see correctly spelled her st and no name but then spelled my client's last name he correctly added her address and her weight but then some reason he put my client's social security and driver's pleas criminal case management system and it gets replicated whenever there's a warrant issued but i mean the thing that really threw me for a loop is yeah i agree it seems like it was a cleric rather mel and that melissa and was on her husband's side of the family is there any connection between these two absolutely not i don't know where that came from in my contacts money that you do not know  security number birth date and driver's license numbers at right correct though at that point at that point the officers operating on a good faith that this war is out believe that that's all they're required to do i believe that when there is a sniff it can discrepancies between the warrant and the and the person in front of them because it's not but that's not all they did they called and asked if the warrant was still active sheriff has no ability whatsoever to know whether they want the individual in front of this the police the police and the only party that can know and identify that individual and make a determination about whether or not that individuals within the totally wrong person that there was no probable cause to arrest was there when they are confronted with with some questions than if you can question as to whether the warrant is is applied to the individual they have to do more than just say the n c i c thighs and the warrant is not expired which is what they do when they call the really between a rock and our place there's a remarkable number of melissa leaves identifiers on this what was somehow screwed up way back when it close your birthdate or so scary number driver's license number there was no liability because there was evidence here there there is no actions in see here this is a woman who was driving in a minivan with her ten year old daughter on it from a shopping trip every question they asked she has or she gave them dispatcher sent a message to the sheriff's office which confirmed the warrant and tell her bitch to take the subject to present and so they try to make sure that they don't leave her daughter abandon i'm having trouble for figuring out what more garbage could have done i mean yes it could have done more yes but what reasonably would be more is expected of him that's more i can't i don't know if i the different middle name and not the different ways different address different phone number something was wrong if he did it obviously did know something was wrong and he just checking he did not check in on you can just imagine a conversation hey i got i got somebody i stopped for a traffic violation they got a different middle name and you check it out for me back to the very beginning of our conversation is it all goes back to what was put into the system back you know knowing which had nothing to do with any of the parties in the dispatcher or garbage or anybody else it was a string of clerical errors but removed resulting in substantial on the n c i c system none of this would have happened he would have seen the difference in hatteras and phone number he would have worked out the he would but the address in the in his car system and it never would have happened is this reliance on additional responsibilities and that's mark my argument here your honor is when there was a distinction between what was in front of them and what was on the n c i c system they should have requested the want it should have been a little bit more than what they did as soon as issue was raised to district attorney he immediately realized something was wrong and he got an missile beaver's was released from prison the same day mr the garbage and mr miller who actually does have the want should have done something more used she was released forty five hours later right it took them it took them forty five hours to say we got to release this woman the police for all the police didn't have the luxury of a forty five hour window to do any kind of more due diligence was the happenstance of this being on the monday of president's weekend and so many other things that could have occurred or might have occurred normally didn't occur just so many things you know right  question about the lone l claim is or what on the record supports a practice a pattern of deliberate indifference other than e e o j well they haven't made it that this is a that this is a policy ok be just again that it comes down to what would a reasonable officer of done there unless there's any further questions of my colleagues we've now got about seventeen minutes i know we have to back with at least four minutes on rebuttal anything further from my general with the pennsylvania office of the tourney general i represent pennsylvania state police troopers david kirby rich and matthew miller and state police commissioner robert even checked in his official capacity is no question that to rest of melissa leo rothermel was the result of a number of mistakes by law enforcement however troopers garbage in miller had nothing to do with providing information for the war or issuing the warrant they yeah you are you argue that the the baker case the supreme court seventy nine is controlling but isn't the case a bit off point the plaintiff there did not argue the warrant was invalid or that the officer lacked probable cause instead he challenged only the sheriff's conduct after the arrest under the th amendment's to process that seems to be quite different from what we have here so i think obviously baker and burke neither are completely on all fours with this point but i think baker is more analogous in that case the brother of the post of the plaintiff used his brother's name and address and all his identifying information and verified that identifying information was her i also think in in berg i think as it was alluded to the information in the war itself was contradicted by facts presented to the