officers had to be alleged with specificity who was doing the searches one room was doing a search and another and we think this record aired for several reasons first and foremost the historic purpose of eighty three was to address constitutional violations by groups of people acting as groups we'll deal with the case roquet do we not have case law that says if you want to plead constitutional violations put them in this a cause of action and i mean three it's not enough for you to say and that group of people did it you've got to say who did what you've got a point to the behavior of a specific individual and explain in enough detail what happened so that the court can look at that person and say that person violated the constitution i think you're on the case well it depends on what kind of action we're talking about i would agree that certain stages of an investigation prosecution you do have to delineate who did what but at the scene of a search that question is not been specifically addressed at the scene of a search you don't you know who was doing what to whom you may have the benefit of transcripts as you do here but as the state court judge chair of the suppression hearing he didn't even wasn't even able to tell who did what to whom so i would agree that as you move down the line of the investigation prosecution if you continue to allege that certain people earlier down the line are still liable you may have to say well this person just by the grand jury this person wrote a report how could we how could we felt the district court here for lying that case was at frame a rule that would were you know is there something where it says an officer mendez did x burst in the part of it or something you know it's always all the officers plus john doe's one twenty in each of the allegations it's that way how would we frame a rule that was true to our our case law and what we've been getting from the supreme court if we if we were to up through the complaint here as the individuals so the we would suggestion are is that if you make a plausible statement that the group acted as a group and merely the original complaint didn't do a great job of that the amended complaint tried a little harder to find the group as a group but if you allege that the group acted as a group at the scene and then all you do is then interpose the pleading requirements on that group at the scene and i want to separate out at the scene from later on because i realize later on as a problem but at the very difficult for a plaintiff to plead who did what mr roman was allegedly face down handcuffed he allegedly was threatened and told to call someone to bring drugs or he and his girlfriend be arrested he was you know who that person is who sang that be going against a transcript and there's a there's a danger for a plaintiff in being too specific i would not stand here and tell you that the complaint should have said a little bit more but i think it's not enough but there's complaint i can actually question or it certainly frustrating to me having done the appeal to look at that and see that's not referenced extensively in the complaint if not appended i can't tell you why it wasn't in the complaint i'm certainly looking at the d o t i think that's really the heart of what we're arguing about on appeal the rest is kind of a distraction i don't think the conspiracy claims are necessary i will say this however with respect to the amended complaint there is a claim that's mislabeled as a conspiracy claim that says i'm al the district court judge a clue that the false imprisonment and the malicious prosecution claims are actually meant to be constitutional violation claims brought under ninety three the first day that we have a distr should get the benefit of doubt be the error or the emission of the attorney really should be held against the plaintiffs and same for the district court that that's our plane should be enough to stand on the didn't dismiss complaint for purposes of a pillar of you that would allow us to say you know what there is there's enough here there's enough information here to make questions especially the same as mine does the consent decree which we can consider describes specific customs or policies let me answer your honest question for the vote you know what if you  procedures and protections to redress what the dealer j identified as problems arising as far back as two thousand and nine because we know from the d o j did the investigation they went as far back as two thousand and nine  so to that extent the consent decree when read in the negative does give some plausible evidence at least the pleading stage that new york had notice as far back as twenty eleven when the d o j started the investigation but it's an inferential your knowledge you got to read because they were from the fact that it's telling the city you got to do the following things that it wasn't doing those things before that amounts to custom a pattern in practice so i would say that's a purely legal issue that if you get a consent decree against the city it needs that there was a patent practice that had to grab any and when you read into the consent decree what had to be remedy you can fairly and he said at the d o j can't investigate until there is a pattern or practice that appears to be significant to cause them to want to commit your ou that there was a pattern or practice on constitutional violations and then goes through for seventy some pages of all the various things that need to be done to rectify that there's training to build such training pretty much on the basics of in one case and what is the fourth amendment require three hours of trading per year for that it's reported is the news that the d j pushes a press release saying there's been widespread problems in the department and then there's a consent decree and it's appended to become point why isn't that enough to get this passed and sma saul and into versions here and i find the police version incredible incredible i think is the word that was used so if you take those in conjunction with one another to consent  discipline with regard to the crating you've got it puts in an article that head of the you said glad to see that there's a monitor coming in because this could be a pivot to something good because this person in twenty fourteen had not had any training at all since he first became a place officer in one thousand nine hundred five and with regard to the internal affairs only one out of two hundred sixty two complaints was shown to have either the press release or the newspaper article said that the internal affairs vary incredibly rare the number of valid complaints that were government entering into a cost consent decree with seventy some pages are of remediation that has to be done with it to be monitored by a person because in effect no one this crosses the goal line or sorry or service or to be a pattern or practice that something has to be done from the race with them and other witnesses draws a conclusion that the plaintiff's version is the true full believable one the police version is the untruthful and unbelievable one the contacts i'm not sure i follow that are understand that if there's if there if it's a good based on the court judge's finding that there was a constitutional violation then i would have thought that you know the fact that he's a bad actor is irrelevant bequests it isn't whether he's a bad actor or somebody else in the apartment is a bad actor the question is whether the officers are bad actors and whether the city is responsible for it right again yes an own basically we're dealing here with the fourth amendment violation of search and seizure and so it starts with that i mean how do you know that there is no right to privacy and contraband and criminal conduct so they're saying that's always true but that doesn't mean practice of constitutional violations but we we know from the way that these investigations work that the investigation cannot occur unless either the police department voluntarily participates w under forty two u s c terms it's all one how do we know that we're talking about a pretty good here right where you can direct this to you know stuff in the air we've got to have something in the complaint that the press release refers to a complaint and you can infer that newark at some point prior to may second two thousand and fourteen when the search of mr ramos apartment occurred that he had some notice that there was an investigation and there was a problem i can see that we don't we can't know from the pleadings what took here to go forward having been given a chance the plead again and having been told by this record what the failings were in the first complaint if we sent it back why would we send it back with an opportunity to to plead yet again indicated that well maybe this was on pleader but in this case how did this record said he's having played with specificity books go along with these people why would he send it back after the district court identified the problem council party and then we got back where the judge in that in this case did again no specificity as the individuals for example i presented that we want to pursue regardless of whether the complaint is amended be the sixth police officer that would remain defendants there would be no on off or search claim if there were no defendant police officers there would just be