hurdle you have to get past but let's just assume it for them they go to the prosecutor before they do anything and say cheap we think the guy lied on stand we'd like to develop a case against him  on his testimony previous trial and the magistrate mistakenly in mind says i think that's ok also and then the prosecutor gets whatever evidence they can get from the search for the driver's license and says i think  prosecute what i'm having difficulty doing is frank figuring out what a reasonable police officer would done under those circumstances other than go to the prosecutor and then go to the magistrate and then judge say that this is not the guy who was driving but no it's there you know that's they know that's you for prosecuting him for being the guy who is driving right what do they know about it if they discovered that he lied no once the judge says that's it he couldn't have lied if the reason for the judge saying that's it is the same issue that they think he lied about that's not i happen to agree with you as a matter of interpreter case law my question is when a reasonable police officer that circumstance just have to say i stop with the officer to say gee i think you lied let me go see the prosecutor and determine whether or not there's any avenue to do this a reasonable officer it i think the closest case to how was your court of put it how would your client damaged by anything to police officers did given the fact that prosecutor blessed well st of all the prosecutor in many ways record is pretty clear that the prosecutor had said at any point to them hey guys if you read ash versus what it says because you're the th circuit case law we've got to stop here they would have stopped would be the point is that even though the prosecutor signed it the decision is up to the magistrate and the law is that if the police officers never should have proceeded past a certain point to get to the prosecutor or the magistrate then their actions on reasonable and the so if it was altered in damage to my client the police officers were to tell me and tell me what cases that that that if if if you went to the prosecutor told them exactly the that activity but he was damaged by was the eventual search and the prosecution well he was damaged by the violation of his rights and he has a right not to be subjected to all going investigation when the agents know or should know he's innocent so let's assume that the investigation stopped when they went to the prosecutor they did all this prior investigation the prosecutor said hey guys i sympathize with you but we can't go for what your client have a claim for damages and what we did what would his damages deborah seems to me to deal with people who are truly innocent yes he's actually innocent why is he actually innocent because this part now this court didn't say this court said he couldn't be prosecuted no this court said that as to the issue of whether or not he was the person driving the car the traffic court judge necessarily necessarily decided that he was not right as to the question of whether he lied about whether he was seated this is a little different than actual innocence you testifying truthfully when he said he wasn't the driver and that occurs in every perjury case it later on down the road somebody comes in with a piece of evidence that you rely on all i'm saying is your client your client surely can't be prosecuted for  after caused by the prosecutor's decision that yes what you've compiled was good enough that we had to go forward let me just say that that the difference in the answer to the question between the st amendment and the th amendment as caldwell did not and stated that it had this time for the how to resolve st amendment claims versus th amendment claims but that it was not going to do it because somebody just if somebody testified and the st judgment was necessarily based on the court's acceptance of his testimony that he could not play therapy prosecutor for you think that's not clear qualified immunity which is that we all pretend that police officers understood supreme court th circuit decisions but that's what the supreme why wouldn't it be clear at the point in time when your us so now let's move to what the th circuit had said previously which is that this apply some cases where the defendant testifies at trial one verdict a trial one was because the search in this i would agree with that position yes and the search warrant in this case the opposite did state that he was acquitted based on his testimony that they believe to be false and measure schmidt says it's a rare case where an officer is going mean it seems to me that the question this case as i see it was was it what an officer be plainly incompetent to conclude that the time that they were going to initiate their nd investigation that in the  it was necessarily decided and it was plainly clear of the officers then i think you lose well qualified immunity but if your argument is that it wasn't point lee clear i think a competent officer could think there was legal wiggle room there especially understand officers are not always judged the same as judges then i think you wouldn't qualify me so i don't know if you need to go as far as saying that hideous cases have no application in one thousand and three when both are applying look at  defense and evidence was put on that the car was speeding and he said it may have been but i wasn't the driver so didn't the judge necessarily find that he wasn't the driver of but you know look the courts may have gotten this right or wrong the th circuit itself the california court of pitt was a reasonable so just tell me what fact there was that could have led to his acquittal other than his temper when the advise we don't go out and poll state court judges or federal judge others and see if they can understand it it's given the way the supreme court has done this we have to just book and make a determination about when the officers came to the da and the magistrate what they said was that wilkinson was driving at the time he received a citation from officer  thank you this case will be submitted to thanks but counsel for their arguments and we will be at recess i want to a shot toffee and riley happy birthday and i guess if we're making announcements we should announce that this is judg