the case and as you said the focus is probable cause the respondents were the defendants addressed this by pointing to the fact that there were there was an eyewitness identification so why don't you  this case after i was interrogated by the police for like one week and he stuck to the story two weeks later after two significant things had happened he changes stor my client and some someone else you know the trouble the district court had with this was that the officer dietrich is the person being charged with the arrest there was no evidence that he knew some of the facts you're pointing to so why do you think the district court was wrong in reaching that conclusion district court's conclusion that there was no evidence that dietrich learned of the police reports that had some of the inconsistency sore problems just identified district court is saying he had to come forward with evidence that he knew these problems when he went in arresting your client and the district court said there's no evidence of this but there was already evidence under record that looked at in the light most favorable to the to the plaintiff which which is the stand that that the court had to conclude that detective knew did rick knew this some of the evidence that the police had got up to that point this was a really important investigation a five year old girl was shot the police went all out to to find the perpetrators there's no appellant mentioned mr perez was an eyewitness to the crime and as he also mentioned he was a victim to the crime and as your honor mentioned that generally is enough for probable cause to exist the case law in this court is very clear on that and at this presentation opponent still has not addressed the fatal flaws of the point on the brief he still has not shown why there was material reason to doubt prez's identification of mr nunez as one of  the perpetrators again the poland has mentioned the nine one one call but as the district court correctly pointed out there is nothing in the record to suggest that the person who made that call was mr pres absolutely nothing so this is simply speculative he also raised the issue about the fact that mr prez had learned had had received photos from a friend of his name gringo but again if anything it actually confirms what the police were independently learning through their investigative efforts as he pointed out a confidential source said the same thing that someone named pretty boy who was also arrested and died by the grand jury and someone named quero was involved in this incident similarly the appellant has not addressed another fatal flaw which is how diedrich was at all aware of any of the x allegedly exculpatory information that would have cast doubt on probable cause her to conclude that such an inference could be drawn from his role in the investigation what's your response to that two points your exculpatory evidence to officers that's not the way that you can use the collective knowledge doctrine the second point is it's actually many officers who are involved in this investigation so i'm not quite sure where  should have known everything because he was one of the principal players as your honor pointed out the initial police papers showed all sorts of different police officers who interviewed the witnesses and other as a pretty as a pursuits investigation diedrich force they could have taken a deposition and acosta and all the other officers involved they did not unfortunately that's what the record is and the scorching a firm thank you it was due to a last witness well but it it's complicated because the conversation with your client's attorney happened first and then mr perez did go missing for a period of time where no one knew where