seven she don't have a lot of time i think where can i cut you to the chase in terms of from the standpoint that obviously and it's a trial the sex situation actually your honor received a classification of other inmates from another floor and according to the jail policy he ordered those new inmates to their their cells while it was showering all right but i guess what i'm saying  inmate can only be out there the designation means you can only be out there by yourself well actually at the time the way the policy works our understanding is is that if if i'm sorry if officer training receive programming you've got two people that are sent out in the area who were involved in an incident earlier in the day are being sent here and there and the ts been made as in our chain you know the two people  to protect them from other inmates who are there why is that now i'm not saying you know why isn't that enough to say without getting to the second prong on the qualified immunity part of it why isn't that enough to say thing and all of that you're not getting into any of that just listening to that why isn't that enough well your honor i think we need to really emphasize the point that in the party's moving papers on this motion for summary judgment there was no evidence there was no facts based on admissible supporting evidence to show that officer cherry knew anything about any of these inmates status as gang members and those facts that  i didn't know any of that and that's why it wasn't indifference and all that would come out of the trial and they would have to decide and and the plaintiff would say well he knew this or you know or whatever he could establish but why isn't enough from just knowing in the nature of the fact that it is the custodial institution and all of those are true now whether he knew that or and you know can't we you know there's one inference from it is that he knew it and he did it with indifference the other inference you know that you're asking is or the evidence that you want to present is that he didn't know it and you would present that at trial but since it is summary judgment why isn't the plaintiff entitled to that inference since he is the jailer he's the only one day or he's responsible for the inmates that is in fact what their status are and that's what that status requires why isn't that enough well as i said your honor because the court was presented with a motion for summary judgment we had to consider the fact program while he was out the programming to sort of a new nose were let out that doesn't say anything about what the officer knew it just says what what those things are i'll let you save a little bit of time but i don't have the answer that why isn't that  h well it's not enough because i don't think we can assume that because the officer is in a position as it can study and that such that he it's inferred that he's going to have the knowledge about the thinking relationship a very broad general proposition of law now it said was that pretrial detainees are entitled to personal security under the due process clause however a state afford versus remarries palmer this court made it very clear that we have to narrowly view it in light of what he knew as how can you dispute what someone knows that they don't know in you know in the sense that they're followed is that he says i didn't know and you know luna said well you know there was he there was all sorts of hear say about things about gladiators and what's going on in the present and all of that but let's just say he says he didn't know and you know i mean what could a person do either if you didn't have something  you know i mean what his that evidence is is that officers who are charged with the responsibility of prisoners on their watch that it's their responsibility to know what their classifications are who they can put people together spec such as these first of all inmates files generally carry gang affiliation doesn't mention that's to them that you're pointing at facts but there's no showing that they stopped this or had any correct and that there aren't facts then on the knowledge component what do you have to show on and on the knowledge of the gang affiliations or well just on that well i mean basically they're claiming that the officer you know didn't know any of the rough i know for a fact that when people go to jail that they put down what their tattoos are they do all of the classifications but he didn't put all that stuff on the record right so that's not really that's not really something that fine in the record well your honor it it's correct that mr wanted to not put those things specifically in his stomach judgment motion however they are in the record they are in for example his deposition which after thorough and following the excerpts everyone can agree that offers a fair and certainly knows that is a total separation in me and that designation by itself is an acknowledgment of the fact that it's a risk to put him with anybody anywhere he's supposed to be kept separate from all inmates at all your constitute a violation here well you're honored to clarify our position is not that a violation of this total separation does a nation is a constitutional violation of violation in all cases certainly there may be cases where there's kind of railing factors present that way in favor of qualified immunity or weigh against other constitutional violation for example you know had this been a case where the inmates had some history interaction but without incident that would've been a favor that weighed against a constitutional violation in favor qualified immunity and that's for example a key fact that was present in the case of state afford the court noted that hey these two inmates had been cell together for an extended period of time in the elevation under ninety three and the no defendant in this case has ever raised that point and the court below never raised it regardless of the disposition of this appeal right now when this case is returned to the district court it should be returned with instructions that the court this time right yes just go right thank you thank you together they were let in separately while while he was happy grammy right to go to their self correct and based on that as i said officer trina had a duty to order these newly assigned inmates to their must look at the specific context of the case that is the fact that issue when we're searching for what the clearly established law might be otherwise the officer would have no notice that his conduct intent into qualified immunity which we know from saw ca is an objective reasonable nice standard and crawford overshoes britain his ted specifically subjective intent is relevant for qualified immunity