this case is about the police's efforts to help the gore ski's in the cosmas two neighbors who hated harassed in threaten each other based on their religion's ethnic origins and personal animosity their hubris altered in one hundred and ninety eight page ninety seven dollars pages of official police reports over three years and the question before this court is whether four officers are entitled to qualified immunity for their efforts to investigate a crime and issue no trespass orders after receiving two emergency calls in one night after briefly addressing the facts i'll cover each of our issues for review st i'll address the fact that while courts normally accept facts in favor of a non movement and qualified immunity summary judgment in this case portions of the course these affidavits should have been excluded which would have immediately disposed of this case nd even with the affidavits corporal revo and deputy will hartle were entitled to qualified immunity for arresting mr gorski because they had probable cause to do so under texas penal co section rd the officers in this case for also entitled to qualified immunity under the gorski is unlawful entry claims because they receive permission to enter the house and finally the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the course  egging her car in rich palliation for the st call that the officers received the officers realize that that night they had to issue no trespass warnings in talk to both neighbors they turned on their audio recorders in things went smoothly with the cozens but mr gorski answered the door dropped belligerent and in his underwear he promised to get his wife to try to close the door at the ready my good that you say that they also left after about forty five minutes they had their discussion no one was arrested no trespass warnings were issued which was their obligation that knighted at a minimum and the gorse he's later claimed they were subjected to unlawful search  excessive force and unlawful arrest is there is there a factual dispute as to what point that officer entered the residence and also whether that officer issues number one when the officer entered the residence and to whether and when there was consent we continued there is not the only dispute would be if based upon the well again if if the affidavit were thrown out everything would be resolved but even if we accept the affidavit we can do in the affidavit would only go to the issue of the nd the officers in tree into the home it wouldn't go into excess  force or anything else you know we've got numerous issues but if the affidavit were accepted and we were to allow the affidavit to contradict the interactive tory responses in contradict the audio then we do have a problem with respect to  unlawful entry we can see that point but not with respect to the other issues the unlawful arrest and the excessive force wi fi f a david doesn't help them with that so that the two reasons why we argue that the  we have a case like this there's sort of a two tiered response and two tiered analysis st of all the court of appeals looks to the affidavit and tries to determine whether or not it was properly admitted and then nd it looks to the summary judgment is you know  house if we accept that in a raga tory is true that's one in a rugged terrain we listen to the audiotape it's very clear that the officers had permission to enter the home before they entered the home and that inconsistency has never been change in her testimony that's never been explained the nd problem is that the audiotape so contradicts her affidavit that it should be excluded we snow in this your argument  parable that we should adopt the supreme court's a statement about use of video i don't think they've ever a standard that the audience the supreme court hasn't but this court has in lewis st the city of shreveport last year in the st footnote there was a a situation where this but stated listen to audio record and there was a question about whether or not a suspect was resisting in this court said based upon the sounds in the audio record we contend t suspect was resisting so it has been extended to audio though although it bitterly in a footnote and i would argue that all the senses are important and a lot of the time audio capture things that video want it captures from the sound from all directions whereas video you know is only from one direction the yoke can be out of focus in audio can be very valuable and certainly we encourage our officers to use audio and it does when they do the right thing and they record the audio but then the courts don't listen closely to it it's sort of since the wrong message so we would ask that the audio be very carefully listened to and that if the audio does contradict the record or you have a transcript of the audio if your honor we have a transcript in the record i there and we also it's page six hundred and thirty seven dollars is where we actually file the multimedia but there's also a transcript yes your honor so what we hear in the audio is that two minutes and twelve seconds into the recording mr gorski has already been handcuffed on the porch we hear though knock on the front door and announce twice police department ten seconds later he tells his gorski come on out her voice gets louder he comes out we can hear her being handcuffed no officer went to ms gorski ms gorski came to them that's very clear from the audio they talked for a while at four minutes and twenty seconds the parties discussed the fact that ms gorski son was in the house in perspective regardless of the language barrier that was consent and certainly there's no d clearly established law that would say you can't under those circumstances so we hear the officers in or after this course gives permission for the  time we hear a lot of footsteps about fifteen seconds worth of footsteps as all of the officers come inside and then we hear the front door closing where you have three of the how many option were there not you had you had one dolphin training  erred in accepting her new claim that they were already inside the house when they asked to come inside the house the nd it really evidentiary question we had was we asked the office we asked for portions of the gorse he's affidavits to be stricken where they claim to have screamed in pain and call profanities thrown into a chair while being handcuffed where there were two audio recorders one on mr gorski one on ms gorski they captured the entire interaction they captured even the the distinct sound of handcuffs cli at no time does anyone scream and pain complained their her call profanity are asked to have their handcuffs loose and no reasonable officer would have had any awareness of any injury being caused to the gore skis and it depositional page th and ninety three dollars of the record mr gorski admitted he suffered no injury and the only discomfort he even had was because of how he position himself in the patrol car so our audio is the most objective evidence we have in this case we should encourage officers to use it and we should listen closely to it so that's our st issue but even if we lose the st issue there's still qualified immunity the nd issue for review is the district court err to deny him qualified immunity for mr gorst his unlawful arrest  so officers detain mr gorski in threatened to arrest him for violating texas penal code three thousand eight hundred and fifteen which makes it a crime to interrupt