and fifteen minutes to be shared by defendants basis in the cause of this case is recklessness reckless powerlessly that created a war when there was no probable cause  warrants without doing any investigation the palace see for probationers if they missed an appointment or if they didn't show up or if they were alleged to have violated their probation was to call them to have them come in to give them three chances and there was a four page procedure for what to do for probationers people who were assigned to community service without being put on probation because it was a less serious offense and they didn't need supervision were subject only to this perfunctory idea which was a policy operated since at least two thousand and seven that the orders would be put in mr baez file and mr by ward from time to time we don't know a periodic lee but we don't know how often or in what order he would check the far out he'd look at the file and if there was any order in the file to community service in the date had passed for the order he would put that person on the arrest with a minute then he looked in his book and he looked on the list he submitted an affidavit in which he said that what he did was look in his file and he saw the order there and therefore he put him on the last it was later at deposition there he added that he looked in his computer but he was the one the only thing in the office that he didn't do was the sign in sheet and everybody who came into the office signed the sign in sheet i think it's more than reckless to not check the sign in sheet and to not have as part of the policy you will check the sign and show you how the paperwork got into the book nobody seems to know as it is you know but i was under the impression that it goes in the slot it sits there and then the people come in and travis takes it and she makes a bundle it gives a back to the buys and then buys takes and he puts it in a loose leaf folder and then also puts something like makes a spreadsheet and that's what's supposed to happen there was none of that for and some of those may be incorrect and then when he went in these saw that it was still in the file the order was still there in the in the envelope i thought he checked the book it wasn't there and so you saw the warrant but that somehow later it all showed up in the book well and we don't know how that happened but and we don't know that later it showed up in the book all we know is that when the court after the five days that or the four days that mr lewis was in jail when the judge said you know check this out do we did he appear or  not at that point i went off and he came back to the core in he said yes he did appear we don't know for sure if he checked the sign in sheet or if the name did appear in his book at that time so that's that's what's wrong with the system it had no double check nobody checked on anything the yes the orders were picked up by whatever probation officer went over to the clerk's office they were brought back they were supposed to be put into mr buys file in his mailbox they were then supposed to be put by mr buy into mr baez file for pending orders orders pending the arrival of the the person ordered then when the person ordered k man whomever they spoke to was supposed to take the order out of the file and either give it to mr buy or put it into this three ring binder which held the orders that were active people had come then that was the system so the way the system operated if the order didn't come in time or if the person who picked up the orders didn't pick up that or somehow the order didn't get into the file or counsel i mean first first of all you have the issue of qualified immunity i mean the testimony is that nothing like this ever happened before so it's hard to say the the individuals couldn't rely on those but separate and apart from that before we had computers that's the way people did everything in the courts excellent point but the thing is they had they had checks and things if it was if the procedure was going to lead to somebody being arrested it was going to lead in evidently to somebody being arrested and don't forget the rest of this procedure was to simply if the order was still in the file after the date the procedure didn't require checking anything else the person's name would be put on a list the list without being sworn to or without having any reason how the list came to be would be given to the court and somehow turned into a warrant so the person was sure to be arrested they were causing people to be arrested based on this little system i mean what you're saying sounds more like a male problem than an individual officer problem because i mean do you have any indication that any particular officer was recklessly terms of following the policy here and i i have to say that although defendants want to say that neither b travels knew of any previous happening now it wasn't what they testified they two they each said in their app a david i don't have any recollection of this happening before which is  different from being willing to testify that it never happened because you have an indication of what happened before we don't but we who knows because it's not the kind of thing that would really come to the attention of anybody and whether or not it happened before it was sure to resolve the venture only in somebody being wrongly arrest because there were no checks i because the warrant was not facially valid if you look at the warrant you will see first of all that it is a warrant for failure of community service that is not something that could passi happen in front of the court it therefore could not have been direct can contend it therefore could not resolved without probable cause an affidavit of probable cause or probable cause written by a sworn statement on the warrant because it was could not have been