may please the court counsel it's my privilege in this case to represent sergeant jeff bar in the city of springfield when i read this court's opinion in zappa versus consolidate this past april as i was briefing this case i literally laughed out loud in the facts seem uncannily familiar end of the issue in the case was virtually identical rooms as motors on the second question of course was what are we doing in federal court ultimately i think this case like zappo will turn on the question of whether a simple property dispute is really a civil a federal civil rights act now if i can facts very briefly the plaintiffs in this case was in a relationship with codefendant patricia basket she's not part of this appeal so ok and before i mean i think we know the facts here's were a qualified immunity appeal right yes so it's a you know it's a collateral order appeal under millions for size etc and the district court judge found the facts to be somewhat different from those that case not that he had that in front of him but if you think about it and he summarizes around page eleven of his opinion why he thinks that there are enough disputed issues of fact here that it's inappropriate to grant qualified immunity in the in the strong sense of the term in the sense that would avoid trial altogether certainly doesn't mean you know sergeant bars you're going to win or lose at the end is it just means is is there are qualified immunity and unlike and zappa there is evidence t suggests that there's maybe some prior arrangement to get the motorcycle from mr allen via a basket in the clue or in some of these other actors over to sergeant barr and his wife and you know so he that the district judge says there's a dispute over the ownership of the motorcycle but there's some evidence to indicate that bar actually had actual knowledge that it really wasn't baskets that's different from from zappa as well planned to sell the motorcycle she had a plan to sell the motorcycle basket did for three months that baskets acquainted with bars wife so district judge has a pretty decent handle on the facts of the case as it's unfolding why isn't it necessary under johnson against jones for us to say these facts are going to have to get sorted out  let the case go forward because those facts don't matter and the reason they don't matter is that state action in this case was a police officer on the scene deciding who gets property but you know you know what if the police officer had preexisting agreement with somebody who makes reading versus united states your honor that's not all teary or motive is irrelevant for a federal civil rights case it may state a conversion case  may state a conspiracy case we're talking about federal civil rights case and two police officers have the right to rely on a title certificate no that's not a i mean i know that's your theory of the case for sure you know that's very clear but  but the fact is if there's actual knowledge i mean you would agree i was soon maybe you wouldn't that if a police officer goes to somebody's house you know smith's house the police officer can't just take you know a car motorcycle or you know t v or whatever he wants from the house that's correct right so so you simply say officers under the fourth amendment don't have the right to just see stuff without the right reason for that so if in this case there was no seizure well he the theory is i suppose that he he and says i'm not going to stop you several hours later it gets loaded on to erect now i mean we are they are dead at the district court level that the only evidence that there was a preexisting knowledge between the two is mrs cunningham who said i don't trust my memory i don't trust it myself two years later so but that's not what we're here what we're here is whether or not the old theory or motive of an officer undermines his ability to rely on a title certificate and i would suggest to you that the supreme court has categorically said no we don't care if an officer is relying on you know that the case that was raised was a racial profiling if there is probable cause the officers official actions are ok in this case the only official action was mrs basket you have title i'm not going to stop her from taking it that's the only official that's the only nexus that we have a federal case here was in the in this case is there you know this gets into  was there something mentally deficient with alan that not that was because he went and for whatever reason hold he says he's dying so he signs he was an alcoholic at the that the title was valid just by looking at it or did it was it was a validly issued and there's no question that the title significant was issued it didn't have mr barr mr allen signature on it at all so on its face that was food for him to declare it or did he check with somebody else well he also called the legal counsel ok so he says i got a title here with her name on it is that when i'd let her have a go at knew she had to she's got the title and that's it grasping what the rules were and that's the end that's where you draw the line that's where i draw the line and that's the only incident of state actions and what you're saying when they go in and get all the other details about where the bar made some kind of a the defendant's theory on this appeal is that mr barr's purchase of the motorcycle was not state action the only allegation of state action was his looking at the title and saying you can have the picked bystander he wasn't he didn't declare that the title was valid or get into that debate you just look at it and said it's hers unequivocally and i think yes and arthur our argument is that a police officer has the right  well he could have been wrong what the district court was saying