morning may please the court my name is greg zephyr like to reserve three minutes for three three three ok thank you out of this case involves three police officers and we know  be subject to discipline if they didn't get their numbers up they were told they would have three months to get their numbers up that is something on page five fourteen through five seventeen of the record the counseling from they were given you have three knots yet within thirty days they were transferred and the court found that in all of the other evidence in this matter to be any way to from their original complaint rights and that hurt you because if we re they are retaliated against if you will by being transferred at that and what are they told they are told get you numbers up officers will be monitored for the next three months that this is  supervisor at the top is that the is that the information that the district judge did not credit because of this hearsay no your honor that that is not the hearsay information or say information was that there were a number of the in a number of sergeants in fact i believe a number six who told them specifically you are being transferred and his actions are being taken against you because of what you complained about it is our instances such as this if it is hearsay in the person who was a pleasure of made the comment is available at trial it's considered for summary judgment purposes to be evidence and we diverge the courts to find that in fact that is evidence in this case because the causation here i submit is rather strong with or without that i call it admission are called here say in this case we have seventeen days between the first complaint and the first retaliation and retaliation continues for a period of a year and it continues in the form of not just transfers and there are several transfers involved secret would be our strongest claim the credit claim is mostly related to the fop and it was addressed really below other than in glancing fashion that no reasonable person could read this quote a statute to apply to a mere inquiry and i would submit your honor that that kind of misses the boat and that the court took a very narrow look at both the quota statute and the facts here because the facts in this case are that we're not addressing the actual policy i don't think anybody would say that the policy here of going out and doing mere inquiries and gathering information from people who volunteer it is wrong or unconstitutional any way shape or form but what we are challenging is when you tell police officers that your livelihood depends on getting a that's correct not just vehicle stops but you are correct the actual policy if you will we call the quota because my clients call it a quote but the policy of these directed patrols is what is being challenged here my clients called it quote they also said in the lawsuit below in the in the state court that this was a constitutional violation and somewhere in between there i submit that time someone medicine dessen however there were supervisors who told their who told their officers that every time they stopped the vehicle they were to give it a citation and there were we need you to come up with three low performers and yet there's nothing in writing or coming from what you say that is coming from the administration the chief and his deputies quavers and wage it doesn't specify what a local former is however she flinched deputy chief lish says if you get your policing card you're never going to be a poor performer performer if you hit your quota you're never going to be a low performer so we know that from also from chief lynch that there is a belief in this department all the way down the chain from which to the patrols that there is a quota system and that you need to get these cards that quota system as of his deposition two thousand and twelve was something that he testified that officers still maintained at that time they believed not all of them but certain puck patrol and certain supervisors believe that they were required to go out and get these ca it is our position that that is beyond a chill to the community and everyone else in that in the situation if you your livelihood depends i'm getting a certain number of cards it's no longer a m becomes an overbearing police intrusion if you're sitting on your stoop in camden and a police officer goes by and says me can i have some information can i talk to you and will you say yes or no doesn't matter but twenty minutes later another police officer comes by asked you the same thing twenty minutes later another police officer comes by and asked you the same thing if you sit on your stupid all day long in camden you are going to be asked by every police officer for your information now you c only keep going but that police officer is under pressure to get your information so this is not a situation like someone in a mall who's taking a survey with a clipboard when they say excuse me can i you questions and people walk by that person or they stop and give them a courtesy of a couple of answers there's a police officer with a badge in a gun in a crime ridden city who is asking you if you have a few minutes to answer a few questions nothing wrong with that at that point but keeping in mind that the police officer is now under severe pressure to get that information from you and there's a burden now because if you standing up there for a long period of time you're going to get asked over and over again perhaps even by the same police officer the same questions so you're saying that the group of trolls were the officers necessarily expected to make arrests or chief which says that the chief of the department knew and he says deputy chief knew from from two thousand eight hundred two thousand and twelve which is the period of discovery in this case that this was the perception on the street that move more than just an inquiry was on the street meaning meeting with the patrolmen are and really the chief of the department frames my case better than anyone else when the chief of the department is asked whether or not officers if they were given a quota if they were told you must go out and get this number of cards whether or not they