something taking the terms of the search warrant itself was there something about looking into the freezer that violated the terms of the search warrant the search warrant was granted to and we made a society personnel employees had already determined there was no abuse evident there was a subset subsequent grappling through the hole as a result of this it was outside of that that's a different question is it i mean the question i'm getting at was there's something about the search of the freezer that contravened what the language of the search warrant itself allowed i would argue that that was and what what was that they were looking for a very yes i would agree with that that's not a concession approach was simply saying that this was not a search warrant that was granted or ended up in the freezer by the state there was more to this it was not a vac under qualified immunity as the qualified immunity for for the officer here and to show it to peers that you have to show that he violates a clearly established law what was the clearly established law he violated by looking at the crease or qualified to be really is one part of this but what we're really looking for is a chance for a jury to have a chance to review these facts as well and looking at qualified immunity right opportunity to do and i'm trying my best to give it what i'm saying to you is as follows i believe that gun that this sort of question the question that you're raising to me were an opportunity for a jury to that suggest that an officer must have something more than clear where this must have something more than a routine there that allows him to sim's the entire property as a result particularly in this case in this matter humane war force and officers but does not take response in for their official actions law enforcement authority can only exist by delegation of the mayor it does not exist otherwise this delegation is permitted by the mayor of corning special officers is no indication that the humane society has been identified as a special offer but if they were and have then been the governor would have to take responsibility for their training for their preparation for this that that is a concern they he ended up in the kitchen then outside is just so much for the reason i must say this there are just three facts that the government can't overbook and we haven't addressed this but you've read the brief on the morning of the raid there's an advertisement when they say  see commissioner this problem to be solved the gentleman who was about to be the beneficiary of that action was the appellate mr thorpe offices were outside his home suggested that they saw him hit a dog and depositions later it was suggested they may have seen a dog that was the basis for this in this war and on that morning that how did that play into this those are legitimate concerns those are can legitimate reasons to bring an action summary judgment just is not appropriate prosecution if you fail to properly amend his complaint to include any allegation related to the seizure of his currency and the court properly denied his untimely attempt to add unrelated claims against new permissible to look into the future and i think it's you know what why is that not get me here the humane society officer say we've got enough we see the dog dog looks fine we take the dog into the back just to double check there's enough food here there's enough water there the experts say we're done and yet off the crowd goes to rook in the freezer right  well as he testified he was looking for animals that are alive in a good place to store a dead animal is in a freezer and again they are right however that we were talking about well it could have been a cat it could have been  that he was observed cruel inflecting a punishment that causes dog to yelping cry and in pain multiple strikes means he could have abused other animals there could be other evidence of abuse of other as you know sergeant officer russell and her supervisor officer duran both testify that there have been occasions where they have searched freezers for evidence of animal cruelty so it's not beyond this that that doesn't mean that those searches were legal all right and we don't know what kind of animals they were looking for they don't know if they found anything you know i mean a lot of things happen well i think the district court properly addressed that that possibility indicated even if the scope of the warrant was a mismatch for the allocation is that the time kyle would still be entitled to qualified immunity that's where we are  qualified right and i would suggest that our i would submit that we have a number of things that show we didn't act in violation of clearly established lore otherwise i'm confident we have t if i said that i testimony providing a reason for why he looked in the freezer it's not his which troubles me i'd agree with you that there is that broad language of the war and going in the freezer is fair game based on the language of the war but once the experts say we've got enough we're done what i'm troubled with is officer kyle then participating in what looks like a a wide ranging exploratory search that's the very type of search  of a search warrant once you get in there and if circumstances change and all the evidence is obtained by looking in the st spot you go to but yet the district now that the officers now have  license to look do after the rest of the house every nook and cranny even though they've got everything that they need in the st instance is that is that the argument you're making well that certainly i understand in for you to tell me the limitations give me some hypothetical in the circumstances in which the officers would have an obligation to stop searching you're giving me reasons for why under these circumstances they could go the whole length of the wire ok i'm trying to get some sense of the district's sense of when when when does an officer say enough is enough and we don't we don't have to look through every nook and cranny of the house even though the plain language of the search warrant would we would allow that i think any circumstances in which the facts on the ground change the nature of th so they tell him to take the dog inside the house well i think the search is is not over because it was reasonable for them to believe that there may be other evidence of animal cruelty beyond the hypothetical  seven of his fifty seven of the deposition also know he was asked which side do you think we're side where you're looking are you looking out your window out the rats window when you was maybe struck a nerve that the dog was maybe struck ok or you observe a head movement you said then you thought the dog was being struck and there was  we move forward ok and had the dog boarded did he have the dog on the shoulder he had the dog on the shoulder i saw the dogs back but there's a black dog maybe a little brown or dog in the house safely without leash ok and i said well take the dog in the house and you come back out what did you want to talk to him about what i just witness as follows there was more to this it was outside the scope of the search for injured dog well as of the scope of the sort of forward into dog in fact how do you get a warrant for a dog you have told him to put in the