give notice create pleading and after that the court has to view all of the allegations in the light most favorable to them i would respectfully dispute that position it boils says officer she came in the dog sniffed around she assisted the older sister to help the younger sister to change her clothes go to beth room and then she took out an id card and  holding guns on the occupants to apprehending mr lawrence she we know she didn't do that and so those allegations to not be lies against her there are separate motion to dismiss her individually she was included and her stand but you you know like to have it parsed per officer and i don't think from your side of the case you have done that either well let me if i may take it a step further they found out for example that there were names associated with this break one name was officer du p they checked the roster of highland park they had to do pre's they sue both of the what they didn't know that was that kelly du pree it was a female round who pretty is a male so if there's only one female in this raid is heather oakum and why do we have kili in this they should have if i may be presumptuous you know the chief was there soon the chief and these officers chief tell us who was on this raid who is not on this raid chief tell us who went into the house who protected the perimeter some of the avs is outside some of them on the side it cetera who did what in this raid you can't i believe at this stage is shotgun approach and say that every officer made the misrepresentation every officer went into the location every  the complaint alleges that the officers all had but mask their identities were therefore would have been hidden from the residents so the what the plaintiffs have learned it appears about identities of of officers they've learned subsequently and that's all in the complaint really some of that's in the in the complaint but you know we don't the names of each and every one way to know that there was one female planted knows that one thirteen ounces in the house so then the question is should play to do some investigation before suing all of these officers should officer tele who's a female officer wasn't in law be dragged along into this lawsuit until plaintive can determine she wasn't even in burden on the plaintive to set forth allegations that rise to the level of plausibility is another got this barely decision and it seems to indicate that you know we it ball in haney haney takes a position that every stage you have to individualize your pleading to make a determination as to who did plaintive said well since some of the officers and playing to does not take the position that all of the officers had mess and since some of the officers said mess which is how they had then if they had the chief and the whole lot of money isn't that a problem that we're inconveniencing does not worsen i think the problem that you raise on behalf of your clients here well benson the trouble they're going through that they didn't they weren't even there you know with respect to that one female officer but i think that swings in favor of the defendant plaintiff has to make a determination as to whether a particular defendant was involved and determines that that person is not involved and then sue that person and there's no cost of living geisha and imposed upon that person in that's exactly the position that i was taking that plaintive should not impose a burden on a person and soothe them when a little investigation would make the determination of the person was not involved which is exactly sterling had in mind when he said that you know at the earliest possible stage the court should we doubt you know on these issues and make a determination as to whether or this place at this time and then you would have provided it before they filed suit is that your suggestion is that you know i'm says the fact is that should happen i'm suggesting that they knew for officers who were involved sue those for the the by  terry as the chief of police who was there who was not there who went into the house who did not go into the house and you make you determination based upon that investigation and then litigation well i guess problem that yeah you'd have to do some some pre investigation in the experience say there was one female officer so how do you justify suing to you kid it's my position that there's another exception to this notion that you can just give notice pleading ensue everybody and that is a scot versus harris  ruling that says that when you have a dispute between a plaintiff then the defendant as to the validity of the search warrant you don't take to the plate his position you look at the official records so in this instance you have an official record you have the search warrant so you don't have to accept plaintiff's conclusion that the search warrant was invalid you can take a look at it and make an independent determination so that this notion that the court has to accept all of these allegations as true isn't is inconsistent with that ruling by the supreme court something to that effect had lived there at one time and there was a about bob which was similar to evolve a he had been seen unloading nitric oxide probably but there it was there any other nexus that is if you have probable cause for issuance of the search warrant when there's nothing in the complaint about probable cause that was something the district court it wasn't researched or anything she was in her opinion but it wasn't in the complaint since my question is well what would it what's in the record that would show there's a fair probability that drugs would be drugs weapons cache proceeds would be found at t i think i think you articulated what my argument would be but i would take it a step further this is a clearly established law that everybody on a raid team the responsibility of looking at the warrant to make an independent determination as to the validity of the warrant even though they probably didn't see it didn't write it until you can deliberate and reach a consensus as to whether