appellate brief and that's the issue of integral participation at least as to my understanding integral participation is a theory of liability that extends liability beyond what may be your to the primary wrongdoer in this particular case that would have been social orange county social worker maisha hammond and the way it extends the liability is if there is some third party who doesn't necessarily cause the violation of the right or doesn't necessarily directly themselves violate the particular right in question if they're a integral part of the judge gave that charge is that the way the the jury instructions particularly number thirteen and fifteen are play with the court verdict form it appears just on their face according to the language that the plaintiff must prove that the acts of the officer violated her particular rights under the constitution and that's not the standard under which event and in fact the third party officer in this case his actions don't need to have themselves yes thirteen says in order to prevail on her nine hundred eighty three claim against officer watanabe miss randall must prove each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence the first one is obvious that he acted under color of law number two is that the act of officer watanabe deprive miss we're handle of her particular rights under the united states constitution and if we look at that but then fifteen you know puts meat on that zing the seizure in addition to going in and and doing a security sweep standing by the door where they were interviewing the kid and not letting the mother go when then he is squirts the after signing the petition he is course the child out the that's that's correct that was he that was integral as and i would agree that under our theory of the case that would be integral part so what's wrong i mean i don't know i never heard of the notion then you somehow a judge has to say and it goes to two issues first it goes to the issue of homicide or which area which you which you argue but i don't understand the rule to be that just because a chord uses some language in affirming a conviction that somehow a district judge is bound to give the exact language of the charge which he said he thought was confusing and real and legal aesthetic and he may be right i'm not sure i'm actually not sure what we're talking about when we're talking about a conviction there was no conviction here incorporated in every charge the ultimate issue is is the charge that was given correct i don't necessarily disagree with that the problem here is that this court the ninth circuit in fact in a recent cases said look when the court oulds the plaintiff to a standard of demonstrating that the officer who's we're looking at integral participation theory that the officer's actions themselves violated the right that that's error and if we look at the jury verdict form here well but the fifteen said that he had to have played in i don't want to repeat myself and i'll stop he said he had to have played an integral role and and not me only in that of a bystander and it seems to me it certainly captures the essence of what the boy's language was designed to to to deal with and had pursued a theory of direct liability for actually accomplishing this year himself in concert with me to him and then the instructions i don't know that we would necessarily have the same problem but we're not looking at a draft theory of liability here well we're looking at as an officer who there was can tell conflicting evidence on the issue of whether he even signed the blue form the application for petition but we're not at the situation where we're saying the officer himself did the seizure what we're saying is that he was there he provided the muscle for it and our view these instructions taken in conjunction with the verdict form that was given to the jury was incomplete misleading our verdict form we believe and that's it our one page ninety nine i believe is where it starts our vote verdict form would have dispensed with that problem and that we we asked the jury there number one were her rights violated miss randall's rights violated and number two did defendant stand want to be participate in the removal of ex wife from the custody of his mother plaintiff joel randle and or if bill to inter through the door how much more integral could again i don't disagree i don't disagree with that that that's integral participation i think where at least from our perspective where the rub comes is that the jury again in my view and i can see where we might disagree the jury was left with this impression that we have a bystander we know what a bystander is that's that's clearly defined we don't know the nuances integral participation and if we know that in a group an integral participant does not need to themselves undertake conduct that's a violation of their rights that's something that the jury needs to know that's something that the jury needs to know in order to give a just result and actually do the complete analysis to decide whether or not this officer should be liable for the seizure that you know maybe he didn't commit but didn't the court's instructions say the officer had t one of the constitutional violation by the instruction was given seem to accompany that i i don't see anywhere in the language of the instruction that was given the jury being instructed that the actions of the officer need not themselves rise the level of anything that language is not in either of those instructions thirteen or fifteen that was the language we would like to have had or something similar so that the jury would understand that we're not looking at a situation where the the officer himself actually had to do something culpable actually go out and grab the child or something like that but that the officers conduct could be some lesser level of conduct in fact it didn't even have to itself rise to the level of constitutional violation the jury not having been instructed of those nuances of the law in this area couldn't have made the correct decision i don't think on that i'd like to reserve unless there is for their question i will thank you counsel deprive mr randall of a particular rights under the united states constitution quote as explained in later instructions counsel when he read number thirteen left off that important last phrase did you fifteen the one that is the focus of the appeal that that instruction is a verbatim copy of instruction number twelve submitted by the plaintiff with one exception that exception is the language participation does not require that each of officers action themselves arise to the level of constitutional violation in all other respects plain just proposed instruction number twelve or the instruction number fifteen given by the court of mir and was it exact copy of plaintiff's proposed instruction number