as brief as possible i know that the briefs have been submitted and i assume that they have been a grid reviewed i'm happy to answer questions of this court i'd like to reserve if necessary a couple of minutes for the of my time for my reply  let me address what i think there are some not publishers in this matter of the first one is that court today can rule should it choose to or that there are in fact one there is something to of issues in this matter there are procedural issues as a manner that the noble ruling that this court will come down with hopefully will address the respective issues there is one issue in this case which may be novel and that is the issue regarding cobra which is the shorthand version of the public safety officers bill of rights act it is an act that was promulgated and implemented in order to provide certain procedural safeguards to members of that class using the vernacular peace officers police officers sworn officers and the like i will submit that every violation of pobre does not in the literal sense of the word from his position as an armed officer at the special forces operation and he was transferred to a non armed position that is that his pistol his firearm was taken away from him and this was done prior to an initiation of a complaint of the internal affairs department of the county of los angeles probation department so that property right in his position if you will was taken away from him but your best cases says that that's a property right the best case in terms of i mean the right the right to what we know that transfers per se are protected are protected in particular that's got wrecked we referred the court in our grief to if i may we refer the court to jackson versus city of los angeles in the given verse a civil service which maintains that a none probationary peace officer which is mr robinson having been on the job to use of an actor for some twenty six years possessed a vested in fundamental property interest in into his can continue to employ me that's protected by the due process clause discontinued employment but judge thomas asked about carrying a gun and partner and i didn't hear the move he was moved to the eighty one or nine unit there is no articulation in the briefs by the defendant the appellee that a move to the a b one zero nine unit which has a separate and distinct  job description if you will dealing with paroled nonviolent offenders from the state prison system that we submit is not a transfer to the same unit but a transfer to a conduct in terms of performance of his duties a county issued automobile require him to use his own vehicle and travel five hundred dollars to five hundred miles a week your honor it is all in violation of the property right he has when one looks at the various documents that were sent to the mr robinson commencing in june of two thousand and fourteen with a notice of intent to suspend and then reads that document in the subsequent documents the body of the documents one is somewhat  bewildered about what the intent is and what actually is going to happen as a result of the issuance of these documents i hope my best answered your runners question though you don't have a gun case you don't have a gun case we don't  case that says that shifting a police officer from an arm to on our position constitutes a top professional property right we do not have a gun case in so you have your case on property right then false of the bonuses the bonus and he has a right to maintain all of the privileges that were given to him in the performance of his duties to transfer from there in violation of his due process a century removed him from that which he had before and again i go back to the statue of limitations issue all of this reposes on the violation of the stands for limitation all of the conduct subsequent to the violation is in deprivation of the fourth and fourteenth amendment rights i would submit and the lateral move by an officer and it was jetted of officer captain or something similar to that with no reduction in pay no reduction in grade no reduction of privileges just a move from the from one office to another which is completely disparate from the facts of this case in fact not only is it disparate but in this very case the basis for these this punishment rep a number of allegations one of which was absolutely false and that is the domestic violence allegation that proposed in mr robinson personnel file for some twenty six years and until that issue was addressed to the probation department they continued to use that as one of the bases if not the principal basis for his removal from the unit because that's a crime of moral turpitude and the county  when it was called in their attention that's that's what i was just stating your honor they dropped it after was called to their attention but that particular reference in the notice to suspend we  argued was in furtherance of of a probation department mandated by the cheaper batiuk officer to eliminate from the ranks of probation officers those people who may have suffered in the past all armed probation officers in the se oh unit were given if they were armed i see i said that twice if they were given a gun they were given the additional response abilities bonus because it is a is discretionary in the context of if you are an armed officer you get it if you're not you do not get that can remove they can remove the bonus if they transferred him to a completely disparate unit or to one of the camps something of that nature so far removed from his job function as to be completely dissimilar nobody is going to the question i asked this is not the practice is it is there a statute that says that you have a that be the solution maker of the discretion to give a bonus there is not a statute that i have seen that the not the prime policy maker from removing the can remove that firearm which the hell he said and i throw him out the firearm and let me tell you where my understanding is on the property right and i could be wrong the fact that state more provide certain procedural protections there's not created as i understand the law a property rights that entitle someone to due process before it's taken away it's got to be in order for it to be a property right it would have to say that he's  isn't titled to remain in the position that he was put in this particular case to