they claimed they were each of those stops because they are of hispanic parents and descent and because the majority of the passengers in their van were also thi they filed under the federal tort claims spanned a period of roughly eight months and they filed as the court knows a complaint alleging constitutional violations and the only constitutional bit in its claim that is presently before the court is the we could not say which days the van was stopped by which officer but for each appellant appellee that we name that was a border patrol officer we allege that that border patrol agents thought this then without reasonable suspicion without probable cause without a warrant on the basis of race if you were if you were the recipient of  to return the fare to the passengers but it doesn't say he stopped the van without reasonable cause for that but the paragraph one forty eight isn't it is it is the general allegation that all these stops are without probable cause or reasonable suspicion no now there was a motion to dismiss or in the alternative a motion for summary judgment where we asked to be permitted to do discovery because the border patrol has the information that we needed to be more specific in other words every time they make a stop of a vehicle there's a record of that stop in the dispatch data that indicates the vehicle stopped and whether or not the stuff was truthful meaning whether they make an arrest or a seizure and it should be more specific but i have a lot of people i have a lot of stops i have some specific information but not all that i need to be able to to linear the precise facts that i need patrol agents including the defendants here on a routine basis hispanic individuals solely on the basis of the right their race without probable cause without warrant and without reasonable  routine basis period we then then a five these individuals and incidents in which they stop the vehicle of the of the appellant's here now we don't have the exact date each stop we have some of those dates but we don't have all of the dates but we know that that the name the felons that are border patrol agents not supervisory personnel stopped this vehicle without  reasonable suspicion or not or probable cause might well let's just moving on from civil practice to the merits of the case your client has on numerous occasions several occasions considered by the court below and it ruled on the motion to dismiss in the court below in its own minute entry and judgment says i'm not and i'm not considering any of the facts presented by either side in for the moment that and i'll address that question how did the how does they get the information they had to stop the vehicle could find illegal aliens on it what our contention is that every stop they have made has been without reasonable suspicion or probable cause if the first stop they made w we have here your honor unfortunately is a situation in southern arizona where vehicles are stopped be they shuttles or vehicles with hispanics and them and see whether or not there are illegal mexican public transportation or private commercial transportation along the border they develop information that they are routinely soliciting the transportation of aliens but what you have here is a border town where people there's a place where they get on this shuttle the border patrol knows that place that they think that the people that are congregating there are illegal aliens they can go right up to him i suspect and ask them but they wait until they get on the shuttle my clients are border patrol agents they can't and the border patrol has acknowledged this are not qualified to inspect the paperwork and find out whether they are or they are not to they need  suspicion of that or the particular vehicle is contained on a particular day continually illegally and not the person driving it is in any way responsible for that well if you have you have to have suspicion with regard to the person doing the transporting part of why well because otherwise you don't have or you don't have a suspicion that that person who's driving the vehicle is committing a crime but the person driving us not being that they're just trying to find out if the people in the vehicle are illegal so they're not they're not arresting lines and i understand that but unfortunately we have the fourth amendment needing applies in southern arizona another words you can't just stop this vehicle because you've got a bunch of mexicans near the border in vehicle why can't you stop the vehicle if you know the vehicle has people who are violating the laws of the united states not the driver but people are in the vehicle are vile are are they don't know that all violent problem is your honor they don't know that they just are people they transported who are illegally here and as we point out in the brief your honor the only way they knew that was because they illegally stopped them well not that they know that because they know this juncture but they know that it's very it's they have a reasonable suspicion that there had been numerous previous occasions so it would not be a wild speculation to say on this occasion there are illegals it would you have to you know this being they know this van travels where it goes to and where it goes from and they stop it let's assume for the moment because this is your argument your honor that the first stop in which  they catch illegal aliens is in violation of the fourth amendment how is that violation if they catch someone with a respon really can't see anything in a vehicle driving down the road other than mexicans that would suggest that there's any illegal activity think about it i mean really and that's what happens because they sit along the side of the road they s great now in southern arizona in certain parts they have permanent checkpoints along i nineteen from the gallus to tucson and some other places in the court has approved that the supreme court has approved it but these are roving patrols they don't stop them up for me when i'm a little in the dark as to exactly what was before the court legitimately on a twelve in six motion here certainly are you know the court still dissimilar from the department of justice on  half of the united states and the defendants the question about what was properly before the court i think there are two subsets of that question the first is what did the complaint say about how regularly the agents but the court did not consider them ok so so so the only thing we have before us is before you help level here is if we accept your argument that a concession or dollars went by the by the appellant concerning the twenty perhaps later on on the merits is there reasonable suspicion for a border patrol officer to stop a van which he knows on prior occasions perhaps twenty percent of the time because i think that  particular vehicle that is known to regularly transport illegal aliens if it's on that same route and it has people in it it's regularly driving people from a good place to be placed in arizona and a lot of them are illegal aliens how they're going would be different but you're not saying that i think i'm just saying this family has been known to have illegal aliens period regularly i mean if they did it once seven years ago no but regularly yes if you are a service which is regularly transporting illegal alien selective body in you know which of the services that are doing that are being stopped or whether they've reported patrol has any idea i mean my guess would be that if you stopped any public busts in southern arizona you'd probably come to the same conclusion and that each of them had to have to find positions and that they didn't have anything to do with that particular allegation but what this court said is just because you have a general legal conclusion this violated x amendment of the constitution and you name a particular defendant isn't good enough you have to say how each defendant violated the law and i think i think it is the case that to satisfy calmly you can't just say you stopped me and then thirteen page was later in the complaint say every stop is the legal paragraph my new one of the complaint by the way  say it because they're saying you know you can't for the following reasons they are happy to allege you legality when they're doing it generally against the border patrol when they're being specific they don't and this morning opposing counsel said he individual defendant and say you stopped me without saying when and if you think you stopped me ten times and if you want damages for each of those ten times you have to identify them well it's ok can you read the with stopping a vehicle from a moving vehicle as opposed to a stationary one roving patrols in the invoking roving patrols isn't enough to state a violation of the constitution thank you very much your home is how can we have a little extra time i would just say your honour's that if you read the complaint we put in as much of the civic information as we had available there is a lot more information we could have put in had we been given the opportunity to do discovery  durgin which was a class action against a border patrol and i know what is available i know that the radio logs would provide the dates the times and the names of the officers we didn't have access to that the complaint clearly states in plain language that the stops all of them were without reasonable suspicion probably my correct in believing that if anything turned on whether you kind of range or lack couple of other issues before the court one the f t c the federal tort claims act claims were thrown out essentially because the were not real specific on the nature of the cla