that if he had looked at this and said i'm sorry mrs bassett your name is on the certificate but he makes a compelling case i'm going to let him have it under the district that's not what qualified immunity where he can be the judge correct he has no the judge can't be sued because they can be appealed from but a police officer according to the district court here is absolutely liable for suit if he certificate of title isn't dispositive on title it's pretty good evidence that somebody owns a car motorcycle or whatever the thing is and that's presented to officer bar and the question is can she take this motorcycle and why can't he simply rely on on state law to sort out whatever remaining disputes there are between mr allen and ms basket i mean the correct correct ok what we're complaining about is that he decided to give miss basket this much more cycle when he had this prior relationship and was aware on the scene that mr mellon reply was you know lost gold hundred fifty years ago i peace when someone takes something if there's a dispute over ownership not title but ownership the proper remedy is to go to the civil courts you leave the property there you go to civil court you have a danger to you think the police are able made the determination he was judge and jury that she was a proper owner when it was clear that everyone on the scene amidst ownership of this motorcycle was in dispute so he should have left the scene and let them fight over it he sort of said it in this is in dispute when you come back  a court order we can have force a court order but he allowed her to take it without a court or while the ownership of this more cycles and he didn't supervise the taking she came back later and threw it off like we should probably could have done any time i'm not sure the recycle sheet that you're also rely on the fact that two days earlier mr allen had reported the bike stolen correct and i think that goes to a totality of the circumstances on the scene that day is the day he had this fight in this basket when she kicked her out  barr may have had to take the actions he did but from ten thousand feet up sergeant barr is over there however he may have gotten there from a fall call from it's is his area it's within his jurisdiction and he sees what appears to be a valid title issued by the state of illinois for this motorcycle and so he says hands off you know that's enough to allow this to go forward i mean yes maybe state law likes somebody to run off and get a court order for this sort of thing but why the federal law doesn't depend on state law why isn't that enough to allow him a good objective lead to allow an objective person to take the action he with you when you go to resupply officer off i mean it's what the officer knew at the time and what was presented to at that time and at that time it wasn't simply the title nothing else here it's a different situation it's a reasonable officer who also knows that two days before the physical title has been reported stolen although not the motorcycle correct and good of all summer but also knew that he was supposed to be there at noon to meet because of this the removal motorcycle found that there's the facts ownership that see a lot of times there's a dispute on the facts for probable cause and the police officer isn't required to keep investigating until it gets down to the the bottom of things a police officer can or we don't have that those facts are known but it's in the record that on the scene prior to removal part of the determination that alan brought it to bars attention she stole this from me i did not give her ownership of this motorcycle that is my first signed a lease over we sign a lot of stuff when he found that out that's when he confronted her that what started this fight and that's when he dipped her discovered that she took his title and did all this while he was sick apparently he was heavily drinking a second that time  as the court noted we believe under johnson first jones that the district court's reliance on denying the summary judgment of qualified immunity to stand on disputed material facts regarding ownership of the oco and they found a tr that mr allen was a proper owner therefore bar did violate his constitutional rights when he worked with miss basket to allow her to take this more cycle they subsequently bought lesson or two weeks later i guess it was he wouldn't arrive in the motorcycle i'm sorry for you think it's lucky he wasn't driving the motorcycle but based on his whatever's had at that time he got he was not driving at that time so you're placing a very high burden on the sergeant though to wade into this domestic dispute and make all of these factual determination xin qualified immunity exists unless the person is just way off base we're not trying to we're not trying to put on bar that he has to make these  comes if there's a dispute of property that he needs to know that there's dispute a property it's he can't make the decision at that time in the need to lead to the court this is a civil matter he went beyond his authority to determine hey you get it even though there's this dispute i'm cut right to the chase you're the proper owner and he did that as a police officer said you know you can't stop or and alan brought that he be a rescue stop or we're not saying the police are supposed to be on the scene and forcible judgments to that should it and i know that was the concern in the we should be out there being collection agencies for private companies you know once there's a dispute and there's evidence on both sides it's not the police officer to make that decision to favor one side or the other and if you look at the facts of this case you know there's reasons why he did the way he did in our