the a rb the additional responsibly is a bonus while he was armed and he was intel to remain in that unit until the procedure will be appropriate procedural procedures were implemented to remove him and those procedures have a trigger point and that sugar point is the statute of limitations so in get to the issue of whether there is a property right the district court in my opinion respectfully should have first considered whether there is a tribal issue of fact in the interim implementing of the punishment in the first instance and that was very well briefed in the oppositions to the motions for summary judgment and the and the answer to that question is when a person authorised to initiate an investigation is informed grievance or some sort of violation of policies and procedures that that individual can initiate an investigation which was done in this case and and that has to be done within the first year in fact mr robinson was not removed until some fifteen months later after a second bite at the apple if you will was initiated in sometime in to that the one year statute is set forth in the poker right it is in fact and what case do you have th a state case that says essentially what i said was that if a state official in the probation department i should say state official if a person authorized to initiate investigation this case a ge stephen house fully briefed in the opposition a summary judgment when he was addressed by an officer of the l a p d conduct an investigation and some fifteen or sixteen months later the police officer approached another supervisor of the pardon and they initiated the second on the very same facts the statue of limitations is with respect to probe right i mentioned the court's question  is there to make sure no i understand what the better state what that is to what extent that incorporated into the question of the the i can fully embrace the court's query to me our position is that he has a property right for the kids and they said the cases i cited and that in order to deprive them of the public property rights using due process under the fourteenth amendment the state the county in this is and has to comply with the promulgated act of pogrom we've states you have one year to initiate the investigation if you don't you have violated in this case mr robinson's due process rights to a fair hearing and you have denied him the property attendant to his position after the statue limitations had run and before the investigate before the complaint was filed with the in this case and then i'll get to a couple issues that were addressed in the priority i want to remind the court that the events that took place in this case underline occurred in mid two thousand and thirteen and if you recall what was happening in  thousand and thirteen there was a lot of attention nationally to issues of officer violence officer involved shootings so in that contents context what we have here is we have an officer who's behaving a radical he didn't show up to work for sixty percent of the time ok that's so essentially he was there two days a week if you look at it on a weekly scale he's not showing up to work ten days after the probation the department finds out this guy is not showing up to work he's pulled over speeding in the county vehicle and we find out that he is going around with his firearm but no identification for three months ok ten days after that these i see the new firearm and immediately starts drawing it and waving it around improperly in a parking lot so i submit to the court that in this case it was necessary and appropriate for the probation department to disarm this officer and you know i ask what would have happened if he wasn't disarmed and there was an incident how would that be explained to the community how we explained it to the victims and i just want to also mention that if playing this theory is correct and the probation department or any law enforcement and city is not able to disarm an officer who's behaving erratically then there could be some real world consequences there in regard to you know officer misconduct and it would certainly be difficult to explain why someone like this was in this form so let me just address some of the things that came up in the priority given real quick some of the judges asked are there any cases that say that there's a property right in job case you'd see that that's the case the main pope our case that discusses punitive action related to removal of hazard pay ok so we're talking about a bonus here it's really hazard pay that you would civil service rules civil service employees or and be awarded a bonus in certain situations we're talking about peace officers that's going to be hazard pay the civil service rules make it clear that the bonus is not part of this hour meaning that it can be taken away or or given at the county's discretion now and who makes a decision whether i think is something that's collectively bargained for if you look at the collective bargaining agreement for the plaintiffs union it also states that the bonus is not part of the salary and i'll also mention that when the pla got into that position that awarded him a bonus he signed a document stating that he's aware that that the bonus can be removed at any time so i guess i'm not quite clear on what which your answer is are they entitled to or are these you're talking about removing a vested interest that can be a property right if it's an on best interest there is a difference and i'm not quite sure i understand what the how these bonuses arise it's not in title but it's something that can be removed and a required are not required no one is required to receive a bonus even by the contract the context needs they can be removed right you know i see my question i know i know it can be removed ok is it automatically given a loss removed it's the bonus is only given to certain positions when under what authority and if you don't know that i don't think i know your honor ok but look it's not me that's like ten years it was kind of important in terms of prayer analyzing property interests ok so let me say this the property interest as i understand it is determined by reference to state law in this case the applicable state law which would determine what are the entitlements of civil service employment or the county civil service rules so in this case the civil