goodere you may proceed if you please the court my sainted father who is in private practice often remarked don't make a federal case out of it as i have come back to federal practice after a hiatus of several decades i have learned that almost everything is a federal case now and we are here today i represent two police officers who seek qualified immunity on account of the arrest or detention of the point of mr just and i think we we had a little spat about the jurisdiction of this court and i think that the there really is no disagreement between the police officers and the plaintiff about the material facts and we submit that the district court clearly erred in denying qualified immunity based on a misconception of what the material facts w and judge baker could put the analysis of probable cause arguable probable cause upside down sheets that because the police officers were ambiguous about what the plaintiff was being arrested for that that was a genuine issue material fact well the subjective belief of the officers as to what offense mr justin committed is irrelevant the question is whether the totality of the circumstances shows that the officers acted reasonably in detaining him and briefly the officers responded to a call from mr just complaining about a tampering with his truck and they responded they were going to say the time of response was rather slow but then in any event they did respond and then after speaking with mr just the they were confronted with a report from the alleged tamper or another person that mr just had flourished a knife at times at the temper and so the officers were confronted with competing narratives at the scene   clued ing an apparent assault or flourishing with a deadly weapon the officers initially decided they would make no arrests and let everybody go mr johnson was not pleased with their decision he requested a police report the officers declined to commit to writing a report they gave him a business card officer henry i believe gave him a business card and he was also detained in the officers conducted further investigation attempted to see if there was video at the nearby gas station where all of this was near which are at which all of this was transpiring and the sergeant arrived and ultimately everybody was released after the tamper indicated he had no desire to pursue charges against mr jobs so i can appreciate that mr just was not pleased with the performance of my clients but i think the objective facts and circumstances about which there is no dispute warrant the application of qualified immunity there if there is no dispute that the officers were confronted with this accusation of the flourishing of the not and i think that the cases are quite clear that the officers are not required to conduct a perfect investigation and that they are ordinarily entitle to rely on statements  complainants at the scene they cannot ignore plainly exonerating evidence but here we had not one but two persons accusing mr just of flourishing the tampering was the subject of a dispute as to whether the pampered made an honest mistake or not but i don't think that there is any dispute of the as to the material fact the judge baker felt that the fact that the officers didn't know whether it was an assault or a flourishing was somehow disputed question of fact i think your didn't didn't the magistrate judge also see there was a disputed fact about whether he was detained at all or whether he was arrested and is that a fact question or a legal question i think that the i think that that question is mixed question in the law in fact i think that the one officer said that she felt he was merely likewise inconsistent as to whether they felt he was under arrest or detain or investigation but i said at this it create a some question a material fact question or not i do not think that's a fact question i think that's a question of law based on the facts as known to the officers and and the undisputed facts as to their conduct he was handcuffed he was placed in a police vehicle he was detained for at least forty five historical facts and determining you know was whether there's an arrest or a detention i don't think the opinion of the officers is conclusive if it were you know many officers have a notion that you're not arrested until you're actually booked and you know i think the law's different and i think it's an objective determination based on the historical facts so and i admit i would like to have it both ways in this case i think the facts support either an arrest if it was an arrest based on the length of the detention in the circumstances or in detention when i think fundamentally there was at a minimum arguable probable cause as a matter of law and i think that the officers performed the investigation you know admittedly i think it reasonable to infer that they were annoyed with mr just but again their subjective motivation is irrelevant the question is whether the objective facts and circumstances support the detention and i think that those facts and circumstances do support the detention and the ultimate outcome was a release a report was written about stolen sunglasses which were not stolen and we don't dispute you know we don't contend that mr just in fact assaulted anybody what we think is undisputed is that these officers were told that he had and that they had a duty to investigate and mr just complaint was that they weren't investigating enough and so they did investigate more and i think that d was displeasing to him but i think in the end the upshot was they thoroughly reviewed all of the facts of the situation and no arrests were made so i submit that there is no issue of fact that this court does have jurisdiction to reverse judge baker and remand with respect to the not i by mr dough he was called back to the scene when he made that allegation and they after he made the allegation they let him leave the scene and at that time mr just was not arrested he was not placed under a for anything related to the allegation the nie flourishing or whatever allegation that was  even in the record shows that the the name of the person who made the allegation was not taken down by anyone and he was allowed to leave the scene well if this is a serious crime and they we're going to err they have probable cause to arrest mr just you would think they would meet the name of the person who made the allegation but the name of that and that's the part where mr just requested a report which i think was a logical request because there was damage to his vehicle so he would assume that the name of the perpetrator who damaged his truck would be in the report and he couldn't now i'm confused because i thought doe was there left and came back right and and reported that mr just flourished a weapon at him yes why isn't why isn't that arguable probable cause for an arrest because there are other factors that the officers  not just turn around and look the other way just as my opposing counsel had noted there's just simply an allegation by one person is not sufficient for argue will probably cause happens all that happens all the time almost every almost every sex assault case is one person's allegation right in this the facts of this case are entirely different after that allegation was made there was no arrest made of mr just and they they let go leave the scene i was there some law that says that they have to make an arrest immediately no but they didn't arrest him at all not until he wrote down involved saw mr just writing her name down there was no other there was no reason other than him writing years her name down for officers themselves are thinking i don't believe so i think it's the actual facts of the case that we just look at the facts that's what i thought to another day another question to you is are any case law that makes it clearly established that the officers could not engage in arrest under these circumstances with the sort of single report of flourishing a weapon  i couldn't find a case on point judge i think everything is based upon the facts of each case it's very fact sensitive and that's true but you have to in order to survive qualified immunity you have to show that the law was clearly established right right in based upon the facts of this case the judge had found that there was there probable cause could not be the lock on his truck was broken so he did have some damage property damage to his truck while i'm trying to say was that like that forty and i thinking right about the case now that was early in the case i think most of the minutes was mr just sitting in the in the police vehicle so the majority of the things happened in the beginning towards the beginning of the forty five minutes talking about the writing of the business card yes the writing of the names on the back those things happened towards the beginning of the forty five minutes once he was placed in handcuffs and placed in the vehicle that's when the lank time was mr just in the police cruiser until the sergeant got there and had some conversations with the officers and with everyone and that point mr just was  accurately address the summary judgment motions and her rulings are correct according to the wall and according to the law and that we would ask this court affirm  baker's summary judgment ruling every man in this case for trial shuttle one quick question is was there an audio or video of this encounter there was no thank you claim stands or falls with the th amendment claim i think b m has versus bartlet makes that clear if there was a objective only reasonable arguable probable cause to detain the plane in for to arrest him there can be  no st amendment retaliation claim i think you have as the supreme court has been clear on that was regard to the chronology mr just called for the police the police responded during their initial discussion with mr just the tamp who was not present he arrived while that was ongoing made his accusation he was backed up by another person at the scene i believe the record reflects that it was some that this other person did have some connection with the tamper but in any event there was another witness so the officers indicated initially they would do nothing mr just was writing on a business card at that time he was detained and handcuffed and he tambour was summoned back to the scene he came back to the scene he was detained and the officers conducted further investigation so i think there's no to say to that chronology i hope it was clear my aging brain does not always keep these things straight but i submit their respectfully that the that this is an appropriate case for qualified immunity there was no clearly established right violated here and on the contrary there was no right violated and so we were respectfully request that the district court be reversed in the case be remanded with instructions to grant the summary judgment and i think the court card thanks counsel for your parents and arguments today case is submitted and we will issue an opinion in due course