this is a an unusual case the the basis of this case is a single telephone call an unanswered telephone call upon which no message was left single unanswered telephone call made granted late at night but it went directly to voicemail and my client never denied he made that left that message prior to that message the parties in this case that is to say the  and the complaining witness had virtually no contact or no contact for ten years based upon that call or that message the complaining went to the west hartford police and the defendant in this case  paint a warrant for nd degree harassment which is a misdemeanor charge that warrant has never been served on my client because he is an english citizen he was here at the time on an f one student visa and he can't return here now or do period that warrant was large with homeland security so so he still over in england the warrant is outstanding and it is yet to be served this case and as you can see essentially a one hundred and eighty three action brought in district court in connecticut our position is that there was no probable cause or even arguable probable cause for the warrant the defendant reasons frankly are protected speech under the st amendment and can't be used to show mens rea or for any basis against the defendant the wart application itself spent a con amount of time on a workplace call in the claim by the defendant officer is that an investigator make calls on my client's behalf to the complainant i mean you have one more minute basically base the warrant on speculation that the complainant says she's being harassed or was being harassed by my client and cites also numerous spam calls or telephone calls  cannot be shown to have come from my client now in that regard and in some of those with regard to some of those issues i've been talking about and with regard to the other bases of probable cause claimed by the  add to the probable cause and i'm wondering how the st amendment is implicated well very they're being used yes i agree they're being used to show his mens rea a tort having done the alleged crime in question connecticut law and  course with regard to this part is that are both cases they have to do with using the content with the calls right now the fact of the call i believe that's correct they talk about using anything and then of the content in our case it's the it's the mere fact that they're claiming that the mere fact that these cases were made frankly we don't see how those cases and anything to the to the finding or probable cause those cases probable cause or probable cause is really based mostly on speculation these are parties the officer in the warrant talks about a turbulent history between the parties there's no terminal there's no history between the parties they had a romantic relationship ten years earlier that ended it and then she looked on the internet to check them out currently found out about that and so he left that late night call inquiring extensively requiring what was going on but never left a course connecticut but there was no content left on this answering machine it was just never left a message you know was never no one picked up so there's contrary to the cases that that would allow one call there's no back to in some way your client correct well that's that i agree with your honor that is in fact stepped forth in the affidavit in the trial judge talked about those but that's why i think this is a case that really belongs on summary judgment or a trial because a lot of those facts are disputed and very strongly disputed talking about the private investigator issue that your honor just mentioned the private investigator has we have this exhibit that  we offer ghost hearing where the investigator denies that she made those calls so i think that's a that's a material fact is that again went to summary judgment which would be in dispute in this case the finding of  requirement under the law obviously under many of the causes of action that were brought in the district court a favorable disposition for the appellant is required in this case it's just not possible my client is out of the country in fact connecticut  and in this misdemeanor harassment charge we don't believe it could be successfully prosecuted so on that on that basis we'd like to see this matter go back to the trial court and have it least sent to have the i'm of the event that issue in this case was a detective sergeant in the west hartford police department your honour's this case is about harassment by the police fire is a woman by the name of your i'm running to the district court's ruling granting lieutenant roche a lose motion to dismiss the plaintiff's nd amended complaint should be granted for at least should be affirmed rather for at least four reasons st the search and seizure and arrest warrants at issue concerning the plaintiff's harassment of miss rand to resupport it by probable cause at the very least the warrants were supported by arguable probable cause which entitles lieutenant roche aleut qualified immunity and the existence of probable cause vitiate all of plaintiff's claims not just his th amendment challenge to the warrants but also his claims alleging a violation of his right to travel is false arrest and is intentional infliction of emotional stress claims and finally plaintiff cannot demonstrate a favorable terminations because the arrest warrant was not served so i may turn to probable cause as the district court correctly held that page twenty of its ruling that's at a one for seven at the appendix dependent rochelle who conducted an extensive investigation before applying for the search warrant as your honour's have noted that included interviews with at least seven witnesses and you don't have to take the district court's word for it the plaintiff's attached to the complaint the arrest warrant as an exhibit it can be found at page is a one hundred dollars or through a want to wait the appendix that investigation started with an interview of the complainant ms wan to a who expressed a deep concern for her safety as she believed mr city key was unpredictable and obsessed with her and twelve with a nine page rather emotional email to ms rhonda from the plane to which he acknowledges sending but not only to her but to friends and family on the week of her wedding and he is acknowledged the pla of a gentleman with an english accent who reported a variety of personal and professional misdeeds allegedly committed by ms run to basically try to have her fired  those coworkers also told detective rochelle lou that there were other contacts made from molly monahan a private investigator and detective roche alou connected ms monaghan to the ms monaghan told detective rochelle lou that she had been hired by a crazy guy with an english accent who asked her to contact ms rhonda was employer the detective also spoke with miss rhonda was  an uncle and the uncle in particular a son who's money felt told detective roche that he felt responsible for having tried to arrange the relationship between the plaintiff and ms rhonda but it didn't work out that judge livingston you're referring to the voicemail that was left at the employment place of employment yet you're correct we couldn't positively identify that because many of the calls  were from spoofed or blocked numbers and lieutenant rochelle lou made rational inferences from the circumstantial evidence that is described in the arrest warrant affidavit i think i was referring to the phone call i'm asking what is the basis ms rhonda his place of employment parroted statements that had been contained in mr c d g s nine page e mail to ms rhonda about her personal misdeeds alleged and so there was a direct rational inference that could connect the e mail and the caller to the place of employment talbert yes so the facts were not in dispute your honour's based on the existence of probable cause as found by a neutral magistrate who approved the arrest and search warrants there was an abundance of probable cause as properly held by the district court and for all of the foregoing reasons unless there are additional questions at this point what i would ask is based on the  statements made on the record here today and in our brief if there are no additional questions we respectfully request that you please affirm the district court's ruling dismissing this case thank you we will  even assuming that that was my client on the on the phone i don't see how that constitutes probable cause at the very least it may be defamatory if in fact he did say those things but i don't see how that can be harassment and certainly he that to my client except they want one for that because the content was similar to to a three year earlier e mail that it must have been him well in life we got a reasonable why isn't that a reasonable inference well it's three years earlier the parties had no connection and it's a matter of fact i don't believe at the trial level that that nine page e mail was even submitted as an exhibit this is it poses one of the many factual disputes i believe as to why this case should go to summary judgment or at least the term in the summer to have a mormon with regard to the private investigator that too is a disputed issue because the private it rescued her again changed her mind and said no it wasn't calls that would be a stretch to impute scam cos to one particular person we all get them all day long i think so in the end what's left is one call that was unanswered and went to waste mail and i suppose you could say the complainants feeling that somehow she was being harassed at after this long relationship and in email three years earlier and we don't believe that constitutes probable cause at the very least in order to terminate qualified immunity or even probable cause or arguable probable cause and i'm not even sure such a concept exists that would have required determination disputing facts