what happens is that there's a document called a complaint for pullin area examination in felony cases which consist of the conclusory statement that that a particular person committed a particular first two thousand and twelve when he had witnessed the controlled purchase and personally pretty disappointed in the investigation well before i answer that of let me say that it doesn't matter knowledge of what happened and the not just reported in the short appendix at page twenty eight all that he knew was that somebody who is said to be a cooperating individual an f cooperating individual was searched was put into a vehicle that was searched and was sent out to do a says is that the c i hadn't gauged in a conversation where they were observed walking behind the bus shelter there's nothing in there about who said watch a home what words were spoken whether mr white was involved in that conversation whether he was close enough to hear it this would have been a lot better affidavit if they had a statement saying we spoke to the c i and he told us that mr white and the other person there mr chapman sold him drugs cia and found some drugs that he were retrieved by a police officer that's really falls short of probable cause and that's why actually this case was brought in state court rather than being brought federal court because it's a cartridge case they don't really have any basis to say that mr white was involved with that especially when the surveillance video shows that mr white was thirty feet away from the conversation his privacy was invaded when the officers came into the home where he was with an invalid warrant if they had probable cause to arrest them with that they could on the street we would not have this warr would be talking about probable cause but they used the arrest warrant to go into beach welling where he had a protected privacy right and it wes we want to read the warrant because out of the fourth amendment i don't think anybody here wants to do that we have to say it's the judge who must make a finding of probable cause not whether there could have been probable cause like in byers versus us or versus what if maybe they gave more evidence there would have been probable cause or there could have been probable cause but they didn't do what was presented to the judge that well you know i understand that officer adonal couldn't recall his exact words to the court when he presented the criminal complaint and testified under oath but in his  viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff we could say what officer o'donnell said i read the next report to the judge after being swear under oath judge i've read the next report and i believe that it's set forth suffici made a statement the credit and exactly what i just read i read the report and i believe set forth oh because the judge says ok fine i'm going to sign this one and the other fifty or forty nine arrest warrants based on that that the police officers can pick which judge they ought to issue it they can meet with the judge at home in court and at the gym they secured intentional salute the conversation should be held on the record oh it most definitely should be if i was rewriting the fourth amendment i would require that if i was arise recreating the code of criminal procedure in illinois i would say that there has to be an affidavit the four corners in which sets up probable cause for any kind so the case then depends upon what was said in front of judge for correct that's correct or so what we have we have tested on your side beyond reasonable dispute the sufficient showing was made we have testimony at his deposition from  dottle that he provided sworn testimony to judge order that mr white had been identified as an offender in a drug transaction he stated that his statement but under oath it was based on the now i guess report and specifically on officer donal had no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the complaint and officer lipsey did not sign the necklace or who are under oath how could that's well established in the case law in fact officer may rely on another officer's information to him he may even rely on a lay witness this information to minimize even be a single a witness there's no requirement that the information provided the author be under oath to establish probable cause that long there is a reasonable basis to believe that a crime was committed and that's enough for a problem hot and it can be a single source it doesn't have to be an under oath source and that's what we have here well you know it seems to me that officer adonal had no more officer o'donnell admits that he did not have personal knowledge but again the next report itself was a sufficient basis for a for probable cause and for that reason off road donald's personal knowledge wasn't necessary to this out what i  who issued the warrant does the record tell us if the nag who or what was available for the judges review on requests the record does not tell us one way or the other your honor but what we do know is that officer o'donnell said that he provided sworn testimony based on the negative report that and based on its identification of mr white as an offender in a drug transaction as part of his effort to seek all of these warrants from a larger criminal construction scarcity that had been investigated by the f b i and b d using can competent to informants for a period of nearly two years and that the nag's report itself was directed specifically at chapman mr white's brother and mr white only in that off the road on a stated that he gave a statement based on that specific report which was officer o'donnell so as to the judge i've read a police report and it's sufficient to establish probable cause a police officer who has read a report from another police officer that establish probable cause in a report and i've read that report that's probably cause and yes that's sufficient really yes the officer is allowed to rely on another officers information to him as long as it's reliable to somehow force it doesn't he have to at least provide question was based on exhibit number four which was the report he said correct so he specifically said that he gave a statement based on that report identification of mr  there's a few reasons the dismissal initially was correct because the complaint only alleged a widespread practice there was no policy maker policy customs policy or practices or at the language of monorail that's correct but the practice claim is based only on mr that there's a custom in a widespread practice why is that not sufficient under wasn't because it requires more than just one instance of that that how many in the life leatherman right i mean this court has dismissed similar cases where the pleadings themselves only made allegations of one or two or a handful of of actions that weren't enough to get some widespread claim there's no insufficient this is not a plea of but even but judgement for defense for the city may be affirmed on any other ground that sufficiently supported in the record and here mr whitely does not have standing to bring the claim that there is a wi practice of attaining warrants based solely on a complaint because we know that illinois law requires more than that to tame the complaint and all sorts of taint of war and also hear the facts show that i didn't even happen to  are you arguing that because illinois law requires more we would have to assume that it is always complied with no your honor i'm saying that mr white's allegation is that our tracks are policies for