the local police guidelines does that troll or even inform the constitutional analysis that is to say if you have two cities with different guidelines with exactly the same activity be constitutional in one city and unconstitutional in another no your honorable local police guidelines you not inform your constitutional  issue also well it sounds like it sounds like you are saying that because the city said she was a flee there those officers are more constrained than some other city after the the officer do control her or her other arm then he went to the dog to get that the dog to release late and that it was rather clearly established constitutional rights are violated is that is that the argument because i think the obvious or says well yeah i joe's to manually try to remove the dog it because i thought if i just a the verbal commands the dog because i don't think of this that i think you've got a better case if he secured your quiet and then waited i have a minute or two minutes to try to get the dog to release the bite but here i don't see delay and if there is one tell me where it is or how long it is the do every believe is nineteen seconds and this creates what we believe is the genuine is your material that the jury has to be able to decide whether or not the court mr slime my name is gray bag and i am here on behalf of the city of newark of course the point of the present these two issues i would like to focus on the discussion that we just had not had to do with this identify those three factors and then apply them to tell you the circumstances and basically concluded that there was no constitutional violation because the decision to use the force was objective be reasonable there was no real discussion about this new segmentation what the court finding that was the court never went to the issue of clearly established right so as a threshold matter i would submit to the court that at the time that this think the start of that time is that even if the child would have gotten that issue it would have still implemented qualified immunity with respect to this event that's captured on the video it is obvious that what happened was is that once  is close with her and she was on the ground with the dog the st thing that he did was to order the other officers were there to clear the vehicle because it was still an issue of danger you know if we look at all of these cases where the use of challenged there is a there is a consistent theme throughout each one of them and that is that there is a danger to the officer or to the public at large that just a court talked about this in the sense that when evaluating these factors of you know the severity of the crime and whether or not there was a threat on that nd prong it was pretty clear based on what these officers knew which by the way is the you know touchstone of the your inquiry what did these officers kno danger officer burrs said i don't know anything about her she could have been a black belt in jujitsu interesting like a pretzel officer pertti said yes she was a young woman but she could still kill me and you have to make that was caught his fangs or sweater you actually see that is so he kept pushing in so when he's pushing in he's not annoying and nesting as suggested by my colleague about the get the the jaws actually opening and that's what's going on and but if he outs that dog on a command and then the suspect miss bertha misses thrashes frames that dog could reattach and then that's a whole nother body and so what he's really trying to do is the most effective way to control the situation and control it so he clearly moved i think according to the videos quickly as he could in order to extract the dog and i don't think there's any real issue with respect to that but let's suppose that there is some when there are issues of danger when it's actually more safe for everybody if you reduce the risks use of the canine even in this type of situation in that case were ski and he actually died immunity was appropriate and actually the those even further  suggests that any time any time that an officer is required to apprehend or take control is not only difficult but it's dangers and the use of a chain  they had every reason to believe that she posed a danger and if you look at all of these cases that in ally's excessive force and and probably the two most informative that we have right now before is from the supreme court there were others after this event or los angeles versus mendez and do not follow commands and so it's that it's the danger issue that is there which in this case was probably in wise by the trial court recognize that given the fact that this woman had an association with mr grooms can't ignore because when we analyze what the officers knew knew at the time that is the key not only that when this vehicle pulls away nineteen seconds after the stop the one knows who's in it no one knows how many people are in it and it was actually good police will do their evil to stop this garbage out of the three minutes when they stop their car they have to leave took the position that this was a dangerous situation and it was because of th close as well but the facts the facts i see it or not it is still there on the video right after these cases they'll be an argument yes we have a video but it's incomplete there's something else that wasn't filmed that's that's relevant notion that the op so was required to give a warning and a reasonable time to comply before releasing the dog i mean i know the officer gave a warning here but at least arguable that there wasn't a reasonable t wasn't a situation where they could just let her walk away or something they actually had to take her into custody and also to make sure that no one else was in this car and had no one else and they had no idea whether there was contraband i mean the whole thing all stems back to mr rooms so the fact is a warning was given and the warning was about two seconds i mean i don't see the warning as being the fact that there is there is a warning and then almost instantly that the dog is released the more important question is does the constitution require a warning before an officer really releases the dog to go suspect and i think that's that's the critical if there is there are cases that holds a warning is required or a dog or is released think that is great and that is our position there is even if we were to entertain them the question there is no clearly these numbers right now requires that type of warning in this situation where there is danger and some of their only other p situation and i said the officers did not know that and they didn't know if she was armed or not and wish she were here is to bather command so she they could secure her  they what's wrong with the argument that they have an abba right for their own security to get together as a situation where she could not use a weapon