without probable cause and excessive use of force in violation of the fourth and fourteenth amendment is an appeal from a denial of summary judgment on the issue of cloth and munity obviously the course thoroughly read all the i'm going to summarize these three points and then i'm going to come back and flesh each of them out a little the first mistake the court made was finding that there was a disputed fact in fact the court went so far as to say that the facts are hotly disputed because if they are with respect it's categorically beyond our jurisdiction to review those something my understanding of six circuit present precedent and we cited the case of chapel versus city please in briefs that was a case where the court specifically stated that understanding of it is that the materiality of those factual disputes was never an issue no one raised the issue of whether i can understand how you could say the court assumed that certain facts could be proven to a  jury but they're not relevant to the legal issue that it's something you could review but that question is whether it's relevant to whether those facts are relevant which i sumi mean by material well i mean this is is a legal issue in and we don't law both probable cause and whether there was probable cause for the arrest and with regard to the amount of force that was used those determinations are to be made from the officers officers perspective let me ask this then from the officers perspective isn't it is isn't a a the best arrival reading of what the district court was assuming were the facts or assuming that those facts could be found by the jury that the officer you keep going to say well these facts are supported but we're stuck with the fact well we're not with the facts that the district court assumes sure but kind of phrasing it as your honor did i several minutes ago whether that's a fact it's legally relevant to the outcome of this case doesn't matter and it says here i've got the union before me she claims she made it it's a question for the jury because she claims which is another way of saying the jury could find that she made it unmistakably among page fifteen of the union she made it unmistakably clear to the officer that she was going to the hospital deliver a baby she understood the officer was following her to the hospital and providing her  coat next to her in the car and she was not arrested until she was at the hospital headed towards the entrance and i read that as saying that the district court says that a jury could find that right and and my response  when it says she made it unmistakably clear to the officer how is that not that the officer he got it i think that he specifically the judge specifically recited the language that that the officer figured it out that's got to be what the district court is assuming maybe the district court didn't have facts to assume that but if that's what the district court assumes then johnson b jones tells us that's where you go from there do you have an argument that's consistent with that the officer had it made clear to him that this is what she was doing do you win or do you lose if we assume that that's the fac restate that i'm sorry let's assume for purposes of this appeal assuming that the officer knew that she was going to the hospital to deliver a baby and conveyed to her that he was following her to the hospital and providing her an escort if you assume those things which it seems to me the district court is what is your argument then my argument shifts to the clearly established at least do that for me all right well then  circumstances and those circumstances would have understand that the actions were wrong so that's the standard for qualified immunity and our argument is that the district court didn't engage in that part of the analysis there's the real areas that i would from whatever perspective would understand an interaction with a traffic stop would be over we cited one state law of course state law case based on for determination of whether it was the interaction was consensual there are no cases in the qualified immunity area regarding the due limitations of a traffic stop and so our argument is that number one that's not so even if these facts are true there was probable cause to arrest those those he drove off without getting her driver's license back and he was just standing there and he didn't understand that he had given there's no law that says what explicit permission is and that's not nearly as bad but what else  at that point he not even been back to his patrol car to run her license it was an out of state license he he he i'm sure he needed to check whether it was valid the facts are that he did not not even have a chance to run so that would obviously be one hospital to deliver a baby was stopped on the way by a police officer continued on to the hospital after telling the an interested police officer where she was going and what she was doing and was arrested without probable cause primarily for  but the but the contest of facts aside and look at the legal issue on the facts as the district court found them most favorable to the jurisdiction applying the facts as found by the district court in applying those facts as found by the district court genuine issues of disputed material fact exist the lewd qualified immunity for chad justice on each of the fourth amendment point the first about these facts why why why why is the fact that she made it clear that she was gone to the hospital to live or a baby  criminal sense because who evades arrest by telling the police officer where you're going and inviting him to follow you that's just telling him i need to get to the hospital that coupled with the other that could still be a violation of that  well i knew why she was leaving we