on sexual assaults in a freshman dorm room seven days before thanksgiving in two thousand and fourteen a victim a purported victim reported to the university police that she had been raped by five  it was only we all in that identification that the students were arrested and that the officers didn't do as i understand the complaint literally didn't do anything else and there were some rudimentary investigatory steps which were officers have any obligation to vet the witnesses reliability you know with respect to that second prong and i thought we were also talking a whether or not the officers possess information or had reasonable access to information right so if they do don't they have an obligation to follow up on it well they're always always going to have access to additional information but the norm is clear that once officers have probable cause they don't have a duty to continue to investigate could be officers have done sure absolutely and might other officers put in that same position have done more absolutely but that of the test and importantly the only purpose why we're sure now is this us how would you answer i disagree with that or in one way your honor we're not disagreeing at this point with the facts because we can't we can't say the officer had also done this or done or maybe maybe didn't look at videotape  of those things we can't talk about because we have to assume the facts alleged in the complaint all the things they're complaining about are the first things that the officer did not do we do not know because the officer would not under the time i have to accept that you to not talk about principles at that high level of generality the first amendment prohibits a restaurant probably because they want you to look at the fact that the officers faced and smear the facts were that you had a very good witness in a in a r quickly based on just what these officers had you don't think there's a reasonable factual dispute as to whether or not the officers could have done anything  procedural due process argument but we did put in there the standard which was no binding authority or consent consensus of persuades authority and spoke but isn't that summary judgment and we are ha should go ahead and overturn that ruling but on the court on the equal protection and on the procedural due process we do think that we demand is appropriate so that the judge can go ahead and do the qualified immunity analysis and that's why we you know all we can court recognize that this case places an issue of great public importance in the first line of its opinion the minister in which colleges address allegations of sexual assault and the reason why it is the first allegation can be wiped at the ring to an accused student but that's really separate right around the underlying issue of how universities handle allegations of sexual assault i think is is a matter of great public policy for vigorous debate but the first in proper whether there was probable cause to issue a warrant and having a warrant issued on probable cause whether the police could arrest now that says nothing at all about whether some  demonstration that there was probable cause to make it rest and i think he would it be undisputed facts here he very clearly is under the case for it we have probable cause for a police officer when there's an that had the police done an investigation what they would have learned largely is that they picked him knew these individuals lived in the same general vicinity as individuals and had consensual sexual relations with them in the past  information or circumstances within a police officers knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to conclude that an offense has been committed and i think my question is your point is that the that the victim at the end of the day was not credible that the information that she provided was not reasonably trustworthy my question is at what point what in your view does an officer have to do assure him or herself that the information he or she has received is reasonably crossword that's really what we're talking about record so it out under these facts applying that standard and to judge what is this point you have an identification an eye witness there goes the guy how is this that much different and are you suggesting that maybe in a sexual assault case where as you pointed out it's often a he said she said thing that there's now a heightened standard for an officer to for holes in the story well to say for wilhelm well i mean but the whole issue is how are they going to know if they don't further investigate him back to the standard of reasonably priced where the information is your position of the officer has to do at least some initial vetting the information presented to him or her found it was probable cause your view is that's not what you're really complaining about what you're complaining about is that the officers presentation to the magistrate judge quote reckless it disregarded relevant information  being deposed and growing through the preparation of the case a reason for qualified immunity is to make this determination at the very outset of the case and pushing from there and that's what we're trying to do and this point because that's what the supreme court has said is qualified immunity protects the accused defendant who is doing a great job with no discretion where they are within police were here would not have known that the reason the officer who were arrested when they did it was violating a law that would suggest subjected them to civil exposure not just the time and effort to go into court and have to do depositions but apple civil liability that by we have qualified immunity and respectfully plainest counsel suggests ninety five percent of the cases it's judgment that's wrong the supreme court and th as an assessment of the evidence that gives them the reason to go to the judge to get the warrants that i make in some assessment and i think that probably because you're going to go to a judge are you saying that the clearly established law that was asked it is a need to cooperate and  told these officers that they had to do more investigated and if you want to say that they have to but that should be given the test that they have been i think the court it said that and that was the problem this is what the officers now with the this information is not reliable they know other facts which take away from the credibility of the complaining witness they have to look further but at the time they were hit the war there is nothing essence there was probable cause they had a right to effectuate the arrest they had already qualified immunity everything how close from the fact that there was probable cause and probable cause requires reasonably cross worthy information so it seems to me that do that maybe this is kind of an overlay to both my colleagues questions it's built into that there seems to be something that the officers have to do to assure themselves that the information is reasonably trustworthy or that those words wouldn't i heard some noise in that room you know there were five guys and a woman in there you know i think there was a rape that went on now that's a different stance and there's no more we don't have the right that suggests that would be enough for them to go out and arrest but on the facts here