it's actually at the end of the second one ok whatever whatever they want it is alleged statement must be shown it must be shown that deputy dalton made them intentionally knowingly or with reckless disregard for the firm and i think what the district court did here is took that route with disregard for the truth and misinterpreted it because actually if you go back to pete which is actually a footnote in the sun but it doesn't go against you or the dissent correctly lists the standard and also then correctly less what reckless disregard in this particular would it make could just an extremely sloppy investigation have met that's i think that's what the district court did they took reckless disregard and said ok it's sloppy it's negligence so in it and it's really so that's reckless disregard but if you look at what the standard requires it requires more than just sloppy or negligence that requires intent it requires that this officer knew that what he was writing was false or that he had obvious reasons to know that what he was writing  and you won't find anywhere in this record where this officer knew that what he was writing was false are had any reason to think that in fact well if if let's take a hypothetical where in this investigation he believes that before that statement is made i believe that this officer has probable cause but he if you look at his reports and that what this the part you're talking about the wallet similarity issue comes in his supplement both his original report and his supplement or to turned into process he has if you look at his two and a district will recognize that on reconsideration you know she didn't but what she said that in her original order and that i had something motion for reconsideration asking her to see that and then i victim's wrong and he says the victim identified her wallet on on that one when she looked at that d v d and he puts that in there doesn't mean he believes but he does put that in there he then goes to the sussman department and interview for she says she didn't do it he puts that in his his report doesn't mean he believed her but that goes in there so there's no point in time where any of that shows that you believe what he was writing his faults or you know  said that he has to know what he said was false or false that's a standard it's a standard reckless disregard as which doesn't necessarily well reckless disregard in this particular instance is the officer entertain serious doubts as to the truth of the statements or had obvious reasons to doubt this and where that's coming from is it's not necessarily whether he did doubt it but he had reason he should have that's a at the end of it number two one hour fifty seven is where you actually see and this is one of those those security systems where there's three cameras in the line in his panning from one camera on other few seconds of each you and the on but i guess my question is to see what the billfold actually looks like you have to go to tape one don't you because tape one shows are footing the bill hold up there and there'd be no reason why i try to to say he's anything less than that but i think he'd be the first to admit that but when he's writing his report would you go to that person's ohio it's what the officer knew at that moment when he's writing his report this is what you believe this is what he believes he has seen on the video but he later proves him some prong in his report who doesn't set out that he has not in fact reviewed it number actionable i agree with what you're saying i'm saying that's not the standard in this particular instance you're saying that reckless for a start is not the standard i'm saying reckless disregard is a standard but it's been defined differently than what you're saying so that  jury could find the statement false if it did not include it was intentional as the district court recognized such and consistencies or incident to any ongoing criminal investigation being conducted by kenyans for these constitutional standards allow for human error which is why we have qualified immunity and it's brought up again in malley versus bricks at what is the statement that we're talking just one sentence right which ones are the one that's pull two from his first report almost which is the victim call the number and pay one goal which is the manager responded call an l most reviewed the videotape and when they observe the suspect picking up the wallet look through it place the wallet leave the business return to the business and place the wallet right back where he took it that's recounting what someone else said so that people are that's number one number two on page two of his report it's hard for me to see how those records because if you look at that point not the whole tape you look at that point if it reflects that i agree and i think the reason why i agree mostly is that he's not he's not weighing the evidence he's not saying that's what's on the tape and he describes it but he says i observed her pick up her wallet and in order to have seen her pick up the wallet left on that thing of him when he would have to look at ta bill and he sees what has been presented to him in this order and and he buys it and that's that's where it starts to go downhill it why why are there or d s water two or twenty five i mean you've got three carriers going on twenty four hours a day why are there just for the there's three cameras in the way the system actually records is to jump from one ends up being i could see that while i mean why don't we just have four d v d i don't think they're necessary i think no how do we they were provided by the laundromat through the office to cover a particular period in time they hours and that's why ok that makes the who requested it or not i don't know that i couldn't answer that for you i mean because you could request twenty four hours you could request week right you could request although i think we know the victim says she comes in that morning and then we know that this happens later in the afternoon so maybe they're trying to bridge a period of know your honor i believe it is twenty four hours but in this particular case there was a time frame based on the laundromat person who lost their wallet and also owner cooperated with that during his initial investigation he should have reviewed all eight hours while because what he says in his report is inconsistent with what the witnesses were telling him at  yes you are relying on those two only or you're relying on something else he said well i'm relying on the fact that he didn't review there's no one with a mask and if he said something that was reckless that's what we've got it that's a sta of what he actually said it's his recklessness and not saying something else which and what else he would have said is that i reviewed all that which would have gone yeah i understand but that get that runs in the case law which says that you know what  what a what a policeman doesn't investigate doesn't make those isn't sufficient for liability and we need if you investigate so far and you find enough to to go forward and you write it up and give it to the to the proper prosecuting lawyer whoever it is that charges the fact that you could have and probably should have investigated something else isn't that not enough  doesn't actually see because of the way it looks back and forth the picking up of the wallet but before that pointy that hasn't been picked up after it has been picked up so it's doesn't seem to be reckless to me this is what i to answer to say this is where i reviewed it from the point they picked up the wallet to make the logical inference inference that when the camera was somewhere else that's the point when the wallet was picked up and that's the  now the crux of your whole cases and yes i think that you had an obligation to the the defense said and from the point where apparently the wallet was picked up and your case goes away your what but that would not be a false statement so and once it's once it's not a false statement and you have no false statements doesn't your case fall apart unless you say that you case is that it was reckless to leave out the word apparently days and the video well but when you say that that would not be enough if it weren't for this other fact you agree or not  undisputed is is that a jury question of whether this is negligence intentional or reckless disregard if you can get past that hurdle which i'm asserting we can't in this case then you get to step two which is that you have to show that the false statement was material i think there's no doubt that the false statement was material i think the problem with this case is going to get past stuff and then also as to the probable cause that was brought up with regard to qualify the unity of a billion case out of the circuit states that with this type of issue probable cause is one for the jury so in both instances qualified immunity does not go to the jury decided five four and then an in response to mr place statement that he should have and also the district court statement that the whole eight hour shift have been looked at and he had these tapes for nine months and never bothered to look at them that's because he had no doubts he thought he had