labatt's very public arrest in front of his son's high school team the entire gymnasium full of friends and family is just sort of something bad that happens like a lightning strike it's like a hurricane maybe mistakes were made but no one's fault and certainly no one is  liable for the fact that he was ultimately taken away in handcuffs even though he was doing nothing wrong and i emphasize the beginning i want him to get his own thing i need to the he wasn't doing anything wrong here he was entirely entitled to be in out on tori the arrest though by reliance on record that said don't rely on this record case of course revolves around the civil and so harassment order washing courts take those things very seriously they are procedurally very easy to get this was the temporary version which you obtain ex parte just going to court present an affidavit there's no chance for about eleven and some have a side doesn't even get notice it's going on then for the next two weeks that's the law and accordingly washington state courts pick their restrictions one or more persons the evidence that he was doing that he's in the auditorium and he could see alexa from where he sat if you buy into that definition if you think that's probably cause to arrest because he was keeping a close watch on her i could be arrested right now for have no idea who's back there and i don't think any prudent person which is the test for probable cause would most eve that there is the probability that i'm surveilling anyone or everyone in this temporary order containing the word school when it was looked at by the officer so that matters only for the quincy police department grant county sheriff's office is the one who made that erroneous data entry the order did not the order itself absolutely  know that the version the computer version of the order did correct right that's right so i'm trying to understand right now what is your allegation against green county the  it and that's wrong going to los angeles if you create a false set of facts you can't then say this false set of facts allows us to make an arrest on probable cause that's a defense for quincy who actually put the handcuffs on that's not a defense for grant county who made the data entry here so probable cause for surveillance has to be more than same place same time line of sight but let's talk about that err on the computer database quincy police says ok fine fine maybe that was maybe he wasn't reasonably reliable source for the terms the order which was not spam and so how on earth could they do that how could they do that well they could pick up the radio or they could pick up the phone and they could call dispatch and ask dispatch had the order they knew dispatch court there are going well this specially if you didn't actually do that all they did is give the parameters of the order but if you look closely at their brief the parameters of the order what he was right over the phone is right it does not include the school so we've got a reliable source that they could indeed access as a source that tells them it's unreliable that in fact is what they relied on it is not probable cause to ignore reliable sources and turns unreliable ones to just say just on that point with respect just anxious to hear what you're going to show us seems it's a question it's a question of first impression it's whether a knowingly false report of a crime to a police agency can possibly be recently a concern that agency desire to protect people speaking at public meetings but washing statute is broader than that is not unlimited what it says is you have immunity when you speak to a government agency on a matter recently of concern so that agency so daughter alexa he admitted during deposition he knew that wasn't true so how on earth can a false report the reason be of concern to a police agency in fact it's criminal us if you call up and you knowingly lie to the police  the state legislature draft of the f i slap statute the state legislature amended that statute in two thousand and two to remove the good faith requirement we have a court of the pills decision in bailey that says there's no good faith requirement i even noticed that after the briefing closed in this case the ninth circuit has a case phoenix trading company where bailey is cited for not for getting rid of the bad or the good faith requirement the argument seems to be that well you can make a bad faith reporting but you can't make a false reporting well that would gut the whole purpose of the statute the statute is to let people call the police or in this case a school as well and let the school and the police then make the decisions as to how to respond to the information they've been provided that's what happened here the school elected not to do anything the police elected to arrest if you adopt the argument of the plaintiff that if it's a false report there's always going to be something that somebody can probably sue on to find falsity here there's dispute there was a t r o in place that is not false there's no false statement that mr mads daughter was at the basketball game and so was the point these are not false statements it's just a misunderstanding as to what the scope of a temporary report of a crime yes that's their legal theory that my client had some subjective desire to get it at his client not to protect his daughter by calling the police because there was a t r o that might have been being violated and that's the whole point of the anti slapp statute is to protect someone in mr a reds position to let him notify appropriate authorities to take the action that those appropriate authorities deemed appropriate and you look at the policy that if you look at that phoenix trading case it talks about the policy of the statute the state statute is not shell the communication between the public and the government also the bailey case speaks in terms of letting the public communicate with government to government kind of formats can perform its function and it's difficult to argue that safety in a school is not a legitimate government function as i'm more intrigued by the the argument that the police could have arrested mr red for a knowingly false police report they could have done that but they didn't do it there's there's no there's restrictions on someone in mr reds position to not make knowingly false reports there are there are penalties you could face if you did that the anti slapp statute those drafted by the legislature and they elected to take motive out of it if motive was part of that statute for a period saw her take that gentleman's while out that's totally false ok police arrive they see the lady in the white sweater you see the guy he's left probable cause to arrest most likely right i mean they have a witness i've said exactly what i saw him describe her they show up there she is i just thank you because you know my face what are are but you know so my question is you know it's not you don't you can't necessarily look at my motive maybe i have a dispute with this individual that doesn't matter maybe i had a bad day or maybe i'm just whatever but you could take out motive it seems to me and still even flat fall city and that's kind of where we're having some trouble because when i just said what i just called the police about is just that if you take if you write falsity back into the statute that reports to police have to be accurate then people are going to call same opinion that the police did that that there was a potential surveillance issue or was he innocently mistaken that the two hundred fifty feet applied at the school i mean those are our positions but my point before