service rules state that the bonus is not part of salary so the civil service rules are saying that it's not a property right if it was if it were if it were part of salary and were taken away that would constitute a demotion and that would get you into a property right because i understand your ok go ahead i also want to mention plaintiff is talking about the statue of limitations in post war i want to draw all the court's attention to the fact that pope r is not mentioned in the complaint it's not mentioned officers and they're not the same as the procedural protections that are offered to non peace officers act i'm talking about the i'm talking about the due process clause federal to process clause so tell me how officer is entitle to due process for a large variety of things so if you're just a regular county employee you're only entitle to due process and in the case of a demotion or terminations or something like that but the peace officers get due process for a wider variety of currencies i guess what you're saying is that there procedural protections imposed brother you don't think are required by the due process clause correct and it and tell me how that effects this would be required under the federal due process clause we're talking about the federal due process clause here so tell me right speaking about what in titles a civil service employee to due process that's the difference is that pople are in titles he was even actually extra procedural due process protections then he would have been given if let's say he worked at the some other department at the county he received for example  letter that telling him that his bonus was being removed and he was being reassigned to an arm position and he was given due process related to that change if he was not a peace officer and he worked at the department of public works and he was getting a bonus over there he would not have gotten due process regarding the job change or bonus removal so tell me in this context what do you think the federal due process clause required for getting programs for getting cobra i think federal well as a civil service employee he's entitled to due process well he was suspended from work for ten days so i think for the suspension under federal law he was inside of the due process regarding the suspension so he's entitled to an appeal before a neutral third party and i think he got that ok i think that's all and how do you think the statute of limitations and pobre affects the due process rights in the fifth amendment well assuming the fourteenth bright assuming the p of the contemplated discipline within one year you don't need to discipline him within one you just need to let him know how he's going to be disciplined so we did that here the so the such limitations weren't violated but the question is has the statute of limitations tie into federal law there is no connection oh right you're from and he was one who says i mean i remember the name i don't know numbers actually what it says but that's a that what you have to give is notice prior determination and an opportunity to respond and then they say are holding rests in part on the provisions you know a higher law for a full post law i don't remember the facts of the case your honor i know that in some cases for example if there are police officers involved in some sort of serious crime or something he can be dismissed immediately and get a post from a nation hearing so i'm not exactly sure not one of the wiser judgments but that's not the problem the problem is what role does that play once those rights are afforded to what extent if any do they come into play during provisions in the police officers bill of rights afford to process it they provide for due process i don't think they are due process ok a very important issue if there was no reason to have a statute of limitations in the poker act there wouldn't be a statute of limitations is it to protect peace officers from a whole host of things that could theoretically happen suspend issued in june of two thousand and fourteen was within the one year statute is absolutely a trouble issue material fact we had argued that the actual trigger point was in february january february of two thousand and thirteen the ultimate initiation of the notices is spent in june fourteenth and june of two thousand and fourteen is actually a year and a half after the first contact made by  individual in the who can initiate such an investigation which was done that was supervisor stephen hall direct supervisor of mr robinson so the statute of limitations for notice i use the vernacular was blown one year from the initial contact by l a p d with supervisor hall which was january of two thousand and thirteen best case scenario february of two thousand and thirteen to february two thousand and fourteen that issue of whether the statute was abrogated or violated or had passed against say redundant and material issue of tribal fact that's as a question of the issue the no to regional notice was for something entirely different correct that was given for the suspension in two thousand and fourteen this is after he had already been temporarily assigned which was the nomenclature on the notice temporarily assigned temporarily assigned as not the equivalent of a notice of intent to suspend they must give a notice of intention to suspend within the one year the facts that gave rise to the ultimate dispensation of the notice of intent to suspend is the exact exact same factual footing that was brought to the attention of how in january february of two thousand and thirteen there wasn't a disparate argument the same argument i made was the mr robinson was allegedly not appearing at the police station to perform duties is the same argument presented to the county in april of two thousand and fourteen and it is on that basis and other bases including as i said a moment ago the issue of this domestic violence which turned out not to mr robinson simply put the violation the statute is a due process right it would not be there were it not with that said last comment is we believe that the court should have ruled on the evidence of the summary judge motion on some of the very evidence that we objected to and we did not have a hearing the court took the summary judge a motion under suspension for all the reasons stated i would ask that the court the man