in front of the court therefore the court could not summarily issue a warrant the warrant was not belin on its face and it it's it says four and then it it gives the underlying of fans over here in the over over here it warrant for direct contempt this is a word for interact content we're talking about whether the form of the war is facially the right looks whether it looks facially valid i guess it does not look facially valid your honor because it says sworn to before me and nobody swore to anything so there is a by the clerk a big piece missing and even though nobody swore it's signed by the  have the defendants agreed to share the time yes your honor i will be taking time minutes of the time the remainder to counsel for the city of euclid to find the remainder may please the court my name is frank scaled down i represent the bailiff robert nolan and probation officers stephen by and sherry travis this case arises simply from a mistake made by someone in the probation department in processing the paperwork that has to do with the court order community service this case fits firmly within the qualified immunity protections and that's the focus of my argument here today qualified immunity insulates public officials for their from liability for discretionary conduct that does not violate clearly established rights there are some ground rules that go along with qualified immunity plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate violation of clearly established rights and  officials are immune and once the law clearly prescribe spin on debate that the actions they took are unconstitutional another have a right not to be arrested without probable cause to think that they did what they supposedly and what he did was simply look in the book and it wasn't the book that said these are the people who went to community services it  i'm not sure about that on the record but yeah i don't i don't believe that that's the case so i mean if the question is whether people showed up to do their service the fact that or order is still sitting there is it may be a reason why you should check further certainly if it's still sitting there go to these people come in i don't know let me go scene and then you make a few with economies and find in the history of this system there's never been another incident like this that's in this record or to my knowledge what we have here is a simple mistake and the weakness of plaintiff's case is to defeat a claim of qualified immunity the plaintiff must establish the defendant's acted knowingly or intentionally to violate his or her constitutional rights as mere negligence or recklessness is insufficient and that's the that it is either in that case the arrow sources triable case one eighty eight f third three sixty five a six circuit case nine hundred ninety nine provides that in in the the supreme court the united states supreme court has has declared that qualified immunity protects all quote all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law and that's molly versus briggs so what the plaintiffs were what the defendant here none of that goes beyond negligence even under the most gracious allegations or taking of the the allegations of the of what happened and what is the explanation for what happened eventually these things in the book do we know that or not that i do not i don't know but ultimately i doubt that any before that when they came before the court it was determined that they had that they were in the process of doing their community service and the judge  the judge found this will and it happened with one after they spent four days in jail in the open and they spent five and lost a job and some other things is that correct i believe that's the allegations of it and all right so if we if we if site at the case slow and  sings accurate but while this is a bear directly on this point you indicated that this is the first and only time that this has happened and judge why just ask how how did it how did it happen what what has been done if anything to make sure that something like this doesn't happen again because the deprivation around the deprivation of liberty of iraq it's problematic in troubling and maybe the city if you played answer that but what's what's what and i'm not sure that's what i have in my notes here but in any event it's not clear what what happened causing the causing the mistake but what we do know that is a mistake and the the conduct of sherry travis was merely was merely explaining to the plaintiffs what how much time they had to complete community service and where to report this is for them fortunate wrong when there is no remedy in your  that's correct and i mean it's not unlike many issues of of immunity that we have in state and federal courts just how does the pregnant woman end up staying there a whole nother day once the judge knows what happened that i'm not sure on the timing or why that that would be the case or it's it's like every nobody cared i mean it's like all of this ind ifference like sorry you know didn't i don't i don't think the i mean it is far is the history of this never occurring it doesn't seem to manifest itself  in the interactions with with other of these community service issues and we're not seeing this it's not a problem that's going on and on and on where people are being allegedly deprived of their constitutional rights and i think that also goes to the mono claim that was suggested i mean without a single instance does not provide a basis for for a mono claim can you see that it's a terrible system i mean a system that seeks to determine whether somebody put forth did what they were supposed to do based on their order for community service assist in the tries to determine that shouldn't the based on whether a paper has been filed is that that's an alert that tells you you have to look into this and