big argument although i would point out that that is a just an aspect of the broad argument regarding the process that she was doing also that this court always has jurisdiction to correct you know to apply the law correctly and that is the law that she was victim of domestic a domestic violence crime we have a a uniquely on point case from the california court of appeal that says a witness to the beating of a family dog is a domestic violence that is that is in our opening brief that is also i believe i mentioned again in our reply brief but it says specifically so one who witnesses and i saw it on the on the family dog is a domestic violence victim within the meaning of family code section six to eleven which is the code section that civil procedure sex twelve ninety relies upon so given that a totally non was the animal crimes prosecutor and a prosecutor presume to know the law regarding the rights of victims you would think that she would be aware of the existence of this statute and this case yet appellee non claims that she was not aware shall not be imprisoned or otherwise confined her place in custody for contempt meaning refusal to testify so so none of that actually happened in this it's strongest argument for her due process violation that is just in the the backdrop of this all is that it was never lawful to arrest her even if she had refused to testify was she did not refuse to testify and i'd like to move on to that non's declaration there are at least nine points of fact which were either materially false or omitted factual information which was material to the just determination befor testimony was asserted that a subpoena had been issued no refusing to honor a subpoena and then turned lawyer indicate that she would not testify she indicated that she did not want to assist the prosecution it was not that she would refuse to help but not a subpoena a subpoena is different because that is as a court ordering you to show up so for some for a prosecutor to ask you hey will you show up will you assist us people have various reasons for not wanting to assist the prosecutor i waited until two days before the trial or one day before the trial each and by the way that happened consistently throughout this case they have waiting until the last minute and they can't find her well it turned out that she was out of state so that should that would come as no surprise somebody with a tele pellet martin's position that sonar would be traveling for work would be in this case they did have information pertaining to the location of her work in new york at that time yet they never followed up with that authority for the proposition that procedural due process requires a pre arrest hearing that's the point you're making is it not right with regard to the fourteenth amendment  so our best authority would be the so the cogswell case which is from the california supreme court which it interprets california codes overseas or twelve experience you would presume that she would know the law on that pursuit she got a hearing i'm sorry we got a hearing and an opportunity to cross examine witness after she was arrested yes and that was on a very short notice we're talking about time when it comes to this is on the clowder establishing but it is relevant here this is that's the blocking case which we had cited in our out reply so when there's insufficient time to prepare no it's not that's not an issue that had already been litigated and it's also not it wouldn't be sufficient to give her process here after she's already taken into custody move for a continuance i don't believe she moved for a continuance but you know she was already taken into custody issues and in jail at that point so the harm has already been done and i'd also like to point out she didn't have an appellate remedy at that point because as i mentioned she's already been arrested cases resetted in our in our briefs regarding section twelve ninety b and how it may be used now with regard to the fourth amendment argument i just like to point out that the the term of art probable cause meaning in the context of a material witness it must be reasonable under all the circumstances and it it's different than taking a criminal into custody nanos that ms martin is has not committed a crime yet she filed this affidavit which made all these representations about heard of voiding service and things of that nature she admitted the fact that she you know knocked on the door you don't have you don't even have to be legit to having committed a crime if you refuse service even in the civil case right she did not refuse service though that had never happened and that's what i'm pointing out is that that was intimated in her decker and appellee mounts declaration that she had actually refused service or refused to comply with the subpoena that hadn't happened what happened is she had expressed a desire not to cooperate with the prosecution because the person they were prosecuting happened to be her fiance so that is her right that is something that the un's bird case makes clear aspect of this though is the fact that the investigators they never saw her car present at the at my client's home so if they are they're suggesting that she's inside ignoring attempts to surf or yet this information about her car not being parked in front of her house the judge would i be absolute like to know that because that suggests that she's not home now if she if she is that she parked the car around the corner i mean i i don't know that there's a very strong inference either way well see inferring that somebody is hiding because you can't find them that's very problematic because it's no response that they claim they made multiple phone calls  attorney so the question is was there enough in the declaration for reasonable inference that she was ducking and lapse in the aunt's as well and that's a question for probable cause right right now but i'm also trying to make clear is it's not it's not just the facts that  state and you know i'm not talking about statements that can be subject to interpretation but i mean a false statement in the affidavit the the suggestion that she's avoiding service in my opinion it's either true or it's false i know i know that you're arguing that that's subject to interpretation and my argument is that that is actually a factual statement and it's false and it's something that she had not reasonably inquired into had she she would have realized that she was not hiding she was actually at work in in new york now as far as that so liability can also come from omissions intentional or reckless admissions the cruise case makes that clear so regarding yes you know her voiding service and her this this intimation that she had refused to testify those are false but there are also a missions concerning  yes the appearance of her car the fact that the investigating officers who were allegedly attempting to serve her never actually knocked on the door of the unit where she was said to live they knocked on the next unit over they assume that it's the same building that you know it's still her address