and simple law we work with determining whether or not there was probable cause to have my client team cameron arrested to do that there have to be reasonably trustworthy objective facts leading a reasonably prudent officer person but that there has to be a reason to place that suspect within the six pack if i were to prepare a six pack where mean by reason i mean you know i mean it's not like seems to me to be rather important that the description doesn't fit are i e ice extensions correct well that's something different all right and it also seems to be important that her name doesn't appear anywhere in any of the reports received cameron's name in the first place he says he has no independent recollection of ever receiving her name and i thought he said vaguely somebody shouted well i'm talking about his deposition what he what he created after the fact in the deposition where he suddenly remembering that that one of three people provide his name that's something until really different but deposition he has says i have no independent recollection of what i did i have no recollection of being told to me cameron's name and there's no report about it and there's absolutely no report and he testifies the district attorney testifies the original investigating officer testifies his partner has it all to us like if this were actually to have occurred and they were to have been provided with that name tammy cameron that absolutely would be in a report and so that is a all of that is a bizarre reasonable basis to doubt the veracity of what he says about database and how it came up as to any direct it was the name came associated with that picture when he got it yes and in fact that name to me when those in the six pack was conducted there was one mean one that six pack to me and it was underneath the picture of my client did you ever figure out where the id number that's to the left of of the name comes from but what that signifies i i have not ok that was also right below her picture right correct and of course a i pointed to a california case that indicates that if you are putting the name of the person that you're identifying and the suspect knows the name of the person that you're trying to identify tammy and tammy as we have here that's absolutely absolutely improper  and i respond to a question right now we're just and you're not you're giving your argument so there's two issues the officer at mit's that he has no recollection of ever being provided with that name and if he were to have been provided with that name it would have been in a report by him that never happened there's no evidence supporting the fact that my client was ever involved in a the litigation and not during the course of the investigation was an affair was who got us therefore would be irrelevant further when those quote unquote identification identifications occurred the picture of my client cameron was circled on on the six pack as well so it's entirely meaningless so before she was arrested and charged the only person who had picked her out was the one person correct the the gentleman also made the statement that he made it absolutely and that is a quote of him absolutely clear that he was unable to make the identification and then he was told to choose one anyway and that is not  was he told the officer absolutely that he was unable to make the identification and he was told anyway to make one it please the court raymond behalf of defendants county of los angeles and deputy loren brown as my colleague has outlined this case it is as defendants see it it breaks down into two issues whether or not there was a constitutional violation whether or not there was probable cause for seeking the warrant and if there wasn't whether or not there was qualified immunity for our officer our  thousand and seven and the probable cause was first based on deputy wilson's initial investigation which included interview of the victim and the interview of the witnesses they could locate the wilson that was his investigation when we knew where we were given i have no idea what was the basis for that person he has no idea he wrote a report he did put the senate i mean do you think there's not at least i could find that he made that up when it's not reported he can't remember where he got it and all that and not based on the record because what we have is deputy brown statement that he interviewed these three individuals and one of these three individuals gave him the name of cameron who is also known as tommy garrison and after he conducted doesn't bear testimony that if that had happened from somebody else in the department that if he'd actually been given the name cameron that that would have been would have been expected to be in a report which it wasn't wasn't there testimony like that yes or no yes ok so there isn't that isn't that enough to doubt the veracity of what he says about being told that you know if the policy was practice would be to put it in a report he didn't put it in a report he can't remember who a so let's say that a robbery is committed by somebody who is identified as being six foot six and their name is christopher dress code ok and so somebody goes and pick but there's a christopher driscoll in police records but he's five foot two ok so now it's christopher just go let's put him in the photo spread and a witness picks him out that yes i think it is seriously so isn't probable cause based on the entire array of facts not just on the one that you want to pull out well it is both and often in police procedures identifications are not accurate for instance the suspect could be raymond's a guy and they could say i am sixty two and a hundred or one hundred ninety five pounds is a big difference between a five foot one person and a five foot seven person or whatever the six inch disparity was here is a big difference what you're saying you're saying that that we just ignore that we just look at the fact that the face is the same and we ignore all of the other differences well practice i will cause a supposed to be based on the entirety of the facts not just on the ones that you want to pull out i agree and that is just one factor the other every blond caucasian forty year old woman is a suspect no but then when you put all that you get to tell you the circumstances and you get the information about tammy kerrison tommy garrison and how she's also known as tammy cameron and you run her own lack routes and you put her in a six pack and the victim isn't the most likely thing that occurred here which might which on this record a jury could conclude that he just clinched out what he was looking up the database and he substituted garrisons cameron for garrison that that that is a possibility but let's just say that is a possibility that he blew it he just for some reason he had a mental lapse in he thought garrison was scamming what we have is negligence and based on the standard it's a different standard that requires deliberate indifference probable cause based on what a reasonable officer objective really would believe it's a different bad analogy and then if we if we also talk about reasonableness we could also talk about reasonableness in the terms of qualified immunity and as the record is developed plaintiffs are a pelleas have not carried the burden to establish that the law was it clearly established in th who is trying to wrest somebody but not in this situation in based on the telling of the circumstances because what we have is a plaintiff and then we have the additional factor of the circumstances of pack which has this name under me i don't know if that would be enough by itself to make it not probable cause but when you have an otherwise very weak situation and you have a person saying i don't really know who it is and then you have his name underneath which certainly is some indication this is the person you're supposed to be looking for and then your child to do your best which he would presumably mean just say pick somebody because that is what he understood it to me because this person why in winter but the person was named it was on whose name was under there or first of all the all the six packs created by the laws in his county sheriff's department have a name on the bottom and as a court they had the actual person just wanted to have the actual person they had somebody else right and he was but so therefore on the subject said gesturing yes one necessarily override the fact that he was saw the right person that he or he didn't see the right person to actually wasn't there well that's that's not what will will take these one by one as to the pushiness or the alleged pushing this detective brown if defendant's supplemental x with a record page eighty two lines three through sixteen without reading it to the court it essentially says he was never told that he had to pick and that all the conflict he had about maybe this wasn't the right person was internal there's no evidence that deputy brown knew that the victim had any misgivings and it won't go away they didn't say i wasn't sure  deputy brown read to mr gallo and that mr gallo signed and deputy brown asked if he understood it in the advisement said hey there could be nobody involved in this in this line up so you know don't feel like you have to pick anybody and doing your best is just in this context do your best as the advisement tells you as i did as i told you in which deputy brown is saying that there could be someone here and there could be someone here but just do your best and then as for the as already in the brief but i'll go over briefly the people that carlos case is distinguishable as in there were a of other procedural matters that led the court to say the location of the name in the six pack in addition to all these other two or three factors made the the photo identification   the rules in the fourth amendment are very clear it doesn't have to be something evil it doesn't whether it's good faith is not relevant the question is are there the particular facts and circumstances creating probable cause so