitted