pellate jurisdiction over this appeal from the district court's clarify order to begin the appeals timely the christer courts clarified or started the appeal time and new and the clarifying order substantially and materially changed trooper nests legal rights and obligations which had previously been settled in the original order for that reason to clarify order is appeal this court can reach these reasonable suspicion issue even though the district court analysis of the issue was not revised in its clarified order all the issues are interrelated in an  dependent reasonable suspicion is a predicate issue to the false arrest and unlawful seizure claims and the only way to vindicate trooper ness rights which had been settled was to increase to include of reasonable suspicion the district courts clarified order necessarily put it the knowledge of those suspicions back into play next this appeal present a review of the questions of law it does not require the council can let me just stop you there is about the whole problem from your perspective is that essentially there wasn't a decision on any factual issue isn't that your claim that there wasn't a decision immunity even if even if the fact that you know lynn and deny drinking linen dispute that he had water in class the that lenin claims that hours after his arrest he blew a zero point zero b a c before being released from jail immunity as a matter of law well what if the what if the jury said we don't believe trooper naf we think that he was just out there trying to get a drug bust we have five officers at a stop for not moving over a lane where running a dog around presumably not to smell alcohol but something else and as you mentioned now get off my back comment as well as other things which is include doubt you say blatantly contradicted and now we're getting kind of legal because you're going to stop her says harris where that term is used and but totally different circumstances where the appeals court had said that there were no people involved who could have been injured during this car chase or something and then the video shows there are all kinds of people and swerving around corners and everything else simply because the trooper naps have you been drinking that is not blatantly can contradicting what the that these facts which this accords used to back till the inference of deliberate indifference under this court's settled case law are not part of the constitutional now it's a reasonable suspicion you know what the court that in in in while there was that those indicia ones i listed amply supported it also in wilder it's noted that the driver got out of the car fine and the driver was fine so you know suspicion are certainly arguable reasonable suspicion well i guess that's we'll start from there that there is arguable recent polls suspicion feast on what you just listed i think what judge philli there are watery eyes there sister sister says but those are based on the officers observations and i think what the district roasting is maybe we just can't take those at face value can i get you to responsible yes first of all an officer is not required to take it based value to a suspect denials or a suspec then they have that additional well what the does india shoot credibility why couldn't they say i don't believe you officer now why couldn't they say that and that's the whole issue here and to prevail you have to say that for the jury to find that be totally inconsistent with the record and i'd seems to it seems to the district judge was consistent with the record and we deferred for that  trial on qualified immunity because it doesn't play into mistake in qualified immunity an officer is qualified immune even if he must state was mistaken so the the issues that she set up so i don't think it's a proper response to say well if we go with what you're suggesting that we'll have to have a trial every time that the defendant disagrees with the officer we have all of these other facts let me ask you this if there were some way that we knew that the officer had a not in this case another case that an officer said watch this i'm going to pull over the next person driving a red car and i'm going to claim that that person has been drinking and then we're go is the jury could determine that here based on the facts we've given and if the jury determines that the officer knowingly violated the law no qualified immunity right or wrong if that jury determined they knowingly violated the law but that is not question that the that that if the district court phrases the question provides preventing qualified immunity and in any event that's not a reasonable inference based on the dash cam recording because officer neff stated to other officers inside you know and outside of with his presence i believe like not alcohol and unless you believe that it's reasonable that an officer with that there and lied to other officers that's not a reasonable inference i mean i'm sure there are cases where the d video does show that the officer said hey i'm going to get him or i feel nothing but i definitely am going to get him for something you know that would be a case where it was a no in violation but there is no such record here and that motivation doesn't play a part in the reason book suspicion analysis if the officer had objective leave particularized and objective grounds then his mix motivation you know doesn't court originally addressed qualified immunity back in twenty six in aug twenty sixth seen in that ruling galore court determined that there wouldn't be qualified immunity asked to the a special traffic stop but that there would be qualified immunity as to the false arrest and the subsequent inventory search after some motions on damages the lower court then clarified its order in september of twenty seventeen and the issue of whether qualified immunity for office or nuffin house up i mean any special traffic stop that was addressed and hasn't been altered since august the twenty sixteen there is a  relies on f e c v minneapolis honeywell to expand the carrier propose arguing that that clarified or altered the legal rights but the sole issue that was altered in that clarifying two other planes before and now we're not and we're appealing that why can't they do that sure your honor so i think there's two points there absolute so asked to the denial qualified immunity at the expense of traffic stop that hasn't been altered their their rights has been altered as a qualifying you know false arrest and the inventory search but they haven't argued why conditioning both of those qualified immunit search the vehicle it then came back and said well if it's found unlawful then you would necessarily grant a qualified immunity they haven't addressed that clarifying point they've instead gone back and asked for and the judge had done exactly what did you and initially granted of five immunity on the false arrest and inventory search planes and then said well you know what i think was relied on by the district court in grain and five immunity on claims two and three it seems to me you're saying they can't get an introductory appeal on things two and three because of the for two it is circumstance th claim one was based on was a claim of unlawful expansion of the stock as opposed to some others are claiming i said for example first in retaliation and that claim is the ultimate decision on the second and third claims is being set aside for grounds which happens to be the basis of a third plane but there's no reason why it had to be the so what sure sure yeah so what i'm trying to say is that they are entitled to an appeal but i think that their appeal is limited to a very small issue why because it's shoot a motion to clarify so the structure of it well you may think well what is the smallest jesus said there's a small issue they'd be entitled to appeal can you state so that i understand what you're saying yes your honor so the lower court in its clarifying order said that the only difference between the two orders is qualified immunity on the false arrest and qualified immunity on the inventory search which had been previously granted in full with no conditions would now be conditioned on whether the expansion of traffic stop was lawful so that issue was altered and they would have the right to appeal that issue but they haven't addressed that issue in their appeal they have then the judge thinks about it some more and says no i'm not going to give you things two and three i would think the decision has changed now you can appeal you this at that point the only thing that can be appealed when you're challenging item unity is that it would be exactly the same think if they would still be entitled to challenge that denial of qualified immunity the is the difference in your hypothetical in this case is that the court determined that they are still entitled to  question on appeal now becomes was that prerequisite appropriate and they haven't addressed that question in their view is the argument that i'm making counsel can i just i'm sorry so you're you're just saying twenty  sixteen sensually the district court said here i've got problems with reasonable suspicion but you get qualified immunity on these other things and they should have brought the appeal on the reasonable suspicion at that time ye can i get you to address because you have a minute thirty six seconds you're opposing counsel argument the basically under your argument all your client would have to do is a e you should not believe the officer and then so every single qualified immunity has to go to the jury that that's the basic argument can you address sure your honor and i think the court is kind of address that these are unique facts for a traffic stop we've got an officer saying some concerning statements during the traffic stop well is that what makes the difference and the concerning statements that's where i'm trying to get you to draw the line what makes your case proposal only go back and reverse findings of fact if it's plainly disregard and it's made by this court somewhere it's a very high standard usually required video evidence to establish that this fact in fact did happen we had a case where the lower court found that a point this witness who said that of individual who it was shot while in his handcuffs was sufficient to the present a question of fact of the jury this court considered the  court still found that that didn't meet the standard it's the same thing in this case here there's the video evidence cannot blatantly contradict or can't have established the fact that mr naff smelled alcohol  it seems to me that what a pound is arguing is there's a question of fact here as to whether alcohol was detected or not and there could be two conclusions one a mistaken belief that there was the owner of alcohol or that officer ne passion and probable cause all jumped into one claim we were granted immunity from the false arrived here in order to vindicate his rights you have to necessarily readdress the court saying