disrupt in peter otherwise interfere with a peace officer performing a duty or exercising authority  law and this is an incredibly broad statute in texas it requires the lowest culpable mental state in officers were at the gorski house again for the nd emergency call for the night and they when mr boies he opened the door in they ask can you can you bring your wife we need to talk to her he agreed you know he said five times i'm going to get my wife the disagreement occur when he wanted to close the door and leave them out front while he went and got his wife their concern after their previous interaction with mr gorski is he might have a weapon inside we don't know what's going to happen so they had the right at that point to insist no you've said you've agreed to this interaction you've got to keep the door open while you get her in when they when he refused to do that became belligerent then then under the statute they had probable cause to arrest him for interfering with their their duties  from turning on their audio tape they the next thing they did is they call the d a s office and they said we want a formal we want your legal advice should we take in then again this is what we want our officers to do we want them  it's also important to understand that you know they so it's undisputed that all of this up until these facts are undisputed and it's also important to understand that under clearly established law in texas they had probable cause rosenthal look at all of these past and if you look if you look into or judgment or well reason forty one judges then you will see that you considered all these these questions and about credibility and so criminal negligence not just miriam i thought he was i thought he was more or less locking the door keeping the officers from having access to his wife no that is incorrect to do whatever they wanted to do my client by the way i'm as good morals as never been a convicted of a crime in all fifty three years that is why mr callan you and i both know that it has nothing to do with what we're deciding but then it was zero dollars so this was the most insignificant the all crimes that are imaginable so there was no probable cause at any time either or the arrest mr gorski or mrs g legislature put in of its message talking about a phrase speech that that free speech in a response to rest situation came the end to the supreme and that no one was there ever any consent and there's a matter of fact that's why mr morris you wanted to close the door is probably because you didn't want the individuals to get in that's an end and an expression of hate you can't come into my house while i go get my wife yes i will go get my wife even though i don't have to although it's that we in the morning although all her you're accusing her of is a classy misdemeanor you could just give me a take it or give her a ticket and she don't have to wake her up in the middle of night and plus it wasn't even her it was her friend irene which is clearly shown on the video so basically and if you do you've got to remember also that mr revolve the guy in charge he was it was disciplined it was disciplined for the activities that night and you know not to be a skeptic but that's hard to do sometimes to get discipline from your own police agency person you know messing up so he should have taken control and done a much better job according to the internal affairs  look his activities so what we see here is individuals that were going over there not all i'm trying to get back to excuse me for this remote video it's sort of hard to the officers in terms of having access to his wife i'm not talking about an issue of who all i'm talking about what happened on the scene i don't i don't see that there's a dispute there as to what happened   was that the officers insisted that he not hose the door on them while he went to get his wife is that fair to say or not from the record if you believe if you make a credibility determination at this point i disagree but that's what they were doing and and so my point that's up to up to what what the jury will decide on that issue that the matter of fact not you know lots of a spot where it says that when it comes to law enforcement also believe the testimony of the officer will be in his his favor and they're also interested in witnesses so we claim that that is not in their mind they were there wanting to see look inside rather we didn't so we we believe that's up to you want to call for his wife and and tell her that he is going to jail and says yeah your husband's one's going to jail so that actually goes to the arrest issue regarding the the warr yet that you know that most of the arrests so i mean there's no there's there's no factual dispute about what you just read so we can take those facts as given for purposes of the legal question regarding the arrest is that right uh no these these are just things that were on that out the other side stayed in those art what they were actually you know thinking and just because the other side says i can do this does not make it so there was never any reason to arrest it's clearly a step forward feel those thirty eight point five all right so that's a question of law that we can you saw on this appeal if there's not as you did issue material fact as to that specific question which is  living room and once they were in there they saw him commit a crime such as assaulting somebody or setting something on fire some other obvious act of a criminal nature they of course could or thank you thank you miscount of thank you very much mr hopkins sometime for whom it's rather as as judge smith alluded to probably the easiest issue of the east to to resolve in this case is the unlawful after reports that a teenager may be thinking about suicide the girl's mother would not let the girl get into the patrol car with the officer and she was detained put in the patrol car she sued for wrongful arrest of the court held the officers had probable cause under and fifteen that boss case extends a long line of similar cases perlman vs city of fort worth the child there's case they all say similar things the district court relied on one case freeman versus gore which we just talked about and the opposing counsel just talked about but that case is really distinguished police knew they were executing the one at the wrong house they were told that they were told that the person they were looking for wasn't there and they still demanded to search the wrong house it with respect to mr because this course he doesn't have an unlawful arrest plainness records he does and at that point there was probable cause to arrest mr gorski under clearly established texas law ok what do you do with a qualification of that also don't have a right to order him to go do something else either well the vos case the child is case all of those cases were similar there was an invoice case was a welfare check there was no probable cause for the officers to be there a just wanted to word and i don't say that i'm not hearing anything from you as to what they did you presuppose that he's obligated although i have no problem caused to be there to go get his wife and he refused to do that or he created a scene in other words that was that an active scene that the police officers were controlling if he had said if he had just slammed the door in their face and said i want to talk to you good bye that are the facts of the case but he had his foot in the door that's