majority of the calls during the summer were not involving criminal activity they were a civil in nature of noise complaints where the officer did absolutely nothing at some point prior to this incident ved in any of these problems prior to the incident in august in addition the city council meets and says to the police officer if you are called again i want to make a and so this is the circumstances leading up to the incident in august of two thousand and nine the city police officers were called out due to a disturbance of the pellet was involved nobody really gets around to ever telling him what occurred prior to coming out the police officer then proceeds to ask the plaintiff what her  power point of interrupted argument ensued between the two parties and at some point they're shouting back and forth at which point the police officer within the window of the riding says that's enough you two are under arrest at that point there's with this is a testimony that they hear clearly that the ok opened up to that lane but what the officers instance started i thought they made a comment in there something about want to fight that was in front of the officer at that point in time you're right i think the testimony is under the circumstances as them up now for an would that become disturbing the peace whether there's a fist through my point is i don't think it amounts to disturbing the peace at any point in time the officer was the wildest one on the tape if you look at the table the officer is the one shot in your suggesting that your client should have made a citizen's arrest of the officer who disturbing the peace i don't think any of that amount to disturbing the peace i think there is testimony from a the problems i have a phobia about being behind my back the officer ignore that placed him in the believe him i mean there's numerous witnesses said it was said and then shot of her and so i think that the officer at that point even if you don't decides not to believe it would have some duty to you know you say is apt to happen here to have a panic attack i thought the record by everybody there nobody mentioned that there was any panic attack he was hand walk back to the car sat  officer that that even if he heard that they had a folded phobia that he wasn't reacting that normally as far as what he was made with placed in the car after that point in time there's a six minute why at least in the video we some point with this is also going to do say the phobia to that point as well numerous witnesses but it doesn't show up on the tape but if you look at the tape your honor a lot of the verbal  what other statements were made that indicated the officer ought to be concerned for the individual's welfare i think the statement of the witnesses was of phobia about having happened here to justify this or rats as far as what occurred before charging for that so i think at that point the officer did not check on  wasn't filed in north platte which is a place for the district of rescue to have cord and or why it might not have been disposed of there we're always happy to have the business here  said by mrs driscoll on the other witnesses is a phobia when you get a little deeper into her testimony we see that it is even more speculative her comment is that you just tell people we're out to get  he had many we're volbeat she testified to and he had all these since he was a little baby and yet only one time in one nine hundred ninety eight these she see anything that she described as something like a phobia in that altered patient that's a song toll of all we have for testimony about a phobia we don't have any testimony about an act attacks we have testimony that exact douglas the officer never had contact with mr testifying to that another officer ryan deane testified he never alert exact i was there just is not a history of contacts between driscoll and douglas to give him any idea arrested him he needed to come out in the front or i had an issue with an attack or anything like that at all in fact you can see from the testimony that the sheet was somebody who was called out to his trailer park many was an officer safety issue but even officer douglas testified that on two previous occasions he allowed people to be caught in the fog one was somebody who had a birth defect in their arms or shoulders and it was difficult to get their arms behind their back and a second one was somebody who had gone through i mean shoulder surgery or a back surgery i think it was in the end he allowed a massive two asian to come off in the front but those were situation minutes later no problem there is nothing here that shouldn't trigger with officer douglas that you should have done something different and he testified if i had known i wouldn't treated the glas terms of her conditions hadn't been treated really with doctors for anything much less for any kind of phobia certainly wasn't diagnosed with any type of phobia and it's interesting your honor that there were times that he was treated once for an m of this phobia is being in a small tight spot like the police car that contributed to this so even she was unaware of any types of problems that her husband had and so certainly officer douglas  and when you go go to the issue of probable cause i think we have to go back a lot further than just the scene of this accident the city of paris is not quite like mayberry or all of it it's a little bit simpler it's a very small town and here you got officer douglas in his office and he hears four different call to the dispatcher in rapid succession and before that for the call he's already heading to his car in his car because he so at that point in time the reasonable reaction is i got to keep everybody from leave he falls and all his car and that's where we see the videotape chaos what's happened and what you have is people point fingers at each other jhalak at that point in time i suppose there are three options sack douglas can do what he did before talking about and leave he thinks that's not a good good option because they're going to be more problems if i do that likely to continue the power of the plaintiff say that there was in essence a promise earlier that if there was any more trouble out here somebody is going to get arrested so that the decision to arrest was made before there was actual observation of the incident  a couple of different issues with that first of all that testimony came from brian laughlin who went to a city council meeting on the eleventh so a lot seven days before this incident and testifies in his affidavit that the city council zach douglas does not say that he was at the same counsel me zach douglas testified i didn't have a policy of going out and arresting the next person i found out the house like trailer park on my next visit there and i didn't do that an objective police officer not the subjective propensities of a particular police officers that career absolutely so regardless of what frame of mind he goes out there with or worried about what his city council members are going to do with him if he doesn't come back and make an arrest that those are really not relevant it's what's objective and here we have so much in the way of probable cause and even if someone were to find that there is no probable cause certainly there is arguable probable cause we've got a testimony from the chief in terms of what his concerns were that this day was different he'd never been out there were dan driscoll had been saying if you want to fight let's fight  and then that portion of the videotape is instructive to us the show that there were some real hostilities not just between the two of them gillette and driscoll but between the people that were on both sides and supporting both sides of those people it was a continuous situation and as a result of that it was appropriate for officer douglas to make the arrests that he did regardless of what the city council did you also your honor have to look at because nothing was said on that about here's what will happen if you caught me behind my back this may be a far different pace if officer douglas first heard a bottle but secondly if he was told he was if you caught him behind his back he's likely going to have a panic attack and when he has a panic attack here's what can happen none of that took place and what he observed with regard to mr being handcuffed behind his back it is difficult the evidence we believe says is just a phobia there's some indication that maybe somebody may have said he needs to be handcuffed in front i don't to make their rescue garbus of the situation and i think there is also a disagreement or a factual issue when we look at the issue of probable cause for the real rest on the issue of wrongful arrest that you raise