questions rather than give me a pair of speech if you have any us the survey questions from you know robberies during the entire time that this man was a police officer he didn't police officer for less than a year at the time of the incident the route answer certainly is not sufficient grounds for and investigative detention officer my task concede standard you can't have here is a hypothetical concerns that some crime might be a flood without some sort of objective facts don't like this particular man to those hypothetical facts unless you forty five beats a minute sixty beats a minute and he said it was one hundred twenty he's not saying that fear he may say that he did a bad job of accounting but good job a badger ob he got an out in the field and that we don't know why he got but he we know that's not his report we know we know that mine testing nice doing that we know that when my test got him to the station he contends that when he case of a stop on a car you're talking about well the officer thought they had guns and they're pursuing that not raising well here he supposedly has is thinking that he isn't offering a robbery or something he does nothing to pursue that he doesn't call for backup hades that's why it is my story i start from the beginning because you've got to be you've got to have reasonable suspicion to get him out of the car before you even get to w sleeping he at some point saw him breathing rapidly and ramirez asked him if it were necessary to knock on the window to wake him up which we can agree was perhaps testy but not uncooperative what it is what it is what it is and it to me it doesn't add up very much so i mean it's and i'm not trying to peel the artichoke here by saying it's ok to sleep in a car isn't it i mean it is there's nothing illegal or suspicious in intrinsically about taking a nap in a car in a big public parking lot right and at some point i saw him breathing rapidly and he was testy now tell me what that adds up to in your judgment the district court recognized that the case was bristling with disputes about what the actual facts more yes but that is i mean if you're going to if you're going to defend a summary judgment you've got to assume the facts in r favor and actually i didn't quite do that faithfully because if i had what i would have said is what he saw the monticello remembers was sleeping and saw him breathing heavily after waking him up could conclude i know that's what the district court found we've now got to say was that enough hence my question to you which was in your judgment why does that add up what i just said a to reasonable suspicion to get the guy out of the car and pat him down different from the question about whether they then need a lawyer then managed to accumulate enough to arrest we don't have a videotape behind every week it doesn't matter what we don't pay out what we do have is montana's thought that that ramirez was sleeping at some point which in dearth let's begin with the fact the sleeping in the car when you park police officer sees someone asleep in the car was the car is the position of the car of any moment the car was in the parking lot motion i'm not sure the record tells us what caused him to pull into the parking lot and maybe aloof and look at that hard i do know this that i don't funny is that enough and i was trying to say the police officer sees someone who's asleep maybe unconscious maybe having a stroke maybe having a heart attack and he says well there's not really enough there i'm going to ignore and walk away the guy is having a stroke and soused city for failing to take reasonable steps i think it was next thing he knows consciously is somebody then young on the window in a baseball cap if you've been sound asleep in a deep sleep for a few minutes wouldn't your heart rate go sky rocketing at night if somebody in a baseball cap was pounding on your window and so what does that tell you about whether he sent something illegal and then he had a an irritable and  i mean he just said you have to wrap and i want to that hard i mean we're giving you a lot to say that was test what it is up to in your book according to the police officer's training these were indications that could indicate being under the influence of a controlled substance and the importance of the doctor qualified immunity which is what the case the district court based its decision on the district court didn't find that there are no factual disputes here what he found was based upon the facts which are undisputed there is enough to clothe this officer with qualified immunity and that's all we think the court needs to get including the statement the judge paraphrased i mean we've got law out there that that says if you can if you said something like that you can infer an illegitimate motive behind that they are retaliatory motive for going forward district court's analysis was we take a look we don't look at the officers motivation we look at the undisputed facts and try to determine whether those were enough objective reasonable officer would have felt he had a basis for proceeding and if so his motivations don't matter if so if he had reasonable probable cause if he had a reasonable articulable belief or suspicion of the real crime being committed or criminal activity going on then he qualifies for qualified immunity even if he later turns out release the question of whether he enjoys qualified immunity is i believe determined objectively and based on the undisputed facts i think that's right or any other questions fifteen a lot of that thank you in other words the court may not simply accept what may be self serving accounts by a police officer in this look at all circumstantial evidence that if believe