precinct and told the police officers what happened in the police officer blues name was duff file the charges against against johnson and the me that this side from mr costers case here that obviously you're here advocating on his behalf that there are some significant implications to this case there's before or and many other defendants many other pennsylvania it's with this decision because as someone who spent a few years my career prosecuted the prosecution  this is not the only case where george's have been dismissed and a finding of guilt was made on a lesser charge it seems to me that could be a lot of judges who could express concern but police officers being sued under he never did a very front back when he did say was that with respect to the wish prosecution i'm not going to allow that to go forward and i think that this was in error because once the issue of whether this individual is an i think a vexing question which is if the police officers first of the facts is radically different than the actors for mission of the facts and we were if we were to go severity of it but for that transaction what he did there certainly was probable cause so that might mean that you want a trial but we could if we got a pretty serious difference of opinion of the summary children record we're not challenging the false arrest room here for the bush prosecution take the facts as he stated them he's saying he wasn't fighting with the officer he said he didn't tell him due to conflict any harm on the officer the most he said he did given the scenario as he saw it was that he stayed in there the officer comes over puts a finger to his nose actually touches him and all he does is sort of brush the failure away the same way so nobody would swap away a fly and that's police officer is bound by whatever he may have entered on his police report at the time of his arrest and where the process is to work in office and if best changed later that the improved and that he's guilty malicious were in fact he did cause bodily injury not serious but bodily injury to a police officer during the course of the officers performance of duties but ben is not a bit in your opinion johnson  the police come on the scene they arrest the person they charged with resisting arrest something like crap and subsequently ok the person is convicted of the disorderly conduct but they were acquitted of resisting arrest while there two separate entities here we're dealing with one set of facts we're not dealing with this really conduct here resisting arrest over here what is involved here is a confrontation between the officer and the plaintiff and it's clear from the l that says you're bringing a malicious short claim rather will be prosecution claim because the prosecution is the fact that the gentleman is being brought to trial underneath that or a variety of charges and that that should the exact same facts but the art is art the facts substantially different here in this case because of the fact that mr cos were was not acquitted of all george's were as mr johnson any use of force and that he has arrested people under pennsylvania law off when someone is arrested without a warrant that begins the initiation of the prosecution so the wrong is acting