then you find out whether they've reported you don't say there's a paper there that means they didn't report you following what i'm saying i believe strong again you know it's unfortunate this occurred but this isn't a pervasive issue really it boils down to a mistake that was it's system was the system was the system under this record piers and working fine mistakes were not being made there wasn't didn't does not appear to be a situation where there is  that relies on the presence of a piece of paper that has nothing to do with what you are saying is look we have established a system and because our system is so good we know that if a piece of paper is sitting there it means that they violated the court's order and if you're going to say that and act on it then it seems to me that you that you ought to be able to support that that the reason we know that is because the paper doesn't get there and less these four things happen but it's not like that i mean it's filed this you do this you're not even sure whose job it is it's there nobody checks to see whether somebody really reported it really it's a pla that's all it is it's not a reason to believe that the person didn't report and then you go out and put a warrant on it and go well it we're relying on our system again my answer to that is that there is there is a system and there is a system for where the paperwork goes it's put in the mailbox it's put into this folder where the orders are it's checked periodic least there is one there for finding out whether somebody  that is the system that it's if that if that order is not in there if the order remains in there then they haven't reported for communities that we know that's not true you can't rely on that because here these people had  everything they were supposed to do and they still were wrongfully arrested because the system said they hadn't done it when in fact they had the they had done what they're supposed to do and the system resulted in them being arrested held in jail and all of the other negative consequences that flow out there from so it may have only happened one time but this is privatization evidence that your system stuff did not work and you know that terrible terrible consequences for these people that did for an unfortunate situation but it does not demonstrate that any of the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity there was no intentional violation of constitutional rights and it doesn't respectfully doesn't establish a mono claim under these facts i want to know from the city how good morning your honor may please the court i'm kelly sweeney i represent rene mcintyre victor step back and the city of euclid with respect to defendant stepping in mcintyre they were individuals who were jailed corrections officers so they were presented with the two appellants with arrest warrants and we do believe they were facially valid they're in at the record at page id ninety six and one thirteenth and i do have copies for the ninety two and one zero nine mr by would present himself to the court to say these individuals didn't perform or didn't show up to sign up for community work service and that this is the judge's file jacket to show him to the point it's coun any objection for us reviewing these documents would present himself to the court and get the warrant approved by judge will be when he said that he'd give he'd give her a list of these particular individuals didn't show up to sign up for community work service  k duty and his sole basis for saying it was that there was a piece of paper in the file in this particular case yes yes but getting back to my two particular defendants are that in this particular case of the me and he would do something different in another case well that's just for community work service yeah the courts are very busy as this court i'm sure is well aware so not only do they have to supervise probationers they have about five hundred a year i would say on probation they think that he would follow the procedure no he would generally give this at the court a list like your honor these are the folks that haven't showed up for community work service and there'd be a list and the judge would sign off on each each of the file jackets that the war it would be issued and she'd turn that you know over to her clerks and they would do the docket entries and do the word so with respect to macintyre and step of who were the jail corrections officers so the defendants appellants did show up at the jail after their arrest and were presented with those two warrants so i believe they're entitled to qualified immunity and i would ask this court to agree with judge nugent and i'm really looking at the case of baker versus my column which is four forty three u s one thirty seven in th in the baker case an unlawful brother got a driver's license with his the good brother's name on it and the unlawful brother's photo so he had a drug case and things like that he got a warrant out for his arrest but he was in the good brothers name so good brother was arrested and it was a similar situation where he was arrested over a holiday weekend december thirtieth through january second and it wasn't until january second that the detaining sheriff saw the driver's licenses oh my gosh  mistaken identity we have we have the wrong brother in here and despite repeated protests by the good brother it's not me it's your you're looking for my brother so you know in that case the supreme u s in court health we do not think a sheriff executing an arrest warrant is required by the constitution to investigate independently every claim of innocence where the claim is based on mistaken identity or a defense such as lack of requisite intent and i think we should have the recent same result here with respect to mcintyre and step objected to their arrest because they you know stated that they