conducted a traffic stop of a minivan with a woman and her two some young children at a residence on grand avenue enforcement arkansas as trooper cross was conducting this traffic stop mr raja drove past according to this court an order to the polk county arguably probably cause exists for an officer mistakenly arrest a suspect believing it is based and probable cause if a mistake is objectively reasonable as the court also stated in that case it irrelevant what he said it's just how loud it yes you are it's it's it's the loudest so he would have likely been stopped if he does it go home well your honor the content of it goes to the mens rea and whether or not there's evidence and in this case we argued that there was evidence that he recklessly caused along to the public which is  the content is it being considered only in only as you know helping to determine you'd have to be intended to cause alarms that would you ar constitute gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have deserved in his situation in the case at hand mr it was not a spontaneous emotional response because there's no evidence in the record we have the police officers are expected to exercise greater restraint in their response than the average citizen in the context of fighting words for example you want to but bumpkins distinguishable that happened in a private is that airport made taking that person to a security room when those statements were made and it was only heard by the police officers and so the court you know that's a key distinguishing factor is in this case minor children and the public hardly expletive whereas above it was simply the police officers and so they got it like still trying to get clear that you're saying this is just a noise this is a noise situation and not the content of the explain expletive it would matter if it was an expletive or some other utterance is you're saying that the police officer arrested him because he was too there's no empty implication requirement or minimal decibel level in the statute itself and there's been no court interpretation of the specific statute that would have instructed or provided any guidance to trooper crossed when making this case the attorney general's office is waiving the fighting words portion of their argument so my argument going to be a lot shorter however i think i could not find you know any any cases that sided just a mere brief two word noise was ever enough for any arrest i think the facts are important here we've got five lanes of distance between mr through raj and a woman and children inside of a minivan and i think the estimate was fifty yards which would be approximately hundred fifty feet i believe i submitted a map to the court in district court but showed it would be somewhere between sixty and seventy feet seen anything in the evidence in evidence in the case there was a moment of dust will know you know there was the facts in this case are very bare bones there's no decibel measurement there's no amplification of his voice  he merely yelled and in fact i don't see how there was there was nothing i think the the noise portion of this lawsuit as a defense to argue will probably create came about for the first time after the close of evidence when we submitted our motions for summary judgment it before that you will see no reference to excessive noise or unreasonable noise or even the word t o o loud noise you'll only see the trooper say that the noise was extremely loud in one in his affidavit and in his police  report i believe he just uses the phrase extremely loud he doesn't say that it hurt his ears he doesn't say that anyone you know clap their hands over their ears doesn't say disrupted his traffic stop in any way other than through his choice to peel out and arrest and put my client in jail if you look back at the actual police report i don't think reading that would ever believe anyone to think that this gentleman mr through roger was arrested for the noise level you see that the trooper states that it was the statement and that statement's effect on a female driver and the two children you know who he later approximates their ages to be seven and eight this i don't see how a female driver or children would be hurt more by loud noises than anyone else in the community it's his emphasis on that really made made it clear that it was the content and i picked up on the chief justice his comment about what if he said go hogs in my response to their motion for summary judgment i believe i said what if the off what if he what if mr throughout russia had yelled good job officer obviously that would have been equally annoying to the female driver of the vehicle however i don't think anyone here would ever think that he would be arrested for that or anyone anywhere violation yes if you if you and your  there's a constitutional right to use vulgar in the public setting as long as it's not too noisy yes in for this for a one off f you while running away i think that's clear now if he would have been approaching them and in some manner and you know tearing off his shirt and frothing at the mouth you know that would be that would be quite different but in a sense he's running away while he's saying it he's driving away at thirty five m don't see how that i don't see how that isn't protected by multiple cases so if it's just clear to me that if he would have said good job obviously  he would not have been arrested there's and as far as finding an exact case on point you know the supreme court is quite near it as we all know cases that involve officer safety and and cases that involve you know use of force the supreme court always writes those opinions very narrowly i believe they rely on you know white the prologue as well which is all these cases that they cite to restrict and find it case exactly on point are all use of force cases which that's not what we have here i mean this is a clear cut case about what you can and can't in other says i suppose you could freeze your argument to the supreme court level of specificity depends upon the danger to the officer involved i think they have yes because if there's they go on they always talk about existence and safety and in this case there's there's been two criminal alleged criminal acts according to the trooper the one where he we don't know what this woman was pulled over for and then what my client did which was not a criminal act and i don't know why this trooper if he believes two criminal away so even if you read some of the statutes in arkansas law if you honk your horn it has to be your car has to be you know outfitted with a horn that can be heard from at least two hundred feet away so if he would have honked his horn while driving by this interaction the defense here is having us believe that that would have been enough for trip across to pull out state it was about twenty seconds and they said that's not disorderly conduct and in buchan's where it was considerably less than that but it was somewhat continuous and he was loud and vigorous according to that case inside a confined room  you know there's case law on point that talks about how police officers have to nichols we check own where the where the state trooper gets flipped off by the tow truck driver was driving down the street and they took that to mean ask you i thought that was exactly on point there is public around things like that so  there's case in point the police officers are held to a higher standard when it comes to when it comes to hearing things like that however there's never i don't think police officers are held to a higher standard when it comes to the loud noises that they can  hear and that disrupt their activities there's no talk of disruption there's no talk of he was unable to do his duties and that the woman in the car was unable to hear him was a one off comment an epithet as the district court judge put sorry because the they way their one argument when it's or know a little bit of the trooper didn't even say that his ears you know were hurt by this level of noise i don't think the human voice can possibly be expected to break this unreasonable or excessive noise portion of disorderly conduct statute from fifty yards away that human voice and it end there say maybe they're saying it's the effect on the women and children who are inside of a vehicle with presumably at least one window rolled down so as you can interact with this police officer i think there's  if we were to allow this to be conceived as anything other than a clearly established first human rights violation i guess i don't know what i would be shocked i mean this is just so basic that has ruled that the officer had a duty to at least investigate whether or not you know before he made this disorderly conduct arrest he could have he could have asked these people in the car did that hurt your ears to get you know where you are you  somehow impacted by that level of noise i mean i think that's kind of a ridiculous path to go down but so is this case i simply i couldn't understand why anyone would say that this was a reasonable arrest  be unreasonable or excessive and that the person purposely rightfully caused public inconvenience annoyance or alarm it's also an undisputed fact so that we have to interpret that statute in the air it would make it right your honor i mean i'm not i'm just saying that the the court found that the written language of the judge was constitution it's also just needed that the women and children were alarmed