twelve submitted after the pretrial conference on february fifth before the commencement of the trial with the exception of that one sentence about interval participation does not require that each officers action themselves rise to the level of a constitutional violation there's nothing in the structure that was given mere bystander that's language proposed by point of complaint of instruction number twelve and that was the language given by  well the evidence i think what's important is is the focus and this is what the jury did focus on is what after water newbie water nobby his knowledge  his the nature of his participation the evidence i think was pretty clear that the decision to remove the child had been made by a hammer before she called the police department and she was just going to confirm that  r was in fact living with plaintiff as plaintiff reported in the letter written to the county and she testified and there was some dispute about that but she talked to a supervisor and they said well conduct an investigation make her decision and basically keep the peace and make sure that nobody got out of hand and that's what happened and based upon that evidence the jury found that was not an integral part of participation because there's i'm interesting language and the montel case and another just of course case that points out the fact that there's no ninth circuit precedent that imposes such an obligation  and there's that language and that the recent  jet where the where the ninth circuit held that where the officers made no independent decisions regarding protective custody they could rely upon the determination made by social workers that th children were in imminent danger and on the failure to intercede issue wasn't addressed by plaintiff's counsel counsel i think the important issue is what the water nobby knew there was a lot of talk in the briefs about him and i think i mean i couldn't say it any better when he was asked or in trial if he had any reason to disagree with the hammond and his answer under oath was no i mean if this man charles was guilty of the things he's accused of and he had no reason to to know that he wasn't guilty of them and she was removing him because he spends his nights there and he was he has access to the child he did well i have small children myself and i certainly wouldn't want somebody like that around my children so i think given the limited information he had what he what he was told by my show ham and she had called the father made arrangements for him to be stand near by because she knew what she was going to do and and she basically reported and told after water nobby what she was going to do  and she was told that hey we're here just to keep the peace if there's a problem if they don't comply we're not doing anything we're just here to keep the peace to make sure nothing gets out of hand i think it's physical and also lopez made that clear so unless the court has any questions thank you very much first to answer your honor's question about whether or not falsified immunity was litigated in this case fact judge carney specifically set off the earlier trial date so that the motion for partial summary or actually i think was motion for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity could be heard it was heard it was decided against the defendants and then we proceeded to trial  and deciding the ball argued against them because i'm sorry why was it decided against them for a factual issues that had to be resolved and i don't i don't think it was factual issues necessarily i think i think that it was more that the law delineating the rights that run between a parent and her child within the context of a child abuse investigation or a seizure of the child from the parent without a warrant or clearly establish more clearly established at that time  and then we proceed to the trial from there in his order on summary judgment he was unclear as to what his position was with respect to the failure to intercede claim and that's how else how we ended up preparing potential instructions a jury verdict form our review of the law and i would agree with the fence or the police on this point we couldn't find any ninth circuit law actually any law from any circuit that specifically said in the context of a child abuse investigation where we have a joint response with police and social workers that this duty to intervene comes to the fore but we couldn't find a case that said it didn't either and it made sense to us that it would come into play especially in the context of this case where the officer specifically testified yes he knows about the rights that run between parents and children he knows that you can't remove a child from the custody of its parent without first getting a warrant less there's an accident see and i don't recall whether it was miss officer watson abhi or officer lopez who testified at trial that the city of huntington beach in their experience it takes five to ten minutes to get a temporary protective order from a judge on a phone call so the issue that the phillies were addressing earlier in relation to the jury specific findings what the jury specifically found and how the jury specifically found that there you know where these good reasons to go ahead and detain the child first of all that's not reflected anywhere on the verdict form all the verdict form says is that officer watson abhi violate her right answer no so we can't really get into the minds of what the jury thought or how they got to that point here but what we do know is that when we're looking at the issue of existence it involves much much more than just these speculative concerns about a boyfriend may come home or may not come home whether or not he's going to be convicted or going to be found guilty of abusing his own child at some point the future speculation doesn't cut it and in a situation here where they inspect the home there's nobody there or rather the alleged perpetrator is not there and the mom is actually saying he doesn't live here i watch his dog because he works at night and the officer can get a temporary protective order within five to ten minutes and there's no indication that the perpetrator alleged perpetrator is going to be coming home within the next five to ten minutes there's no reason why they couldn't have called and gotten more so in our view under either theory that the integral participation theory  or the failure to see intercede theory there should in our view there should be a reversal we think that there should be an obligation of an officer who knows the law can see the circumstances on his own and has his independent power to get a warrant after the war that's our view unless you're on or suffer their questions that's it i think very much castle thank you i thank you for all the attorneys for their arguments today we are