would be constitutional the chief of the department says no wouldn't that would be intrusive into people's freedom  policy if followed that way would be wrong and we've shown that that was the practice through both whinge and through the testimony of others thus a novice says there's a perception on the street that this was a quote or that this was something that i had done there was there were finals but how does a perception on the street lead to a reasonable belief that i practice or protocol was in violation of the law which most people requires i could patrol policy itself isn't violent two of it's the way that some people expect that the officers to perform their duty are what it is the policy as written is not it's the practice of we're going to go out and we're going to require you to get a certain number of cards each shift that is not written in the policy there's an expectation  that says that we're expecting this but the policy of director patrols is you're going to go out and you're going to meet the community in unit talk to the community and when you're on patrol you're expected to make contact with the community there's there's nothing wrong with that you know  constitutional violation whether or not it was appropriate or not and i going up and and take the opposite position but i'm arguing this before the third circuit right now and there seems to be some debate about it whether you agree with our position or not i submit that it is a colorable reasonable argument constitution of the united states and the laws of new jersey that relate to searches and seizures and that is all that is required to make their speech protected under c p is that it closely relates to the there's some regulation public policy statute that relates whether or not there are correct or not is not the issue and the judge by laws seemed to fixate on whether or not there was a violation under the quota statute and once he said that was reached it appeared that the judge had made up his mind that is not the standard the standard is closely related to the complaint of conduct where there's a statute regulation some policy that and you and you say that there's at least under seige that there is authority from the new jersey supreme court that says that there are threshold met then it becomes a jury question i do there's the two words in our case there's also the waters case before this court which says causation is left to the jury but also judge perry in the blackburn case says that secret doesn't require the court to determine whether the wrongful acts are true that would be the antithesis of the intent of the statute and there's also the nomen case in the supreme court in new jersey from hundred ninety eight that says sleepers goal is not to make more use out of conscientious employees so the fact that they have made these complaints and whether or not they're right or wrong about the quota statute itself it that they were being pressured if they didn't get in certain number of cards they were considered low performers they pose the practice of seeing a bunch of people in wine at a restaurant a fast food restaurant and having to stop each one of them and ask them if they would  pull out a card because they needed those cars they were opposed to senior members of the administration driving around making sure that they stop every single person that they saw on the street where they were the person was engaged in some other activity or for not meeting reality that  was walking by person and he said hi how are you when the person with his head down and kept walking and inspector quavers saw that and called and said why didn't you stop that person  and that's the type of practice that they wanted them to engage in if the person looks down walks away excuse me sir need to ask you some questions i'd like like if they thought this card no i don't want felt the cart ok you can move on kept now officer holland is in the position where he doesn't get that guy's car he better get the next one and if he doesn't get that one he better get the next one and what happens to a police officer in the middle of the night who's patrolling an area where there are people his numbers are going to be low for that shift so he better make up for it on the next shift in the next shift because if you've got an overnight in your area where there's nobody around that's going to be a problem for your career is the policy through the fair as far as we know your honor in our last briefing in two thousand and thirteen john williamson who was vice president of the fop for the state said that he believed it was we don't know whether it's still in effect in two thousand and fifteen we do know that based on litigation that in two thousand and twelve deputy which videotaped all of the supervisors the estimate their understanding of the policy was because as of two thousand and twelve there was a concern based on this litigation that no one really understood the policy again this policy is valid we were not challenging that it's the practice that they're taking this all the directed patrol policy is not in effect but the city of camden because the city of camden police department was disbanded in april of two thousand and thirteen there's a county police department that's in effect that was something that was addressed  continuing with that and what effect the ending of the police department had or won this litigation if any that issue was that the judge determined that it didn't cause any  this policy your honor they have completely different policies that county policies are they have they have a new code book they have new policies there were there been substantial changes with the  some sort of hearsay evidence i mean from the plaintiff's argument here which is also can be made within the plane of spray from supplemental birth is that there was a perception on the street that the that the policy believe that the officers had a perception that unless they met their eighteen to twenty seven cards or shifts that there would be that there would be adverse employment action against them appendix appendix pages six o two and six o three deputy chief lynch provides testimony pages forty four work through forty eight