sent out that had to do with the issue of intent time probable cause yes your honor and if i get to that i think as the court knows that in assessing qualified immunity you start with whether there was a constitutional violation and then move to whether is clearly established such that a reasonable officer would have been aware that the conduct was unconstitutional i'd like to start with the second part because i my mind it's a much more straightforward part about whether it was clearly established assuming that you needed evidence of intent to arrest whether it was clearly established that you lack probable cause without evidence of intent and i think that regardless of where the court comes al on whether you need evidence of intent in order to have probable cause under section four seventy two it was and whether you will and look at the cases specifically relating to probable cause or the case law relating to specific versus general intent however you analyze this issue it's necessary for probable cause i mean the elements yes intent is an element but what has to be present for probable cause because obviously if there's probable cause in this case then  there's no case anymore because they're probably cause to arrest and our position and what we are going in our grief was that they did have probable cause because all you need to have probable cause in every case that's addressed probable cause  the circumstances correct yes and the only circumstance that i can see in the record was the manager thought this might be counterfeit and he put a pan on the bill and it said it's not counterfeit and the bates case and the blown case and a number of other cases that have addressed this issue i e was there probable cause to arrest for section four seventy two in all of those cases a store manager or employee reports to the police as well so whether or not they knew him or whether or not he was high up or out on the streets they had probable cause under these cases to believe that it was counterfeit and they  the officers didn't this mr roadies i guess is that it is factually innocent we know that now all right he's you know he cannot be convicted of this crime it's a it's a genuine guilt so that's the but assume that based on the cases i accept that there was probable cause to arrest him there were a couple other things that happened that were sort of disturbing police conduct in the s one of the officers said something like shame on you there are sergeant barry apparently had had some negative dealings with mr rhodes and what do i do if they had the facts in their possession to support probable cause and probable cause exists and there's no claim you could have the nicest officer in the world who lacks probable cause because some factors missing and then that's a violation counterfeit you tell me that they can put the handcuffs on me in the squad car if they if and if they report to the police that they believe it is counterfeit the police to inspect it and believe it looks counterfeit and that it is probable cause under these cases knew at the time and the law is clear that even if you turn out to be innocent you're never charged you're quoted by a jury or stipulated to be factually innocent that doesn't affect whether the officers in the field have probable cause at the moment or they're arrested and whether or not the court concludes that there was a constitutional violation her i don't think there was given this precedent if there was the law was absolutely not even close to clearly establish that you need evidence  counterfeit note coupled with the indentation the person who passed the note furnishes probable cause we don't know the know is counterfeit in this case well you you you never know whether the  is one element of for seventy two that has to be proven at trial for probable cause to arrest even if it turns out not to be counterfeit if there was probable cause to believe that it was counterfeit then and there was no violation  law and ford and bates all allow for an arrest based on a report from a store employee and the officers inspection of the bill and identification of the perp of the person there's no it's reasonable to rely on someone who's dealing with money all the time these officers are not experts in currency that's why they what they did here is they call it secret service they call the experts which is what they're trained to do and they clamp they release got back to them but you get whatever the courts conclusion about the constitutionality because there are no cases that say that you have to have evidence of intent in order to arrest perception for seventy two it could not have been clearly established these officers there was no law that was telling them you need evidence of intent to arrest for section four seventy two nothing that would have instructed them on that and in fact the  cases either state and the case of of a effort or strongly suggest in the other cases that you don't need evidence of intent if the court decides to go a different way from those cases because i'll be the first to admit there's focus on and term qualified immunity and the cases all go in our favor in terms of affirming probable cause without evidence of intent and then with respect to the general versus specific intent that's not those aren't good morning for the privilege of representing mr rodel religious from you know was an elected public official in san francisco who was arrested on february seventeenth two thousand and three by the san francisco police when he attempted to purchase goods at his local walk read store with a one hundred dollar bill that was genuine he was handcuffed taken to the police station there is no dispute that there are no facts before this court or before the trial for that indicated that the police did anything whatsoever to determine whether or not mr wrote us attempted to pass a bill that he knew was  intended to deceive anybody this court in the in the cases that it has referenced and the history of the cases issued by the ninth circuit make it absolutely clear that the re intent is just to be established for probable cause or for convection is to differentiate between innocent conduct merely passing a bill for the  versus criminal conduct a kind of have you go right to i think everyone here would say that it's very unfortunate and it would be a horrible nightmare for anyone obviously under those circumstances probable cause is not the same as whether someone is guilty of something that your client is not guilty i mean he's factually innocent we know that it wasn't and but people are there are cases out there people are arrested for things that they didn't do sometimes and it turns out to be wrong but in not all of those cases is probable cause negative so here you know tell me why there wasn't probable cause here in cases that your reference i mean they're wrong the officers are wrong mistake everything wrong and they put they could if you look at it they could have been nicer to him they probably there's a million different ways they could have handled it they could have let him go they could have completed their report contacted the secret service or you know or and then they could have submitted it to the d a they could have done many different things that didn't involve what they did but still we still have to get back to if they have probable cause to arrest him yes then it's a bad thing that happened that qualified immunity doesn't provide a remedy for that not have probable cause to arrest someone if you conduct absolutely no investigation into a critical element of the crime that is the issue of intent how and you specifically say oh i interned to do this but there is no evidence there is evidence and admits that there was no investigation whatsoever of any kind to determine the issue of intent this is not willing to i guess let me just say let's see if the bill had been false ok let's say that it really was in and then he's having his trial and at the end of the prosecution's case what happened was he you know presented it and it turns out to be false and you asked the court to you know i want you know i want to directed verdict for the defendant i don't think you would get it at that point the fact that he presented it to buy things and it turned out to be false that i don't think that you would get it and you would certainly not be able to say there wasn't probable cause to arrest him so how do you  policeman got it wrong i made a mistake but tell me why there wasn't probable cause at the level of the direct a verdict we are similar to the level of the motion for summary judgment there's disputed factions to that issue as to whether or not there was probable cause enough it would be enough to go to the jury on that you know that's enough to show intent so why isn't the fact that someone presented it here and nothing to show the intent that's necessary for thing i don't like what happened here don't get me wrong but i got to wrestle with the law here case law makes it clear that intent is part of a crime is this court concludes that the police have the authority without making any effort to determine whether or not there counterfeit bill that turns out to be counterfeit which is completely factual difference in our case who might justify an arrest because the person has other counterfeit bills in their possession well that was going to be my question in those other cases isn't there more than just a suspicious looking bell isn't there some other suspicious factor like the suspects demeanor such as he's got other bills coming out of his pile such as he's got a counterfeit device in his car as possession or when the police approached them without any warning the individual states or flees police or states are you here to talk to me about the bad currency none of that none of that is present those are the cases that the city relies upon cases that are factually distinguishable just hasn't made it clear that there with that there was an absence of a complete record in those cases which would determine whether or not there was probable cause whereas here we have a complete record chandni said there was no evidence of intent right and that's why there was not probable cause she said that as well as distinguishing the other cases relied numerous other cases issued by this ninth circuit which we've gone which you've asked us to review out be glad to address in their specific intent is an element of the crime and therefore no investigation being conducted on that issue there was not probable cause based of the circumstances to rust it was a well established precedent of this circuit at the time of the arrest and the officers are not as a matter of law and tighter to qualify in the unity on a motion for summary judgment and she stated that in your opinion she granted their motion in part on the issues of racial discrimination and based upon her decision and hopefully by this court's affirming we will go forward to the jury on the issue of whether or not there was a false arrest in the jury will make a determination as to whether or not that's police officers in this instance falsely and wrongfully arrested an innocent man thank you thank you