the issue on appeal is a very narrow issue and we were very particular in the issue we chose to take up the district court is the one nine hundred eighty three action and the district court was presented with a summary judgment ocean on behalf of the two officer defendants in the city of hollywood who is not an appellant was not a participant in these proceedings because their summary judge was denied one of the officer defendants was granted summary judgment and officers to bill was granted summary judgment on one issue but denied on other issues and we to so's to focus on the allegation the one nine hundred eighty three allegation of false imprisonment or false arrest which is kind of five of the plaintiffs complaint we chose that particular affirmative that that allegation because we looked at the district court's order we looked at the evidence and we concluded that the well we disagree that there are factual issues there was sufficient also imprisonment is a state tort claim right that's correct but this is the one nine hundred eighty three civil rights violation based on the allegation of false imprisonment or drawn figure out what were your roots your appeal you have probable cause or even arguable probable cause just under the plaintiff's version of the facts and i understand your honor the the when we went back and looked at the district court's decision which says that in the order that there were looking at the planes version of facts there is a dispute about probable cause arguable probable cause and even sufficiency of the op we went back and looked at that at the facts all the facts and what we think  is the conflict here in looking at all the facts and favor the plaintiff are that the disputed their disputed facts even taking the players version the facts i was with the copra i was with of colleague we drove up to store music was playing given their version he says it wasn't as loud as the officers say it was it was loud all those are not relevant disputed facts because the fact is the music was playing and what what what gave them probable cause loud music alone in florida does not give them probable cause it's not just loud music it your honor and that and that's what i'm getting to which is the point in the record  evidence of the officers they were involved in a domestic investigation and they were there they were on scene at the i understand all of that i think we read the briefs just right and i mean i'm sorry to interrupt you i apologize tell me exactly what fact gives the because just tell me the fact first and then you can explain the statement by the independent statement by one of the two individuals being investigated that the that the passenger who got out of ron's car was intoxicated and is an agent was taken in the internal affair but that has nothing to do with rollins right the fact that the passenger was intoxicated rollins how does that give you like if i am intoxicated that doesn't give you probable cause to arrest judge wilson it's it's that and then officers to be ill who was in with officer back for was in the midst of the investigation of valving the domestic dispute had to turn and signal to to lower the music so they get under way but under rollin's view of the facts he says they first time they told me to lower the music they were walking towards me i had quote the music midway right and as soon as they told me i lowered it so don't know how he could know that that the investigation was over but the evidence of whether the investigation was over or not comes in there's a conflict in the i have to have intent in obstruction of justice i don't believe so your honor we have to have a physical act in florida well florida says there are there's there are minor exceptions but the general rule seems to be the physical act what the physical act well the cases that that rely upon the necessity of physical act and show that the  evolve cases involving substantial distance these officers were right next to the car and they were but i'm not just relying upon the obstruction we're also saying it's the obstruction coupled with the belief that there was alcohol and or marijuana because officers to be rollins disputes that i i understand what he says but i see irrelevant for what we're doing otherwise we don't have jurisdiction ri rollins view each disputes that and the singletary case says we can just disregard that fact if the record belies it right here there was when you did a drug test everything came up clean so that actually the record supports his view but there's also the doctrine of mistaken belief and officer has a responsibility that if he believes that there is the offenses has been committed he is entitled to investigate it so an officer is not the objective fact for determining whether or not the officer can conduct the investigation but i'm ok so that's i understand your argument but how how do we do that on an interlocutory appeal i get it to a jury i get it after the fact but how do we do it in iraq a tory appeal when we except here at rollins versions but my point is that his statement that there was no alcohol and that there was no drugs does not create an issue of fact because we're looking at what is in the mind of the officer what he is relying upon and so reasonable jury come to the conclusion that the officer was lying when he said that rolland smell like alcohol or marijuana well or and could the reasonable jury come to the conclusion that the officer was lying when he said he finished his investigation at the grocery store and get a reasonable jury come to a different conclusion that rollins was playing his music too loudly and all those are all those are relevant to determining  a reasonable officer would have probable cause that the dane rollins right if i answer the question yes then it's a completely undercuts the argument my point that i'm trying to make and i'm not going to going to tell you that the answer is absolutely unequivocally no because but what i do have is for example the case that kirkland you have more facts where the officer was lying and you have proof of lying you know well let me help you with that  so in the record in this case