morning to the court christopher constantine for the appellant were asking the court this morning to address a pair there the district court's interpretation of paragraph six of the orders for protection we maintain that that's a controlling issue in this case the district court interpreted paragraph six of the order for protection as referring only to the paved portion of the right away that's an excerpt of record one thousand and twenty three without that construction it would have been impossible for the district court to conclude that mr subtle and had committed a crime the district court's construction of paragraph six in effect substituted the word roadway force a coma boulevard in the exception in paragraph six of the orders for protection turning to the handout that we provided on page two line seventeen we have the exact language of the exception in the orders for protection it's accept such portion  with the district courts of construction of paragraph six is that there are no tide lands within the roadway so that if m were to follow this he would only be allowed to step into the tide lands that are located on the pavement there are no tight lands on the pavement therefore mr solon has no right to enter  southwest nd at all if there were such tight lands he would only be allowed to step into though what's hot on the roadway that's an absurd construction we maintain it was unreasonable for the king county  our standard of review in this case in terms of your argument regarding the interpretation of paragraph six interpretation of an order of protection invokes the rules of construction for orders and contracts it's a de novo review the district court used its interpretation of paragraph sixty two to reject and st amendment claim and also by concluding that its interpretation of paragraph six was reasonable it allowed the district court to conclude that the king county defendants had probable cause to arrest mr solon let me ask you this  counsel because it's there's no clarity in the record nor has any court ever been very specific as to where in that eighty feet the boundaries really lie is it part is it just the ways and part of the saying and so is it is it too much to then require the officers to interpret it in the way that you suggest when no court or any evidence in the record clarif set the boundaries in the way you suggest they made no attempt to inquire previous efforts crudeness incidents involving mr solar wind and the king county sheriff resulted in the king county sheriff  notice that this was not clear there was a robust record in the in the on the in the records of the king county sheriff over this decade long dispute between mr soto and and the complaining witnesses so this was not their st day on the beach so to speak i was just well what in those records would have well we would have to assume they knew about the records but i'm just curious just looking at that it doesn't to me alert someone that they need to do a record search the difficulty that that's posed by your question is is that the officers read the orders for protection they did not want at least eleven not read but we don't know when he read it whether it was before or after the arrest the record doesn't reveal about the arresting officers munson arrows and and gar skee did not read the orders for protection and  therefore they had and they were ignorant of the existence of paragraph six so it's an academic question i said but that's you know your argument is that the paragraph six is the pivotal issue in this case in the interpretation of it so that's why i was asking you what i think parroting the responsible thing would have would have been to number one ask mr sort of lint number to asked the code enforcement officer  a very minimal effort would have been required to get the accurate knowledge of what this threat met meant by that by that language has anyone ever confirmed your interpretation of  media is why we are here today and we are advocating the construction where attacking or challenging the district court's construction of paragraph six we advocate a construction of paragraph six that t right to access those tidelands like he's done all his life like his father did before him and his grandfather did before him we found him a man ask you in the alternative alternative the district court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity to take issue with that rule absolutely by failing to read the orders for protection under bear versus lewiston they they forfeited their right to qualified immunity one could have given his side of the story he could have given them accurate information as to the history of that order of the history of his use of the public character of the of the property so they simply voided and that under this court's decisions in arpan in fronts in bond pacino and instruct i wrote arc then it was a little different but stopping with a different struck man was the the court said ask a few simple questions nobody asked a few simple questions of my  may i ask you we also argue that can i ask in the question do you give any credence at all to the collective knowledge no because the harper case and the manse case  which the court relied upon didn't involve enforcement of orders for collection remember that in beer versus lewiston this court said the requirement is actual knowledge how do you how do you compare collective knowledge with the th amendment's requirement of actual knowledge that if we have no case we we have no case we don't they have cited no case we know of no case where the collective knowledge doctrine was applied protection orders in king county superior court which prohibited mr sawyer land from keeping his neighbors under surveillance contacting them coming within eight feet of their residence except to use southwest nd street yelling or swearing at them or entering a in the breach front portions of their property on the anti harassment order hearing on december th two thousand and eleven where mr saw and could and could not go it was discussed at length the current transcript from that hearing is included in the record and it supplemental excerpt of record at four hundred and thirteen dollars mr sought owens attorney summarized that if