thank you very much your honor i represent joshua young who spent over a year in a cook county or a one thousand center after the defendant officers manufactured a statement that falsely showed that he had knowledge and control over a firearm that was recovered from the vehicle he was in along with his lifelong friend corey whose easy respectfully the district court erred in applying a summary judgment standard in this matter actually inverted at times took certain facts favorable to the defendants as gospel and ignored other parts of the record entirely there are three basic pillars to the district court's opinion and like to go through each one of them and point out where i believe the district court erred the st one was the district court placed a great amount of emphasis on the fact that  joshua young said that corey hughes had told him earlier in the day that there was a gun in the car that's fair to say robertson just just to jump ahead though for a minute i  try to break these down you know as the police become involved and the initial stop of the of the white chevy sit down seems to me to be a permissible traffic stop they can see that the passenger in the rear seat isn't wearing a seat belt and you know we see these sorts of things all the time these are very minor traffic offenses but it's a legitimate stop for their reason and i think the  nd thing the district judge relied on is however it came to be by the time young gets out of this car the gun is on the console between the driver side and the passenger side in the front seat and so it's not clear to me what all the rest of this discussion adds i mean that's already it i would suggest although you can respond probable cause to think that there's a good minimum joint possession between young and the other individual turns out to be hughes who they know and i'm not admiring what they did supposedly crumpling up the st statement and getting rid of the exculpatory aspects of it but probable cause doesn't require ruling out all extolled the tory views so so why do we have to worry that much about what happens later right i was always my biggest concern with this case from its inception throughout was a simple fact it would be reduced to hey there's a gun in the car and joshua young's in the car and the simple fact next to him it's not like it's in the trunk or something they see it right next to it right but it was placed there moments before seconds before as the officers were approaching did and the it's a question of fact as to whether or not they knew that because they are approaching the car from the front you're looking through a windshield a clear when she'll they can see into the car they're focused on the car and that's what they admitted now at this time when they're approaching joshua young has testified that cory uses poked him in the back right where the center counsel is is wiping off the gun and is placing it on the center counsel where they saw that or not it's a that young was the driver so the gun is immediately proximate to him and i'm just trying to figure out why that's not enough for probable cause it's  not enough or probably because if the officers had actually seen it just being placed there they would have known that josh young you need both control and knowledge of the gun in order to have zeshan of the doubt whether it's joint or not and those statements and those elements were missing they were missing after the gun was recovered because they had a gun and they had two guys in the car and they couldn't necessarily prove that either one had knowledge or control either for themselves or for others and if you in and know this is a court has said we don't need to look at matters after the fact but matters after the fact are important you look at the police reports these guys generated what did they generate owner and possessor of the gun in their case report corey hughes not coreys using joshua young not joshua young corey hughes in there in the detective report that's initiated by others who may review who they put down as the possession owner of the gun could see and not see as they approach the car the two p officers have known and perino is where you seem to join issue in your brief  behalf of your client because your position of course is that mr hughes had had possession of the gun was was poking your client and then was the one who placed it on the center console around the center council and that's how the officers could see it or that's how the officer saw that because they were approaching looking in the car what i'm wondering about is when you look at the deposition testimony of the officers both of the officers they they as you accurately describe they say they were approaching the car and they could see inside but if memory serves and you can correct me if i'm mistaken they don't say that they saw any movement at all and so my question is can mr yon create a genuine issue of fact requiring resolution by trial by himself testifying as to what two other people saw well it's not respectful it's not what two other people saw what they could have seen and that's facing them could have seen can he can he do that sure i think and and i understand that the courts skepticism but that of the simple fact of the matter if you look at it in the reverse what you'd have is officers could eliminate any summary judgment by just simply saying i didn't see it there are a number of examples in this case where an officer just simply denied i was never told and i didn't see that and if you follow along it's like a pattern of summary judgment what they've effectively done is created their own secondary narrative of the case in which in many cases the district court simply adopt it rather than by looking at the reasonable inferences that are potentially present which go to us as the plaintiff that the case we relied on and no it's not a perfect analogy is that miller case where the officer jumps over the fence lands on the individual's jaw and he says hey i didn't see the guy and then the court they have seven circuit there look to act that well based on the circumstances that what it what could have what could have been seen there was a question of fact as to whether or not the officer actually saw the individual he jumped over the fence and landed on a mat with on his jaw so it's not a question of the plaintiff seeking to create  there was i forget what the word was with what the officers did in terms of destroying the statement in destroying the video but doesn't that show that they knew they lacked the probable cause doesn't show that they knew they needed something that they excised from the where young drives hughes to get the haircut finds out the gun is there says you know i'm turn around right now i'm going home i don't want this gun in the car he knows he's not entitled presumably and uses never mind you know i'll just leave it at the barbershop and as far as young knows that's where it got left until he's literally physically being poked and those facts are all there in the crumpled up and thrown away statement and i have some sympathy for that but what i am stuck on is you know the the fact that we're not trying to prove things here we're we're just trying to see would wouldn't of an objective lee reasonable police officer approaching only stopped car who sees this gun where where he sees have any reason at that point you're running up into this problem that the police don't have to develop  seen actually i had one more fact you might want to comment on which was that i gather the st time they contacted state's attorney they said we don't want to move forward until we get written statements and that's what causes these written statements to be prepared as they are i think that there's a difference it's not a