minute please the court summary judgment should have been granted to the defendant city of chicago in the officers because there were disputes of material facts there were things were not told to the warrant judge and the credibility issues that should have been resolved by injury there  between the police officers as to what happened there are disputes between the police officer and the john doe informant not even getting to there being disputes between the plaintiff and the and the defendants john doe said he was under pressure to that this john don't form was under pressure there was no way the judge would have known that he had drug paraphernalia on him and he had a charge hanging over his head when he told them oh i can get you a drug haps me was a heroin user judge when they saw him he was in bad shape and we you know we do have bring up credibility issues we've probably given to you d v d s of his deposition this man is a tragic case the d v d shows that jake incoherent erratic and he was in worse shape we would contend back in june of two thousand and twelve when he talked to the police he was using ten to fifteen bags of heroin at that time  we have we have evidence that the judge at least met with me and john doe in form and face to face we don't know much about what was there at that's that's a pretty important step in terms of corroboration and you've got the problem here of course that there was a warrant that was issued on the basis of a hand to hand sale report but in seeing john doe's deposition i thought he said several times i told officer drawl of blake that i was buying heroin that floor no way not at the point is home and he were why isn't that alone enough to present the material issue fact we think it is there was confusion by the address that was not told to the war judge he said it's floor annoy it's carl the close as he ever said the saying was killer is that it was one of the k street and there are eight k streets and name them in the brief eight k street speaking to the location and he said that is the house right there well this is what happened they he was confused by the address they pulled a picture off of the assessor's office and they could have gone to the they didn't give him the photograph or lexington right about that you're right about that but that may also put him in a car and take him out to the location and he said that house right there they pulled up in front of the house and they said is that the house and he said ye deposition i can't tell the part they all look alike right right right right now if we take the officers version of the basis for the search warrant there's case clearly but the problem that i have with this years you may actually need to embrace john doe as a credible witness because his account is of what he told  was that he had been numerous times at the house that the fred was running a drug operation from the basement john doe says that's a person our went to the house joseph blake said i've been working with this informant for months distinctive about this house i mean it's a she was pressured to say that there was he had a drug house he had to get back on the street he was hurt and for the drugs he was desperate he was afraid of getting charged this rate of being thrown into cell and not being able to get his heroin and when the judge when the when the police said this is the house he would have said anything he would have said anything at that point now they said three years later they said that this correct and my understanding of the lies that when requests for admissions or when admissions in response to requests are withdrawn or or amended that both versions remain admissible that your understanding that it is so what you've got as i understand it is officer joe fully contradicting himself right right right on even the identity of the informant who gave the information to support the search warrant correct that's correct so i hope the city will address this but i in trials  i would routinely instruct juries that if a witness had been impeached by his own prior contradictory statements for example and they believe the witness had knowingly testified falsely about any significant matter they were free to distrust that witness's testimony on anything why isn't that enough to get this to a jury i think it is your honor and the timing of show of play changing the identity of the of the un john doe as he is critical here it was at the point there was a parent that the district court judge was going to order the disclosure of the john doe his name and require a deposition that joe left leg then said oh i'm still confused about your other recall related claims when mr edwards tries to get into the house he had some kind of physical encounter with one of the officers the fall down he was pushed back into a cha father and on the theory that the police should have realized they had the wrong place when do you think i have real trouble with that if the warrants valid but when do you in drug enforcement police often get search warrants for stuff that's pretty well hidden and i would think that if you found probable cause  even if you don't immediately find what you're looking for that you can take reasonable measures to keep looking for where it might be hidden right well there's there's a federal constitutional law on the boundaries of what police can do with a warrant here you're right sergeant so instead at the beginning give us the white glove treatment he knew that was something wrong it was like let's pretend we're searching but let's not do too much damage to comply with the constitutional requirement to stop at that point even if they had a little touch of hesitation it up having a dog or now i know your point is on the prescription pills but did the plaintiff also indicate look i have some guns in the house the register to be sure but there are some guns gate was a lock that would have been accessed there and there's our initial when adam altogether they should have said something's wrong there was no back door leading to the basement the biggest thing is the basement itself john doe said we partied in the basement protective sweep to see if there are people there and then they have a canine call to the whole house before they search so at that point they should have said this basement doesn't match up nothing mattes matches up and they you know they also knew that you know they they were asking  who are you do you know fred sutton they could have looked at mayo you know that something was not right at that point and they spent two hours in the house with it with the family pleading they said look you're in the wrong house we don't know this guy so at what beginning give us the white glove treatment that means that he already knew that there was a problem there so i think that they should have they should've they should have started at their point