i wrap up is essentially if i call because i believe or i think somebody committed a crime against you but i don't know i'm wrong that's going to have a tremendous chilling effect on people calling the police thank and so the law has really required is to set the contrast of saying that out in the field we're going to give the nod to the police officer to make those decisions and that's one of these cases that you face today prob cause is a complete defense to the claims brought against quints of police officers and in this case these officers had probable cause the public cause based upon two different theories really the first is the conclusion of the officers that the order in the information they received from the order prohibited surveillance these officers both testified in the record that given the fact that  lot was in the building was in straight view of marriage daughter that that constituted their mind surveillance and it's not the police officers responsibility to evaluate that in terms of whether or not a judge or or panel of judges looking back will say well technically that might be surveillance might not be surveillance as long as the police officers are operating in good faith and have a reasonably but in terms of being in the field as a police officer and having to analyze whether i have a reasonably articulated suspicion that surveillance could be occurring i think it's a different perspective what are you saying to c argument that they somehow rich should know that that computer terminal report and they've got is unreliable or may should have been behind it to the n c i c records well two things one is i don't think there is any standard that says you have to go behind that and also as i cited my group there's a long line of cases where the n c i c information has been determined as reliable and i suspect that in many of those cases the same warnings might be on the paperwork this court this circuit has always said that it is appropriate for the police officers to rely on n c i c so i think the fact that there might be someone in there doesn't change the course of the law and it doesn't change the officer's d addition the officers never saw that morning and there's nothing in this record to suggest frankly that that this was an issue where they said oh my goodness this is you know this is n c i c and therefore we can't even really dogmas you can't ever rely on  a because there might be this warning on the papers and that is completely contrary to the law in the circuit secondly the officers weren't aware of it and that goes to the second issue and that is the question of whether or not the schools and that it involved the school and that the officers write on it and they were entitled to rely on that and if that information is mistaken that does not defeat probable cause that proc or both decided both the and that is if these officers intitled at the very least qualified immunity that they were acting and they were out there in a difficult situation and you know they didn't publicly arrest in the middle of it they were very careful to escort him out of the school building and try to be discreet about it gave them an opportunity to leave and these are not bully cops these are if you ever had the courage to go to quincy it's a beautiful small town but it's a small town and they were i think they were operating appropriately and so the very least the highly qualified immunity as we know qualified immunity protects all but the incompetent officer from those kinds of mistakes and this was a reliable i mean the officers check that they they believed they had the correct information they had nothing to  i'm going to convict this guy surveillance but at the same time look at it from the house's perspective but then at the very least the officers did what what they believed was right and they believe that the order prohibiting him from being in the school two hundred  county and quincy police officers and i completely agree with that however a finding of probable cause is not required in order to affirm the trial court's dismissal of grant county and that's for this reason there is no dispute that the t r o had an anti surveillance provision and the officers as mr moberg just told you arrested mr or dr cornel but in part based upon that surveillance really you guys who are at fault for having this erroneous information entered in the thing in was yes it would but the officers are only going to make this arrest because they see this erroneous reference to school and that it's really the county's failing on that front that allowed that to happen so i guess i'm not clear on if we say that there's there wasn't probable cause it seems like even district court recognized that yeah there might be a travel issue of fact as to whether the county had a policy that was deliberately indifferent to the rights of people like the plaintiff you sure have two responses to that your honor first i would agree with your analysis if grant county  erroneous lee entered information about the school and that was the sole basis for the arrest of dr cornu labatt then we probably wouldn't be here today however but the record establishes that the officers arrested dr cornel bought for violating two provisions of the t r o the surveillance provision and the being at the school provision and so my point is if you take out the erroneous information the being at the that's your answer yes thank you thank you the last question first the officers wouldn't parse it out for me and during depositions they said it was both they said it was the schools and it was the surveillance problem they would not answer would i have arrested if it were in the schools or if it were only the surveillance from the test or on official policy also there's got to and that's this but it doesn't have to be the only factor that leads to the arrest so we can proceed against grant county unless you find there is probable cause under some reason  probably cause of this all goes away address just for a moment mr moti comments on qualified immunity these are objective standards and small town cops trying to do the right thing maybe but it's got to be an object standard and it's got to be applied regardless of what town you're and or what the circumstances are and my entire argument is you know it's a set of reliable information that what officer carter told me is the bible of reliable information the order itself is the bible of what he's supposed to be looking to in a situation he had access to it and he chose to go to unreliable information that is objective lee unreasonable and it's not that he's incompetent it's that he made an objectively unreasonable decision case before the officers respond to a claim that there's a violation of a temporary screenwriter they have to go look at the regional court order if they have access to it that is the source they will what if it's a saturday or  data when they have the accurate data from dispatch and they know the dispatch has the order and they know that the accurate data hypotheticals would be different but here you've got the truth you've got something you know you can't rely on you've got the truth or as like what are the terms of the order they are entirely entitled to rely on and c i c for whether the order is still in effect but you know repeating myself once they've got access to the actual order it got to go to the actual order to look for the terms of it's his and  come to your position we would have to interpret the statute under the reasonably section to mean that it can't be knowingly false in a report to police department a crime i'm asking for that narrow holding right