is not really in dispute on the law it's in dispute on the facts where we contend the district judge erred in deciding questions of fact it should have been submitted to the jury the issues involved three claims which were granted judgment as a matter of law against us on the ground of qualified immunity during trial involving excessive force an arrest lack of probable cause in a police case and search where the searches were divided up into three separate searches one of which we contend is nonexistent in this case now the search as it was a little unclear to me i know that doesn't matter for the purposes of our analysis but what damages few content flow from the allegedly unconstitutional search to which you're referring the damages that come from the unconstitutional search or the tearing up of the house the trashing of the house the turning over ashleigh cans of the cleanup and of and a violation of the constitutional rights of being securing in your home without a without a warrant time you have a better right to be in the house then venue do if it's an uncontested search well you put it there for the winter when did the damage to the property occur when did the damage to the property line the damage to  and it's and it's going for twenty to thirty minutes now regarding the excessive force claim and the lack of probable cause to arrest claim the difference is against us on excessive force this qualified immunity based on the fact the officer didn't prepare to participate he ignores of course the fact that pepper spray is done and by officer morgan and he jumps into the if morgan's version is the only version maybe it is justifiable detention because at that time they had been in the house but he or he's already gone in the house that his protective sweep suzi opens the door he can see the computer has not been shot which is one of the complaints that got them there in the first place that might have happened he can see that there's nobody in the house mr greer is cooperative he would then have no justifiable reason to order greer to the ground to be restrained and then to handcuff him but don't we have to look at this from the standpoint of the reasonable deputy at that stage in terms of what he has heard what with the telephone it a fight it was what was going on that's correct but we have a dispute in the facts of what the reasonable deputy heard and what he did we have the reasonable deputy testifying on the one hand and you have mr greer testifying on the other hand and it's to the jury is the decider of facts if the jury decides mr greer's version is correct and there is some corroboration for his version but isn't the real question who is correct so much as what did greer understand you not agree with what did the deputy understood what did he what did the deputy understand to be the situation that he was reacting to and some of that involves  telephone call that's correct yes that's correct it's understood what was said in the telephone don't we have to look at his state of mind we do have to look at his state of mind but unlike the second resume case where you have a have a deputy after the fact he was not there with a victim present saying i was beaten up and i've got some blood on my face and you have the defendant screaming i didn't do it he still has the right there to take the victim's word and and react here however you have the defendant and the the deputy at the scene while it's happening and you have conflicting evidence about what happened when you have conflicting evidence i submit that's for the jury to decide that question of fact and not for the district judge and that's what the district judge did an error here he basically didn't even consider greer's version and if you look at their apple these brief on judgment as a matter of law as to the search based on the argument that was made in the argument that was made was that there was a search what we call the second search that started when consent was given to  did when deputy mattern says they're coming out of the house now that is all very clear on the tape and i would suggest this is one case where you really do need to listen to at least excerpts of that tape minutes later you can time it deputy madden says they're coming out now sir they're coming out now the the record that that happened in a very timely way and so with the question is on what search was directed verdict granted  it's granted on the search that we described in our judgment as a matter of law argument and you can see that pretty clearly in the transcript of day five it begins at page one seventy one and goes through page one seventy two now in response to that argument with a very specific argument frank there's no argument about well judge we're talking about the second search there was more to it before that was the argument about judge there was more to it after version of the facts you want to there's no evidence in the record on when the damage occurred if you consider the damage to be the one getting through the house the dumping of astrological things that the allegation is that that happened soon as he was on the ground hears people rushing in his house and they're there for fifteen to twenty minutes we have to believe that that a jury question it is a jury question that was submitted to the jury look at what it was to them and i want to be clear about issue at this one correct so you're basing it then there was a period of time in between when he said searching was going on without consent correct that's his version of the facts of course version of the fact is morgan when he came out then and then they people rushing and he describes that pretty good at least i am on the ground i can hear people rushing to my house and other people testified as well that they get these were in there for fifteen to twenty minutes before  was a jury question that the judge refused to grant judgment as a matter of law and that's what the jury determined that as well let me get to the issue of the actual damages because yes the jury did find that there was a constitutional violation here found damages no evidence in this case of any additional damage that occurred between consent given and consent revoking when the deputies come out there's no evidence that any additional actual damage occurred during that period nobody nobody put on any evidence about when the damage occurred precisely that day no that's that's correct so we don't know on this record we don't know but what we do know is that all the damage that w claimed was argued to the jury and i prefer the court to the closing arguments at page thirty four also with page twenty eight twenty five through twenty seven those arguments were made events through the eyes of the officer now and i understand this is somewhat of a difficult gymnastic because on the one hand reviewing the facts in a light most favorable to the to the ny movement but we're also viewing events through the eyes of the there was a gunshot ok in the two minutes they didn't find evidence of a gun shop but that certainly is not enough to dispel a reasonable fear reasonable office and have the morgan choose could do what was prudent to order the suspect on the ground so we can get the situation calm and neutralized we can do our investigation and at the end of that investigation this is what they've been working since at the end of that investigation if we find no crime has been committed well we'll  all the benefit of the doubt and the supreme court told us that we certainly in the case the benefit of the doubt has to go to that officer who even under the strict rules version of the facts erred on the side of caution actually tackled there was some debate about whether that's an arrest our position is not what's going on arresting officers are still trying to neutralize the situation and ensure the safety but at the very least they did have probable cause to arrest  some indication we don't want this suspect to get so close to that the morgue and that he's got a possibility given the gun there's a possibility of danger to mr greer and was worried about thinking he's got away from him or something well the person who did the takedown this was  department of public safety officer he said testifies his concern is one something might happen agree or he may get shot too he may get so close to death the organ that we've got a much more dangerous situation on our hands because he's got access to the gun under the for the district judge on the search issue ruled that curve for one after the handcuffing that's the one that he ruled and that court's order dismissing that claim he's telling the jury false statements i mean i can't sit here and allow him to convince the jury that this second search is still in this lawsuit sustained so the jury is then told that that is out