that's not the way it works if you try to serve someone an apartment building and you knock on the next door over that's not going to be sufficient joanna same sort of time for rebuttal yes your honor thank you that set forth individual ised reasons to believe this mr martin would not appear in testify unless security was required we respond to mr hans answer to my question about force of the on the street because it states that miss martin was avoiding service that statement is not contained in the declaration the declaration states i believe that miss martin was avoiding service and that belief is important because her belief depends on whether her belief was reasonable depends on her subjective knowledge she had no reason to know that miss martin was in new york ms martin testified in her deposition she didn't tell anyone in law enforcement she was in new york she didn't tell her attorney that she was in new york she didn't give her attorney authority to accept service on her behalf and she didn't have her attorneys say hey she's out of town let me bring her before you there's also no material omissions the admission related to the vehicle isn't material to the good cause determination as your honor pointed out the vehicle could have been parked somewhere else and officer charette also testified that when he first was looking for miss martin and  appeared at her residence on i believe may sixteenth her car was in the driveway and miss martin claims that she was in new york at the time so the presence or absence of her vehicle isn't material to whether or not she is not going to appear and testify unless security is required not actually knocking on her door non was not the person that was involved in the attempt to serve miss martin so she can't be held liable for the conduct of earlier efforts to attempt to serve her non's declaration set forth the efforts of law enforcement and included the dates and it included the times that they went in tried to serve her it stated in the declaration that the officers should read knocked on the only door that was accessible from the sidewalk and the such that the door or that they didn't actually knock on the fifteen zero nine door is not material because if that door is not accessible from the sidewalk and no one is answering the only door that is accessible that's again good cause to believe they're not going to be able to get her to appear and testify unless security is required even miss martin could establish that there was not sufficient probable cause non and the county would both still be entitled to judgment non has absolute immunity for bringing the thirteenth thirty two motion in the first place but not a judicial deception claim the ninth circuit has held that in order to defeat qualified immunity immunity there has to be a substantial showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth  not act with reckless disregard for the truth she reached out to the district attorney that was involved in the initial filing she reached out to the l a p d police officer that was involved in the initial investigation and efforts to serve non for the policeman ery hearing and she really touched out to the d a investigator that tried to serve non for trial she independently communicated with each of them she reviewed the e mails between the investigator and between the district attorney in order to make sure that the r statements were accurate and she also saw an earlier burglary report where miss martin had previously reported that her v had burglarized her residence and then when she reconciled with her he she asked the investigating officer to throw the report away and then she non provided the declaration to each of the three individuals so they could check and make sure it was accurate there's no evidence on the record of reckless disregard and therefore non is protected by  qualified immunity for filing the declaration and what you're just telling us is on the record that yes that's correct the record however the protection provided by twelve nineteen that's in a political in this case because again  that had to do with contempt and non is absolutely immune from bringing the thirteen thirty two motion in the first place the only issue as to her liability is whether or not she acted with reckless disregard for the truth in filing her declaration such county the only allegation in the complaint that mr martin points to as the basis of her mono claim is the allegation that debra not acted pursuant to the district attorney's office policies and procedures for procuring the arrests of material witnesses without cause to do so and miss martin claims that that based on the action of a policy maker if there is a policy maker liability for a county to be held liable based on the actions of municipal policymaker there has to be final policy making authority from that municipality and that is determined as a matter of state law the california supreme court has clearly that the district attorney's office acts on behalf of the state and not on behalf of the county when developing and implementing policies related to the prosecutions of individual crimes the ninth circuit follow in cold scene follow that and found that the alleged policy of coercing witness testimony in obtaining false confessions was in extra complete linked to the prosecution of crime that's on all fours with this case the policy of arresting material witnesses is inextricably linked to prosecuting the crime that the witness was material  to the only other basis that miss martin tries to state a claim for mono liability is based on the failure to train and this court has held that the failure to train is the most difficult basis to state a claim for mono liability and less there's a pattern of repeated violations by untrained employees and the unconstitutional consequences of the failure train has to be patently obvious and the supreme court has conic that constitutional violations are not a patently obvious result of the feel you train prosecutors on how to obey the law given the extensive legal training they have to go through to become prosecutors and again that case is on all fours here constitutional violations are not a patently obvious consequence of feeling to train prosecutors on how to follow penal code section thirteen thirty two there's no set of facts that miss martin can allege to state i'm on now claim against county and the record establishes that mitt non is entitle to qualified immunity for the statements made in her declaration there emissions were material with regard to counsel's arguments regarding mon el i would like to point out that under the law of this circuit when a prosecutor does something that is outside the scope of prosecutorial immunity that they are acting on behalf of the county and not the state and here we have a pelley mark kelly not hold herself out as a policymaker for the county she boasts on her website that she helped draft legislation that she helped run as the abolition the animal crimes unit of the los angeles district attorney's office and thus she is a policy maker on behalf of the