simple probable cause situation where the officers have no further duty to investigate  we're saying is this an instance where the officers cannot go cannot ignore where the facts reasonably lead them and cannot go and simply close their eyes to the facts that don't fit within their version of events and what happened was there any it was there any dispute if there was a gun on the air console no there was not judged there was not necessary and that's a separate issue they come up when there's a is to get the court to look at the whole picture here and yes just simply the facts that the officers were to rely upon if they are if it was that simple then the officers wouldn't need to have quickly crumpled up the statements wouldn't have needed to somehow distinguish between young and huge in their attempts to try and show knowledge and control of that gun they needed something from the state's attorney the state's attorney basically told them oh get statements because they didn't have enough the fact that you have two guys in a car with a gun isn't enough to prove possession you need to prove knowledge each approved control and there is a question as to whether or not the officers saw this initially even if they didn't see it initially when they find it in the council between the two guys and they go to the state's attorney they know at that point their investigation is still going on they're still trying to figure what's going on they still don't have probable cause once they get into it and they start taking the statement and then they start crumpling up the statements and destroying videotape recorded statements that's what we have a situation where there's a question of fact i realize and i didn't realize all three of the the panel have it expressed and i mean opportunity to meet the skepticism as to how this what apparently is a simple case of a gun in a car deserves a trial but in in looking at the case as it's supposed to be looked at in the light most favorable to the plaintiff i know you guys hear this all the time with every reasonable inference given to the plaintiff looking at it like that you have a situation where the officers could have seen the activity by core you could have seen him i district court here relying on that only the positioning of the gun but the fact that hughes a co founder every reason to get rid of the gun the district courts relying on that in support of of its decision i mean let's face it he had every reason not to do what every reason to move that going to joshua young and there were statements and again i don't and maybe this is getting into the weeds but i don't think it is there are so many inconsistency about who was present at state was taken what was said where that state was taken all those things show that there's more here going on it's not just simply as much as this the facts can be reduced to what the officers want them to be reduced to a simple gun the car the rest of the facts is a show so much more is happening and it really players should be given an opportunity to present that case to try or fa i appreciate the court's time i see my my time is coming up i'll save anything i have left for a bottle thank you very much thank you and rick's yours sound as  cars of a certain type it's you know it's a chevy sedan i mean things that happen that involve somebody stretching from the back seat toward the front console are capable of being observed you can see people moving around inside cars and i've seen many police officer testify that oh i saw somebody talk something under the seat or i saw somebody do this or me it's not unreasonable just given the about the potential consequence of the intentional destruction of the st statement as alleged and it's this don't you think that if that version of events were proven true ok and we have to accept his allegations do we not at this stage as being true that they that they wanted up the st statement said it's not good enough for doing a nd statement ok we have to accept that if we accept that is true doesn't it seem highly likely to you that a fact finder would have grave concerns about the credibility of the entire account that the police officers are offering in other words this is an odd case where you say we're going to go ahead and accept as true an allegation of a very serious police misconduct and we're going to find it harmless because of the look because of the location of the gun well as we were what we're doing with that in my view that concerns me is we're taking officer credibility out of all of it and just setting it to the side be the standard though is what an object  officers in the circumstances would believe they have probable cause but you have to assume that those hypothetical st those hypothetical reasonable officers are the same ones that destroyed the evidence well  for one second before the officers walked up that is enough to show knowledge that the gun was in the car and joint session because actually as i understand it what  what mr young is trying to argue is that in fact he didn't have knowledge that the gun was in the car and so even if even if it was out there for a split nd that itself is not enough to satisfy the criteria in the statute one second is in the view of a hypothetical individual in a car is that automatically enough to say that any reasonable person would think that that individual has knowledge had taken the st statement and just left judge o'donnell evaluate the entire record instead of just meticulously proved record best he found that there was no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict but that doesn't really satisfy the standard probable cause to the question about this this case begins does begin with police to it being proven that police officers tore up the st statement threw it away said it's not good enough we're not leaving the room until the statement improves don't you think that would have a a very substantial spillover on the law enforcement view of the entire account of the encounter to be troubling but it doesn't house after a terry stop that's being challenged one officer says to another the body camera video is a problem throw it in the river thrown in the river they get back to the police station they lodge an account th i mean mr young mr young's account here is that in the st statement he said i did i never had a gun i didn't see a gun i understand that the doctors didn't believe them after all no that's not true that's not in the record it is true that the assistant state's attorney asked the officer runner to get a statement there's no indication in the record that that the assistant sta we know i'm going no he said or she said get a statement they got a statement the charges were approved that is certainly true there's no doubt about it but the thought is just not there and  did they never do that across numerous forms but they didn't even try to use any other comment sealed or anything in the form maybe not after the lying owner you know to indicate a hint room if they had wanted to alert a reader to the fact that this might be a joint possession case to just put that fact in there there's a great big section for the  enrique's made following up on judge starters point as to whether or not there was evidence that they knew the defendants knew that the statement was important officer warner and it's in our   they knew that the elements included knowledge and control that they knew that young statement would be used in a criminal proceeding against him and warner admitted  defendant warner who was the primary guy who directed the statement at mit it that he knew the statement given by young was big in the case and it was kind of a large factor in the state's attorney's decision to approve charges so he had made that straight on