or not you agree that the the warrant is valid i don't think the law requires i'm sorry see red li thank you you have your full rebuttal thank you thank you to correct impressions that were given about what went on and how officers were named in this case when the greers were in their house and somebody in masks with long guns and swat blew down their front door with a shotgun they thought it was their local police because there was the word police on the front and somebody came in they were screaming warrant so they thought it was probably the local police which were not highland park it was west bloomfield township we put in our complaint in paragraphs thirty one thirty two thirty three on page i d three thirteen that they can when they complain to their local police and demanded an investigation as to why this happened to them they didn't know who it was who had done this to them and it was the west bloomfield police department through their investigation who found out that the city of highland park had run a lean search on this address looking for this russian they called west they called the highland park police know your honor it was about fifteen miles away in a different suburb now the west bloomfield police also found out from highland park after chief county first told them no we didn't have a warrant we were just looking for a there was a man by the name of dupree was also involved in this we sent a freedom of information request not only to the highland park police department but also to the local district court that issued this  alleged search warrant looking for any other information all we got back was the warrant and the affidavit which didn't tell us who was on the case but we originally filed the complaint the first complaint doc highland park and the other defendants that did some foot work and she called us back and told us the names of the people that the city said were on the raid so we filed the first amended complaint to specifically name the people if kelly to put he was in that group it's because the attorney for highland park at that time told us that kelly deplete was one of those people we were going off of  what our fellow council told us about that and we took that in good faith if a mistake was made a mistake was made that was before it applied had been no that was after that that was after we f doe jane doe complaint and then the counsel for the defense told us what names to put in instead we filed the first amended complaint to do that that's how we found out who should or should not be in this measurement get us there that was a different lawyer your honor so i'm i don't blame mr guinness for not knowing this back story because he wasn't there at the time but that is exactly how this came about mr mcguinness argues that we should find out which of these massed in the skies people who didn't have badges who didn't have name tags on we should know who among them did which actions how he says by discovery that's great that's exactly what we asked for discovery we want to find out what each of them has to say because the city is the one who named these people as being the pool of people we should talk to that's exactly what we want to do it sounds to me like we have an agreement not an appeal that they object to discovery before this was decided about qualified appeared they did your honor the district court allowed us to  limited number of depositions we were able to post chief county we were able to depose officer mcmahon and officer allison we were not able to depose the anything else at that point i think and need not belabor the point that without being able to see behind the mask if this new rule of law were adopted it would mean that if the police wanted to deprive people of their rights do anything to them that they wanted all they'd have to do is make sure that they wore a mask and didn't create a paper trail and that's not what we're about that's not what the civil rights is about that's not justice and we all know that now as to the argument that somehow the district court judge went beyond her thorough eighty in finding that the that the warrant did not was not based on probable cause once again the the court is exactly right in the affidavit in support the only thing they had on this is that five days earlier the police in highland park had raided a blind pig and one of the people they found there was this russian who was selling nitric oxide in balloons from tanks that he had in the back of his car that's a misdemeanor under michigan law they arrested him i don't know from the complaint i do know from things not in the record but i can't say the asli they had they had arrested him five days earlier we can say that so they knew what he looked like they knew what his car was they knew it was about nitric oxide in the affidavit in support of the warrant they didn't say anything else except that they thought he lived at this address and they say that they surveilled it that's all they had to link this house to any kind of crime whatsoever the search warrant say they were looking for this russian are looking for something else now that w up like that that's the interesting thing your honor they told both west bloomfield police and the family that they were looking for the very dangerous russian that they had had in custody five days earlier but what the warrant said was that they should be looking for drugs drug proceeds ledgers banking records things like this things that would be the proceeds of drug dealing it didn't say they were looking for the dangerous russian there was a mismatch between the two and that's what we alleged in our second amended complaint as well that the seems very odd to us officers who would be liable for for the warrant that and didn't have anything to do with getting the warrant and didn't miss misrepresent things to the magistrate to get the warrant i don't believe those individual officers would be personally liable for the bad warrant i think that they should be able to rely on their supervisors say yeah we have a warrant we're good to