have to assume that but why him but those don't seem to be legal excuses to me that there was a lot of back and forth about the facts of whether he knew but i'm assuming he knew that that's what the district  that's one way to articulate it yet another way would be that her arm out to hurry him up there are a lot of things that he could have done but there is already probably should of been a deed it looks like he got disciplined for not doing them but the question is whether he was required by the law to do them by clearly established law to do them and you know maybe we would like to think that officers would exercise their discretion still if they did doctor getting them but i'm wondering what the law is that says he has to do that when he's stopped or for speeding and still has her driver well and she leaves and then but she tells him where she's going but you know that doesn't mean you can leave when the officers st i would say that the answer is that it's clearly established that dr women's professional obligations and duties should have been taken into consideration by officer s this in his determination of how to handle this  i do not believe she was in a custodial situation i do not think she was under arrest and i don't think that the case of oft cited by the appellant in their brief indicates that she was under arrest during the traffic stop stopped me for speeding goodbye that's not criminal in tennessee there are all sorts of situations that one can imagine in which a traffic stop ceases to be a traffic stop due to exigent circumstances for example i'm not talking about them talk about a traffic stop stop you are speeding say ma'am you were going seventy and sixty miles on please give me your license plate your license the license is given and then they drive off saying that's not no because the different circumstances such as officer s this having knowledge of where she was going and why all must be considered in the result window to run a policeman stops someone and says you've been speeding give me your license you give him license know i would say that the pratts sums to be what you're saying is that even though that can be criminal maybe if you're going to deliver a baby it's different and i'm just asking where the law is that says that there's a  four hundred pounds and is probably two hundred forty pounds he against the hood of her car of his squad car and exercised excessive force in doing so she's a medical doctor she was not kicking biting screaming fighting she was not pushing back her against the front of his car and then taking handcuffing her and put taking her around to the side of her see his squad car to put her in the back seat she was not resisting arrest in that she was not flailing about she was not punching she wasn't biting scratching doing any of the things that the cases cited by the appellant in which qualified immunity was appropriate none of those facts are are present here all she did was a finding of no qualified immunity perhaps be a situation where no reasonable officer understand that what he or she was doing would be wrong and that's sort of accurate but not what ok for a while there to be clearly a staff law does have all reasonable off thought it was excellent  well i'm running out of time but the grubman of the idea is that although broad statements of the last such as just a force violate fourth amendment are not always appropriate there are plenty of times where broad statements are appropriate statements t about that as well i believe that we addressed that in pages thirty three and thirty four of our brief it is in fact an arrest under tennessee statute what it is is if the suspect signs  then that is sufficient in lieu of the rest if they don't i'm sorry discussion that it could have been our brief case is why song vs city of heath that's to sixty federal appendix eight forty eight that goes to several of the issues regarding whether it was clearly established regarding force and on the minutes when that happened he knew she was going to the hospital to deliver a baby you accept those facts that nature a fine and reasonable i think you accept but if you accept sure circumstances and there are lots of cases where merely the suspects kind of fidgeting or not providing the hand that was asked for any of these things are sufficient to merit the  well two things your honor one is that the qualified immunity analysis regarding sex excessive use of force is very factually specific and one of it's factually specific i think is a jury question that's why we have jury i don't know  it's clearly established that excessive force violates the constitution of course so what's not really is that well i think our argument would be that taking the version of the fact most favorable to the plane and that she jumped out of the car and ran in the opposite direction from him when during the traffic stop she would say she had said follow me to the hospital and we'll work everything out but when she gets there she darts off in the other direction she doesn't pay attention pays him no heed and under those circumstances he came up behind her quickly slung a handcuff on or took her over to the police car and hunter handcuffed her behind the back it's those facts of her also under speeded that the entire encounter only took five minutes from the time he called in the initial traffic stop at nine twenty one until nine twenty nine twenty six when she was getting and when she was already in the back of the  car is among the factors that are relevant in evaluating the amount of force the issue of whether all of that force was before she was actually secured and none of that was after and that's one of the primary issues in determining factor in whether it was excessive or not as well thank you thank you