Frunz

ORDER

Defendants have responded to our order to show cause. See Frunz v. City of Tacoma, 468 F.3d 1141 , 1147 n. 10 (9th Cir. 2006). They argue that their appeal wasn’t frivolous because they reasonably relied on relevant case authorities, notably, Murdock v. Stout, 54 F.3d 1437 (9th Cir.1995). We quote at length from the response:

Response at 9-12.

The nub of this argument appears to be that, as in Murdock (and contrary to the facts we recited in our opinion), the officers here obtained independent verification of Staples’s account before entering: They observed three individuals, whose appearances were inconsistent with their surroundings, inside the house. Defendants reiterate this claim a few pages later: “The officers activated the beeper [notifying the station of an emergency situation], because when they arrived at the Quandt home, they observed three people inside who appeared to be ‘street people.’ ER 334.” Response at 21-22.

The record belies this argument. ER 334, on which defendants rely, is part of Sergeant Stril’s testimony, and Stril made his observations only after the officers had entered the house:

ER 334. The only evidence as to what the officers did see…