were doing their community work service could not have released those folks at that time it was close for the weekend it was good friday was easter weekend and the very next day that court was open  they did see mr lewis and females are housed at a different facility that's why we couldn't get ms beck a mental till the following day so as soon as they were both able to be seen by the judge she did release them and  with respect to the city of euclid we were talking about the most claim and as mr scale down said this has been a single incident in over the twenty years that eighteen years that mistress has been the chief probation officer at the city of euclid and we do have a high volume court and it was a terrible mistake i don't think anybody you know is happy this occurred and one of the your honor said you know that we don't hear from morse for this but we really do it's terrible but i just don't think it rises to the level you still using the same system they use a similar they do use the same system i don't know exactly what they're doing but you know i can't say and i please i don't want to sound callous but it was one mistake over many many years with thousands of folks that come through come through the doors there so i don't know for changes necessarily necessary because of one mistake maybe are they triple checking instead of double checking their orders that come through but somebody just mistakenly didn't pull the piece of papers from one binder and put it in another and of course thank you thank you to answer a few questions is nearly as we can tell from the affidavits and from the testimony at deposition the system was the somehow the orders would get into this bio folder when when a person who was ordered to community service but was not on probation was just not going to be supervised by a probation officer but was just going to do community service when such a person came to the court to sign up to the probation office to sign up the probation officer who took their signing up which in this case was travis was supposed to go to this file folder get out the court order do whatever they did to sign the person and then put the court order in a binder for people who had signed up or give it to mr by which ever happened first in this case mr travis was unable to say whether the order was in the file folder when she went to get it she wasn't sure whether it was or not she's there mine is that it wasn't and surmised that it must have come in late and somehow gotten into the file folder after they had already signed that that's what happened it's that perfunctory in the reason that this is the castle touche no violation but ok what it that still remained in the folder the rest of the orders for people who had come in who had not come in and had been ordered to come in since the last time whenever it was that mr by checked so he would check once a month once a week he wasn't exactly sure but he would check this file folder so it was travis that was supposed to retrieved the order from the file folder and put it with the rest of the paperwork yes it was yeah because she was the person who interviewed the two plaintiffs i want to get a little bit to the fact that that yes they were reckless and i sorry you go ah they were so reckless that it was a total of views of discretion and i think the court knows that in abuse of discretion is is a violation and it is not subject to qualified immunity when obvious or abuses his discretion  for instance as to the amount of force he uses he does not have qualified immunity from using that emote what's the discretion the discretion here was how they were going  to ensure that this system weren't they they had discretion to check the you know to check the sign and she they had discretion to make a better system they were satisfied with the system and the problem with the system was that eventually it was going to fail eventually exactly what happened was going to happen when mr by would check the file folder he would make a list of all the orders that were still in the file folder for people who had been ordered to community service and he would put those names an a list in the list simply warrants requested it didn't say why and it wasn't sworn it was just a list of names the system as i said for probationers was entirely different and there is some evidence that this system was changed after this event but i'm not sure if it was i would like to mention a little bit mr nolan and why mr nolan also is in this when he served this warrant he could see because he had been a police officer in euclid for many many years and he was still working in his old police officer station as a police officer but he was part time he was semi retired or when he picked had handwriting on the bottom and the handwriting said good well eastlake it gave the address and vine street it gave the contact person a phone number it said start date march twenty seven monday wednesday and thursday this was the first thursday after march twenty seventh and they had been arrested on vine street which is a street that goes don't have to he had a warrant that was strange looking and i think everybody has to admit i spent twelve years as a prosecutor i never saw one that looked like that he had a warrant that looked anough strange that did not have an affidavit did not have any sworn statement on it was to do he could have used his discretion and he could have looked at their papers he could have called goodwill and said by the way are these people telling the truth good well would have said yes they submitted an affidavit saying that they were open until eight o'clock that night and these people would not have been incarcerated wrongfully the pregnant woman for five days over easter can you imagine with her kids at daycare wondering what was going to happen to the other questions i'm sorry for the