according to the allegations of the complaint after mister harris was arrested sergeant mark told at their door police officers not to enter the his home until the warrant had been secured they nonetheless entered after the that he knew about the confusion among the of our officers that he knew they had entered the home again since instructions or that they were officers and were told him they were going to enter the  just characterize sergeant maher's constitutional violations as the failure to clarify to the arar team that no warrant it is the allegations against each of the number officers in allowed the officers to enter this statement however is completely devoid of further factual enhanced and playing there is no factual allegations exactly how he allowed the officers injure i mean what more what more could they have said he was on the scene there was confusion they started to enter and he allowed it to happen he didn't do anything here i propose t the officers answer is exactly the same of this contact and that it were alleged that he failed to intervene there is no factual support to how the allowance the allowing have it they could argue that yes he was  no allegations of debate that he knew about the discussions among their officers or that they were intended to answer or that they in fact had answered there's simply nothing legit asserted mark involvement in the entire transaction they would have to show that certain mar witness or knew of it and since of an illegal search and had a realistic opportunity to intervene in the illegal search do you accept the premise that the  decision from any circuits that have applied the duty to intervene to a search in the search and seizure context you know no i am not personally aware   by the pollen i take it you do not believe those clearly established the law on this issue that that failure to intervene applies in the search and seizure concepts correct your honor for informed that it simply is no allegations whatsoever that he knew about constitutional violations nd of all being that there's no allegations that it was there are knew about it there cannot be any realistic obligation that he had a realistic opportunity to intervene to stop illegal search it's not there he doesn't know about it if they did how about it it simply cannot be a reasonable opportunity for him to intervene in the illegal search by the or others so i don't want to be i don't want to beat the horse too much but they they say that in their complaint they allege that he was on the scene and that he didn't prevent them didn't intervene or didn't clarify his order to keep them from going in what would you say they had to allege to be sufficient what more did they have to do in your mind you know i think this case has so many errors i don't know that it could be cured i don't i don't think that the failure to intervene cas a officers disappear and then they come back acting all confused and so so it put that intervening fact in there and they came back all can is that he noticed that he was standing point isn't the interpretation of a complaint legal question yes it ok well then we do that sunoco which means that however that this report chose to interpret paragraphs at the three we're if you look at your reverses when you have the individuals who are held responsible they were right there they heard it happen and they didn't intervene you don't have facts here that says he was right at the door at not to enter the apartment until a search warrant could be obtained when these allegations are taken as a whole so subsequently and her arrest twenty two and twenty three we also see there that despite the fact that several t t t officers were on the scene there was confusion among the eighty officers on the scene after that there are allegations that the eighty officers knocked on the door they walked up and down the stairs  instruction to the a p officers not to enter because a search warrant was being obtained the duty to intervene arises it's implicated once the officer has knowledge that a constitutional violation has occurred or is about to occur with the officer on scene he had knowledge of the circumstances they were conducting surveillance over the plaintiff's house and so they had known that you know have certain circumstances are present that no warrant had been issue that this was about to happen therefore we'll let the opportunity to intervene what's the best you've got it's really all these allegations that tween in paragraphs between fifteen court actually in forty versus guy a coast look to a very similar allegation and that an officer who failed to intervene stood by as he watched the force being used and that at all the defendant officers  or permit it that force and that was that's what little i mean that's a little different he stood by and watched i mean it that indicates that he awareness that you don't and you don't have that here court the allegations don't have to explicitly state what exactly the opportunities were or the knowledge this court may infer need reasonable inferences based on the allegations that there was knowledge and opportunities to let me focus on clearly established law for as best i can discern all in all you have been and tell me if i'm wrong is the general statement from vondra and then these two unpublished decisions which you tried to distinguish from this case a lot why does that give you clearly established law under a precedent for this search and seizure context as relates to the failure t precedents that includes a failure to intervene claim specifically in the context of of an unlawful entry and search however general constitutional rules can apply it with obvious clarity even in novel factual circumstances and in a case like failure to intervene if a prop construction of that that it applies to any constitutional violation made sense it's really the only way compliance with the fundamental purpose of failure to intervene claims and so what we have here when the underlying violation is a stab is clearly established just like this court analyzed in vonder act it actually separately analyzed whether the underlying excessive force was clearly that could be an open course in itself but let's assume failure to intervene as a doctor applies in the search and seizure context then the question becomes whether there's a case that's close enough that that's a you know if i understood your brief what you're saying is we don't need a close have is is none of that and in fact it's arguable that these unlawful search claims provide less objectivity and clearer rules because there are very clear delineated exceptions his facts so that he would know that after he told them not to go in and that there could be anything he could do that was subject to the liability given he's not supposed to tackle them and so what what what what would he other officers from punishing a rd person in their presence and any reasonable officer would notice this not only just yvonne jack clearly established that this applies to any constitutional violation but when the underlying violation itself the unlawful entry and search when the search the circumstances are clear that that violated the constitution and that defendant mark both had knowledge of the constitutional violation and opportunit had no there was no affirmatively between his being on the scene and the constitutional violations i believe that is the exact thing we're dealing with here it's alleged that start sergeant is a supervisor he was on the scene but there's no affirmative link between him and the actual constitutional violation other than his words to the officers not to enter