constable he had a driver's license which was incompatible with being on parole in that case he had papers showing that his probation was over and in this case while other confusion over the name and the weight none of that would show an officer that the underlying charges in the warrant were invalid let me ask this do we need to get qualified immunity or could we decide this on a good faith that they are just good faith reliance on the war i think you can decide it on a good faith reliance on the ward otherwise that has to do with the exclusion of people at the good faith as a concept with the exclusionary rule and not the constitutionality of such is it not well it is your honor but here i thought the searchers taking all the t circumstances taking the information from the warrant could reasonably believe that they had probable cause to arrest well that's that's a qualified immunity test is it not i'm going to fuel your h if if the officers had more information which would actually show that there wasn't probable cause that it wasn't the right individual then can say they had a good faith basis to take is the warren but that's not what the facts are and officers don't have a requirement to conduct the most thorough information officer supposed to i mean that they basically can either release mrs rice or mo or place or under arrest they don't have the time to do in an independent investigation and if they do that you're really saying people should officer shouldn't rely on more instead all because if we go back later and say there was the warrant wasn't justified you're on the hook and law if we in connection with well about immunity wasn't the right issue clearly established under berg in our circuit you know we held there that in their own easily executed warrant does not provide probable cause for arrest even if the war again i would say that it's distinguishable on his tax i would also note that in burke this court did not actually i could d meet you at a conclusion and you may be right it's well i think as i was speaking to earlier the constable completely disregarded it's the kerry information regarding the driver's license of the of the person being arrested regarding papers that showed that his he was not on parole and he had a financial incentive to disregard that information where the troopers here they're just doing their job they don't get a bonus for arresting more people but but that the argument essentially is the officers here could have done more to melissa lee's identity i mean they they could have searched to see if there was a real person who was malicious and rother mel they could have been that person is driver's license you know other words that they are going as they should have done something beyond just call the dispatcher and i think the test is always what do the officers know in deciding that there's probable cause there is never a requirement that well if you had done a more full investigation you would've found something different it's not in my brief but the or saudi versus new jersey state police case and i'm seventy one as rd for eighty i think least stands for that proposition what do you make of counsel's argument that the obvious is should have done more should have just requested the actual warrant it to me it seems like for an officer on patrol trooper garbage did as much as he reasonably could do he cannot conduct a full investigation of of of this from his squad car and i also i mean he did call his dispatcher dawson county which is the body which was ultimately responsible for this arrest warrant was contacted and they said this is county which had her for days  i think i think you could store firm there's just no evidence of repeated violations of this kind even if it were a violation and there's certainly no reason to conclude that following the arrest warrant and the information from the and  would was a bad result in most cases the idea that this even if it was a policy that it would be a bad policy would not be justified and i think the court could affirm that and in good when the the this word has that they mean that you must look at both what they had in front of them the police officer and information to which they had reasonable access and in burden on the court also said that you have to look at whether or not the individual is a public threat or threat of flight and that's one of the facts that this court emberg has remanded on and said please look at that issue and that goes to the final point that you want to general mention before i could hand it over to opposing counsel if the individual was a threat if there and then it would be a problem but the police officer should have looked at what the underlying crime was and and here it was stealing cable from from four years ago or from two thousand i'm stealing cable that is not a in a threat  the garbage testified that he did not see was a flight risk and there with and then she was not a threat at all and that there was no reason but for the fact that her social security and driver's license and date of birth ran a warrant for someone else that he rested her  also wanted to talk about baker abed responsible comes of the fact that he is trying to distinguish are all the facts on qualified immunity not on the issue of whether the warrant is valid and there is nothing to distinguish it here in baker with finally i am not asking for the opposition to do a full investigation i'm asking for the officer to get the warrant and every one of these cases we talk about the warrant in this case it's about the mc i see that we did not have all the information on  officer saw his descriptive information melissa levy my client was with him and said look at the address the address is not me october mellor the phone number it's not me i did not do any of this and he said that a judge figured out is my hands are tied and then when asked why didn't you require thinking the more he said well we will get in trouble if we request pictures or anything else about criminal defen