where he specifically indicates that be considered a low performer but when he's deputy chief which is specifically asked this question in deposition which the plaintiff arrives on his answer was well i think the expectation was and i'm quoting when you're not won an assignment the first and foremost is to identify engaged conditions of crime and quality of life that's what he said first let me go but let's go back to the lawsuit w was retaliation was quote the source and chairperson told him that quote someone was coming after him now the court says i mean that sounds like retaliation and the court said it became consider the test that they're seeking to say that makes policy in woodbine the city and by the upper level management of the city of camden like the chief of police i don't believe that these are admissions i mean i believe it take that the court could consider  the alleged hearsay statements that aren't in the innuendo that they when you've got jefferson so such and carmichael making statements purportedly making statements you can consider them a summary judgment but the district judge says he will not consider because you can't consider him and that's incorrect as a reading of our cases were we to do well i don't believe you have to get to that point because the painted black by assume that that that is that is correct and your honour's indicated that that the court can consider hearsay what the district court would find that there was no substantial nexus between the claim of retaliatory action  forward with and presented to the district court below now can contain within their deposition testimony it was presented to the court below that anyone from the community ever complained i mean these are enough to be well there wouldn't have to be but there but what the plaintiffs of indicated as to support their claim that the the i would say management of the police department was one of them to repeatedly make we inquiries that individuals that the example of the person on their stupid all day you know for three hours and being contacted by you know multiple law enforcement officers there is there is and was no evidence below except you know this example that is given that that occurred the police officers never came forward testimony to demonstrate that that took place no computer no individuals presented or deposed or provided any type of affidavit or any other information to the court below that would be catered that they were repeatedly approached by law enforcement officers and  under the seat if i think it matters because there still has to be a reasonable belief by the officers that the policy was in fact illegal or improper and  officers to be come of her niece and understand me fine legal arguments but but it's pretty clear that the case law for a long period of time in the state of new jersey is that real  inquiries of individuals who are there you know they're not seeking out any or investigating any crime or and gauging any type of heavy stop in any way and just gathering information from individuals is permitted  could be improper under perhaps other state laws or state statutes i guess there could be a police you know harassment where you freeze repeatedly just come to a bridge well we don't have any genuine examples of that i mean again these were hypotheticals that were posed to the district court below at the time of summary judgment in the paper submitted there but there were no actual examples testified to about that type of activity  the manner in which the policy was carried out by the campaign city police department and in fact the reason for the movement again these officers were not the moated these officers were not put in positions that in pay ten or eleven percent being moved from me you know one category to the other for the record patrol to write a patrol that is correct but these officers were not the mood they were not they were not disciplined they were not you know you go through disciplinary proceedings for their performance but it but the reason that was provided your honor it was not just as to  supposed to be done out there in terms of interdicting crime which is one of the things that these director patrols were supposed to do those were the reasons that were given and back is what stated in chief which is testimony that those were their first obligation to to to interdict crime and to make sure that quality of life zone these quality of life zones where these officers were patrolling the quality of life was ninety eight it was only the third category below that was having these community contacts and gaining be requisite number of quarks and it's actually in the policy itself is section b of the policy it indicates that it recognizes that based upon that particular officers patrol activities at that time that they may not be able to meet the requirements so it wasn't a warrant on you have to meet that requirement it specifically gives the officers as a ability to explain the ride they aren't eating or obligations and it could be because of the signage they had on that particular shift and it was taken into consideration in the written policy says your question would be a violation to i believe to be a violation of the constitution yes to require officers to go out there and stop x number of people would they yes yes and then why because people have a right to be free in of evidence that in fact was the practice that was the practice as base don't it what we what we've discussed previously that is people were told this is what you must do push shift there were administrators going out and telling people such as chad holland who walked by somebody who said how are you when you look down that's not acceptable to us you have to engage each person you see in fact chief lynch in one for the run he says there's probably supervisors today that have that conversation with their officer so i'm going to say it continues today that's the situation your art the patrolling on the said we'd like something done about this this is not right and this is that refreshing today that police officers would stand up for citizens and say wait a minute what we're doing in law enforcement might not be right here and again might not be