mr sawyer lindh was on the road in front of his neighbors homes he would not be in violation of the orders but if he was off of the road in front of their houses he was in violation of the orders all three neighbors reported to the police that on july th two thousand and thirteen mr saddam and had been on the beach front portions of their property in order to get to a boat that was more offshore clarify that record and if the record isn't clear does that make a difference both deputy miller and detective holland in e r seventy eight dollars in the e r seventy six dollars in their declarations indicated that after speaking with cynthia hart and christine barton that they verified the actual conditions of the empty harassment order before they determined probable cause and they were also certain to ask both of those neighbors whether or not mr sauder lindt had been on the road or if he had been off of the road because they wanted to make sure that they were not complaining about behavior that was not order so there's a lot of discussion regarding the district court's interpretation of the conditions of the n t harassment orders but the relevant inquiry is not how the district court interpreted the orders for probable cause the info in crew is how the officers interpreted the condition of the anti harassment orders and whether under the totality of the circumstances a reasonable person in the officer's position would conclude that a violation of the orders had been committed and whether the orders were valid and served for the st amendment the inquiries rather not the officers intended to chill mr sot on his right to assemble this is what the officers knew they had three separate corroborating accounts of mr starling crossing his is public property so open to everybody room there is an eighty foot right of way however and probable cause is a common sense standard that's used by officers in the field not a good the property owners briefing but as far as king county is aware we did not measure the eighty foot right away we only know that there is an eighty foot historic public right away that is that nd s issued by the court and your position is that he's not on the pave poor should he's friend he's trespassing but that was the discussion that happened at the time of the issuance of the anti harassment orders that was the understanding of the court that was the paved i believe that part of the right away could even be on the portion the non beach front portion of the the street i don't really know where where the right of way the extra right of way falls outside of the pavement so i don't know if it's even on both why well and how would the police know and how would the the court know what the court would be enforced if nobody knew because when you look at the order that was issued and you listen to this question that happened in the court room there was a lot of legal language because i think that the legal language was dropped into the order regarding the property where the property lines fell when the court was actually having a commonsense discussion with the people in the courtroom the because isn't there then the argument that this may be outside the record litigation ongoing to establish where exactly the eighty foot lie well as part of the are not going to be challenging m r so it it's king county is understanding that that issue is not being litigated any further and that the orders are in place permanently so then the question that we're left with is whether the officers reasonably the officers knew they had the corroborated accounts they had video they had valid served orders that appeared to prohibit mr sarlin from being on the roadway from being on the property but not on the roadway and there was also a verification that he was not traveling on the street in front of their houses there was actually no duty to further investigate once they had determined probable cause and there was no constitutional requirement that they go to mr sato and to have him amendment the done factors are used to establish whether curtilage is whether an arrest took place on cartilage and that entails the proximity of the claim curtilage area to the home whether it's included in the area surrounding the parking area is not included in the enclosure surrounded the home at separated from that house in the yard by a row of storage buildings the parking area is clearly used for the storage of cars and equipment and it's not an area to which the area of activity of homelife extends and  in determining that it did not qualify as cartilage under state law no one is required because it's an exception to the warrant prior meant and the officers are entitled to have qualified and statutory counsel before you begin if i do you take issue with the declarations from officers hollin and miller where they seem to say that they read the protective order including the exception for the take issue with those declarations i looked at that and and in the incident reports and the follow up reports it was not clear in my mind at what point did the hall i hadn't didn't look with regard to miller because nor didn't really play much of a role in our analysis but holland didn't indicate whether or not he had read the order for protection prior to the morning of the  that he says he read it prior to the arrest i don't understand i don't read it to you don't think that way i don't either regarding regarding the question of interpretation of the orders for protection there is some discussion about what was said in the hearing on the orders back and december of two thousand and eleven there was a discussion about the roadway that discussion is taken out of context and in any event there is no reflection of that discussion in the actual order itself there is no mention of just the paved road way if that was the judge st clair's intention when he wrote the orders why didn't he point stay out on the road by only he didn't do that he carefully wrote out what was accepted and what was accepted is the tide lands within that eighty foot wide expanse approximately forty feet the western forty feet of that eighty feet all right counsel thank you thank you to both counts for the case his i q is that made it for a decision by the court