officer beck for that mr ron's words were not slurred he didn't have glassy eyes he did not appear to be intoxicated and furthermore that the officers made no investigation into whether rollins was investigated so that sounds to me a lot like the king's lynn case and i thought and not to not again to to put a dagger in my own back but the follow up conclusion that would be and isn't that a reasonable officer position and i understand that's what officer b steps back but it's officers to bill who is the one that says that he smells alcohol marijuana and if you and what and the reason why i think that the obstruction and the intoxication have to be joined together is that you have the independent cooperating evidence from mr jenkins the one of the individuals involved in a domestic dispute who says that the passenger comes in and says you know whoa whoa whoa merry christmas happy new year and the officers are looking at a car that's parked in illegal parked in a handicapped parking spot right in front of them with loud music and they and the and mr jenkins also says in his same statement that officer beck for i think it was was distracted or the officers were distracted from what they were going the plaintiff's version of the facts as i understand it correct me where i'm wrong and i'm looking at his statement of facts is the music was what he called midway lash out when directed he turned it down he didn't smell of alcohol or marijuana nor did he smoke marijuana or drank alcohol that's the version under that scenario anyone in america can be arrested well it or store detain and it's the detention part of it which is that really what i'm focusing on be but how do you have reasonable suspicion or even if we want to eat is the arguable reasonable suspicion under the version of facts i just gave you because there are additional facts that not withstand the plane of st i didn't do it and i hat and i wasn't doing it you have independent outside evidence and that's why we point to mr jenkins who is the one that you're using that evidence to contradict what the playing of saying i mean what outside evidence do you have that the plaintiff did something different they gave you the authority to detain him something different than what i just gave can't point to anything outside of what the plaintiff says but my argument is construct it on the fact that the court looks at that all of the evidence because of the the nature or policy of the immunity which is that it's not just you know in a qualified immunity that is something that should be waved around lightly it's something that basically says you're not even supposed to be subject to the lawsuit and so on this false arrest false imprisonment claims ninety three claim when you look at the other evidence ok which which creates in the officer's mind the basis for engaging with mr rollins that's why we think that the district court got it wrong the morning and may please the court michael davis been cuny and trial lawyer douglas jeffery here on behalf of warren rawlins the district court in denying summary judgment relied upon for independent sources of dispute the video mr rollins mr jenkins and quite significantly officer beck for it have all offered evidence and testimony that materially contradicts officer stables version of the events and as the court has noted there are roughly five key factual disputes one was the investigation ongoing mr rollins pulled into the parking lot to was mr ball was playing loud music three that mr rollins turned down his music upon being there is no jurisdiction for ther speck to the state law false imprisonment claim because the notice of appeal did not include the state law claims there would however be jurisdiction with respect to the federal civil rights claim it's state immunity exactly honor and isn't i mean the reality is isn't it inextricably intertwined in such a way that under eleven circuit case law we could consider it respectfully no your honor under williams v roper which is a case involving identical notice of appeal the court concluded that a state law immunity claim was not in extra could be intertwined with the federal civil rights claim because the state law claim does not turn on clearly established law and under florida state law a false imprisonment affirmative defense of probable cause does not turn on clearly established law so under williams v roper which is identical to the notice of appeal here there would not be jurisdiction to address the state law false imprisonment claim still though if even if the court were to conclude that there was jurisdiction for both i'm sorry to interrupt you counsel do you have a cite for that by any chance ye but the reasoning of the decision is is very sound there's a full analysis there's a complete analysis in the court could apply that analysis to this case and and follow it as this court is aware in in this case instead of filing a notice people that appeal the entirety of the summary judgment order the defendant officers to below only chose to appeal the order on qualified immunity didn't the correct me if i'm wrong on this the district court i thought intertwined the coin when it discussed them and just called it i think qualified immunity for both correct the analysis by the district court was the false imprisonment was all together in my wrong on the yes and no your honor the court did like the no part of the court did address them together but with respect to the analysis of the court looks at the analysis of the false imprisonment claims the court doesn't repeat the qualified immunity analysis and the court basically determines that there is a factual dispute and because there's a factual dispute as to the underlying facts summary judgment should be denied this is the court the next really necessarily rule on the qualified immunity the court didn't get that far because the facts as to what happened with the music was loud whether there was an ongoing investigation there was a disputed fact as to that right but my point is is that in order to decide that there was no immunity the court had to decide there was a material issue of fact i clear and so what the would your