i do want to give myself a time for rebuttal i do want to speak to the mall now claim at some point though this case illustrates why mo now is so important because if there had been a file for the john doe informant and we would have had th confusion as to who he was and i switch around in the middle of the case as to who he was we're not even convinced that the man who came to the deposition is that john don't form and he's just the person paper out to the deposition so i will i'll speak with mark to mo now but i do want to save some t just credibility problems all over the faces of officer drawled boy impeachment of himself with respect to sworn testimony about the identity of john doe and the conflicts between john doe's testimony and officer joel of leaks about what the informant told you well to take those in those two pieces your honor to begin with the request to admit in the confusion with the john doe initially  know the authors explain that confusion because they said and explained it right they can explain it to the jury we see cases all the time where witnesses it takes them a while to get to the right story as far as they're concerned for their side of the ca but where you've got sworn testimony or admissions they're all admissible and we would juries more but here you are the only question was whether they had identified the correct john doe and in the end they did addresses i could take you there i took the officers to the correct address at the time later on in his depositions he remembered that it was on the corner of our thinkin and a case street remember that it was one of the k street that ran in that direction got several versions from john doe himself right did john doe in the end was clear that he believed this was the house answers at the end of the defense like the answers where he wound up in the beginning he expressed some confusion years after the fact about the location but in the end he remembered what he told the  he was actually driven out to the house then if i had the house in person at that time she said at his depositions that she identified the correct house at that time and also i don't know what houses look like i can't tell the difference and i was  didn't care it was easy attention he said i don't see the look of the man he said i don't recall what the house itself looks like but i bought drugs there are multiple times in the vicinity of that house i watched this drug dealer come out of that house and i recognize that house by the dog pens that are in the back of the house everyone in the neighborhood knew if you wanted to buy her went to go down to the house with the dog and so on that corner and that's where i would go and agreement that the police did in fact go to the wrong house and i don't believe so the officers continued to maintain that they but it recently and walker vs wetherspoon in very similar circumstances this court upheld a warrant where there was a first time informant who told the police i can bring you to where i buy heroin i can't tell you the address but i can identify the house and person the police drove her there she pointed out the house and this interest under oath to this judge and to the police and the judge had the opportunity to personally evaluate the credibility and the condition of this informant and that also weighs strongly in favor of reliability under the totality of the circumstances of valuation so as to the other claim the summary judgment is also proper on plaintiff's claim for unreadable conduct of the search they also had no reason to abandon the search upon arrival at the house  did not differ from the description of the house in the warrant complaint there is no reason to believe also that a family home cannot contain drugs and in fact officer herrera testified to previous experience to that effect and a dog when it's wet through the house also alerted to the possible presence of drugs in various locations in the house the officers also learned that mr edwards had firearms that had to be located in checked for proper registration and the only officer sir to ever express any doubt that this was the correct house was officer herrera and did not have any doubts he said until he entered the basement to look for the guns towards the end of the search and at that time he did not share any of his concerns with any of the other officers including his supervisor or the officer who was responsible for the search the officer who made the  a registered informant and was used to him is that right that's correct your honor he became a registered informant was he was his information being provided to judges for search warrants and with representations that he was reliable doe testified that he didn't participate in other search warrant that he may have participated in providing information officers that led to the arrest of a drug dealer at another location that you do not participate in any other search warrant s i would think yes i would hope that officers we'd find this incident in whose record where you're telling me the officers think they searched the right house and i  agree based on their testimony they think they did but they can't think the gave them accurate reliable information well they were told that there was a person at that house who was selling drugs out of the house they could continue to believe that that person simply wasn't present at the time that they came to the house and raided and searched the house that there is no reason to believe that that couldn't be the case a state court judge and in the end the district court here or for this purpose you have a federal district judge who concluded after full opportunity for litigation that there was probable cause absolutely your honor i have every single independent evaluat who is looked at this ward in this complaint determine there was probable cause there was absolutely no reason that these officers could not in good faith rely on that warrant and they should absolutely be qualified the immune from liability in this case once the court granted summary judgment on the underlying fourth amendment claims because plaintiffs could no longer demonstrate a constitutional issue injury that was caused by those alleged policies so barring any further questions for all these reasons your honor the defense would respectfully ask this court to affirm the judgment  cooperating individual in order to hide his identity that this was the police knew this family was very angry and souls say that it's something that they produced afterwards she didn't amount to anything before the search he didn't he was wrong about the  with anything there's no connection between fred sutton and the house has he lived and lexington street he had been arrested thirty forty times always getting that address and when i showed the john dog picture of that lexington street address he said yeah that's what the