go that's not our argument and that wasn't what the district court ruled if i might point out what the district court said at record forty seven page id number five twenty eight to five twenty nine if i don't want to do too much here but quote she said other that the police lacked probable cause to enter the premises the warrant is not facially invalid because it and the attached affidavit which is incorporated by reference in the warrant particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized and then have some citations the officers may have reasonably relied on it to enter the home and secure the individuals within the premises another citation and then she goes on to say but whether the officers acted reasonably with respect to among other things how they entered the home and how long they hand cuffed mr lawrence are questions of fact the reason that she denied qualified immunity these officers was not for failure to read the warrant or because the warrant was invalid she said that the reason that she was denying qualified immunity was because they did not act reasonably under all the circumstances in how they entered the house in fact she didn't even go so far as to say that she was making  finding that they act and acted on reasonably she said there was a fact question raised by the pleadings as to whether they acted reasonably in executing the search warrant i think that's while within the well your honor the defendant thirty nine which end up on page idea number three fourteen so that would be page id numbers three hundred sixty three fourteen were nothing but factual allegations these are factual allegations for example and then the structure of the complaint was that after these common factual allegations we then would say what these meant in terms of law the we do count one and say here's how these actions violated the fourth amendment and then go chapter and verse about what they mean for example we said that they didn't knock and announce and the appellants are upset that we set upon information and belief either there was no knock and announce it all or in the alternative it was too quiet for anybody to hear either one of which was that was the middle of the night ok right but what we had alleged in the common allegations paragraph seven page id three o six one of the  occupants of the house says mr lawrence had gone to bed about three forty five am in the morning of october thirtieth two or two thousand and fourteen and then paragraph eight as soon as mr lawrence had la down and turn out the light everyone was awakened by a loud loud bang or boom defendants had blown down the front door with a shotgun and swarmed into the house shouting search warrant now we don't we weren't on the front porch we don't have an eyewitness that could say they didn't knock and announce we don't have an eyewitness who said that they kept very quietly just why what we do have is somebody who was awake at the time and we alleged that he didn't hear anything as he laid down to sleep before he heard the front door being blown down i think that's a plausible statement not notice pleading that is a plausible allegation 's that's part of it your honor there as you know the reasonable miss of the execution of a search warrant depends on all the facts and circumstances here we have a police department that arrested somebody five days before they show up in the middle of the night with without a knock and announce disguised in swat gear instead of showing up at a reasonable hour of the day tapping on the door bringing the doorbell asking politely to come in and search and nothing bad would have happened they would have pollock johnston on home instead they blew down the front door scared everybody refused to show a warrant made people sit on the floor in the corner handcuffed a man for forty five minutes when he had a heart condition and even when he was cooperating in leading them to paperwork that were left by a previous occupant they wouldn't let the mother go to her screaming for seven year old who was just or under where they threaten to take the seven year old out considering a squad car panicked the mother wouldn't let the mother put on a robe over her negligee kept telling them to sit down and shut up separated family members one from the other t in your claims if you know for example that two officers possibly three apprehended mr lawrence and took him back into the basement can you based upon that suit thirteen officers so they say we don't know the identity so the solution is to sue all thirteen says it was raised it is a fact that was a knock before they entered etc but that's not what we're dealing with here and they now know that they have sued people who should not have been sued but what we it somewhat your point today that some of these people ought to be dismissed immediately and if so have you spoken to counsel about that the wrong female as in the case yes have you spoken i mean it's not my business but ok yes we have and i'm a say she's been very gracious reasonable and that we guard so i have no fault pointed toward  her in that respect my my issue is whether or not it is incumbent upon the plate to know before the client gave contrary evidence that the young man who is away told told his lawyer nobody not i did not read that in the complaint i heard that he was in the basement he was an overnight guests i don't know if you can hear the door bell or anything from the front door and that is the that's why we get upon information and believe counsel said we don't know pled and that is why it was said you can't get to court you can't survive qualified immunity best based upon conjecture nests classical conjecture we didn't hear  so they probably didn't knock we don't know who made the misrepresentation to get the warrant so they probably all made the this representation to get the war don't know who took mr lawrence in the basement so they probably all except mr mort mr lawrence in the basement really don't know you have to conclude your time thank you thank you very much the for your argument