carson city and as he pursued that vehicle it pulled into a motel parking lot pursued it all the way to the back and the driver jumped out and hopped over a fence into an adjoining mobile home park deputy he pursued this individual in the trailer park he lost track of him and began to return to his vehicle and the vehicle he had been pursuing as he was back at the vehicle preparing paperwork and doing an inventory whatever he was hearing radio traffic on his radio of a black male running down the street adjacent to the trailer park called in by citizens to the sheriff's department and he noted that then a few moments later another officer on a nearby street was driving up the street when a citizen pointed out another individual a black male hiding in the bushes and that black male popped out of the bushes this was mr webb without dispute and at the sight of the officer mr webb according to the second officer ran down an alley and moments later he was facts of what happened in the alley it's about what happened in the calm of the prosecutor's office when he gets told he got along right and instead of immediately releasing the innocent  well that's a good well let me give my answer to that first of all the reason i started with the facts is because i think that there's circumstantial evidence that mr webb was driving the car even today we don't know sufficient isn't that what we are in part by and large disputing that what the jury found the jury i believe we can infer from their decision that they believe that because part of that part of the claims against the prosecutor are that they acted with malice they acted with an improper motive and on the state claims that's relevant to whether the prosecutors remain within their state law discretionary a they don't it doesn't have a bearing on the policymaking so let me turn to that there's no evidence presented at trial that a deputy district attorney is a policymaker there are many ways to get  office not to prosecute without probable cause and there was testimony that deputy district attorney and there was nothing for example to show that you didn't introduce any internal training manuals are any internal policy statements or any internal flowchart anxious to get up with the attorney general's involvement in criminal cases the reason that that language is brought is that it is to protect the process where a criminal defendant is charged and accused of a crime and not then say that the person prosecuting to prosecute or not which is ultimately up and you know i'm over by thirty seconds i was hoping to at least reserve the time for rebuttal that apparently  there's a boatload of evidence here that carson city goes have a policy of prosecuting people without probable cause and let me go through that evidence first this case was handled by deputy melanie briquette she sat on this case for ten you will sign a waiver of your liability or liability we'll dismiss this case he says no within a week or so of the chief deputy district attorney langar runs into webb in a public building in front of four or five members of october thirtieth chief deputy district attorney langar try this case so now we have four separate people involved in this case and we have seven separate adin a five will advance that show that they prosecuted this case without probable yes that's correct there there is scant evidence that there was some prosecution of other people improperly i don't know what the jury did with that or didn't do with that but but mr webb just did testify that he's aware of three other cases where there was improper pros of that particular statute and as a matter of law that there are a final policy making person and those are two separate questions from my perspective you have a custom practice and policy plus you have a final policy making person now clearly a secretary in the district attorney's office could not have made policy for the district attorney's office but that's not we haven't what we have in this case what we have are four separate deputy da days each having their fingers in this case and completely odd that you would put the chief deputy district attorney in charge of a minor misdemeanor problem as this court has noted in the earlier conversation with mr for unhappy he had been homeless for from august until oct thirtieth because of the way this worked out he's not this twenty days in jail he was drawn unemployment benefits because he was not looking for work he lost his unemployment  curried of time he didn't have any place to live this was a very big deal for mr webb and at the time that the debt chief deputy district attorney made this offer to him he was homeless he was unhappy about it and he was determined to you have to show that there is a custom practice or policy within an office in order to prove part of the case you also have to show that somebody with final policy making a office has limited resources they can discuss they can make a discretionary decision whether or not to prosecute say violent crimes at the expense of nonviolent property crimes that's a discretionary act to go ahead and prosecute mr webb they simply couldn't prove the case and what they did in this case is yank him through a keyhole make him spend twenty years in jail and suffer the humility of a criminal trial so i don't think there was which criminals you to choose to prosecute you may have discretion in what kind of charges you bring against particular criminals you do not have discretion and should never have discretion to prosecute without probable cause and that's