friend on the other side is doing is saying look except the plaintiffs are version on the facts then i can appeal and that technically under the law is correct and it seems to me like we're splitting hairs a little bit on the imprisonment imprisonment the only defense is probable cause and it's a different probable cause standard than in federal court in federal court would be arguable probable cause where is under state law it's would just be probable cause as a defense and in this case the district court correctly conclude i thought if they have probable cause it gives him a munity under florida law versus he has to go to trial no matter what and then a jury finds in his favor does that make sense i don't know if i would necessarily give the court a description in relation to in terms of that articulation the way that i would articulate put florida law on this point is this way probable cause is an affirmative defense to a claim of false arrest the eleventh circuit said it's an absolute bar which indicates to me it's immunity right in rankin vs the eleventh circuit probable cause to toots an absolute both florida and nine hundred eighty three coins alleging false arrests why isn't that immunity the court may have used the term absolute bar but i think the court may have meant absolute bar in terms of if there are no issues of disputed fact as to probable cause then there is no lawsuit but even if the court were to conclude that there is just action to review both the federal and state law claims the district court correctly denied summary judgment due to the  issues of disputed fact as the court has already or to collate it importantly the first three facts that i've mentioned are whether the investigation was ongoing whether there was loud music whether mr rollins turned down the music mist bill in his initial brief concedes that these are disputed facts there is no dispute that they were not disputed that mr sybil's only position is that they are not material disputed facts and they are material under this court's that when the officers engaged in be turned to music even further down and that there and that there was no on ongoing investigation the jury could reasonably find there was no probable cause and no arguable probable cause for obstruction of justice arrest argues that the officer could have believed could've arguably had probable cause based on the smell of alcohol or drugs coming from the car is it enough for mr allen just to say i don't use alcohol or illegal substance and the point of said there is no such smell and as judge wilson explained in that decision you know it's the defense or the plaintiff is not required to prove a negative the absence of a smell what matters is that he testifies that there was no smell and that the officers have not produced any objective evidence any physical evidence of something being there and in this case is exactly what we have there was no marijuana recovered on scene there is no alcohol recovered on scene and even more we have officer back for it as just part noted during the opponent's argument officer betfred who is a eight year police officer has eight years of experience he explained that in his experience he had no reason to believe that m r rollins was intoxicated in all of those facts together and separately created an issue of fact as to whether there was probable cause for an arrest of driving while under the influence as the court is noted and i think as the plant has conceded this case will go to trial the appellant's of not challenge the other federal law and state law claims the only question before the court is how many will go before the to the nine hundred eighty three claims of the plaintiffs the judge to answer your questions about in florida law probable cause is an absolute bar under federal or state claims there is a distinction  our in florida i don't think for recognizes absolute i'm sorry arguable probable cause as a defense to stay law claims and in florida our sovereign immunity statute has a an exception to it which is that the officers action or the individual's actions are willful and wanton and so there are there is the state version or state immunity but it is a different analysis so that's why when we were looking a few order to take up an issue we we really saying that it seems like no good deed goes unpunished because we wanted to focus in on the one thing that we thought that the facts were undisputed even viewing them  in in mr rollins as view because of the of the other facts giving the officers giving them the suspicion are you or are you not appealing this now no not appealing staples in prison no we're appealing count five at the decision to deny summary judgment i count five which was included in the plaintiffs complaint has a separate affirmative defense by the defendant as we saw in the record and was analyzed by the court and briefs also a summary judgment on qualified immunity so i'm sorry if there was confusion on that but that was always our intent was just qualified immunity count five thousand nine hundred eighty three and so to come back to the question about whether or not reasonable jurors could you know make certain factual determinations i think as it relates to at least the qualified immunity analysis the focus is on the the officer the viewpoint of the officer would a reasonable officer act in a fashion and as it relates to probable cause the test is even though just fine because i don't want to and there's a reasonable suspicion that the officers knowledge of which reasonable trustworthy information are sufficient to warn a person of reason sort of a cause and believe to be committed there's also arguable rob because which is a step down which goes even further and  would be reasonable officers in the same circumstances well when there is and it will come out of the car and smell of alcohol and marijuana as testified by the officer there's a reasonable basis reason officers would investigate and detain under terry and so that's why we think that the district court's view is in error and the court should reverse on count five of the second many complain thank you thank you mr davis and mr marks