morning your honour's my name is darryl manhart i represent the appellant's sheriff in detention officers and if there is time to have two or three minutes were vital at the end if i can address the sheriff part first because i'm assuming we're going to want to talk more about the detention that off in a statement to having no intent to punish and irrational purposes tell me mr x or forward both to put him in a restraint chair for his own welfare and to maintain institutional security coupled with no notice while he's being leaned over and he's having any difficulty or or suffering any harm and attention officers were also entitled to qualified immunity and there's three pages in particular in the district court's order that i would specifically like to direct really ok ok on page eleven your honour's this where the district court identifies the two things considered to support the excessive force claim one plaintiff counsel said that charles extra was need repeatedly in the stomach by attention officer so as to deprive him of oxygen and to plaintiff's counsel argue that if pension officers contorted charles's body to remove the handcuffs and cut off this oxygen supply and with respect to that first one plaintiffs claim on the need should promptly be eliminated first of all because there's no evidence to support that all of the the record references to a knee in the then come from mr manning plaintiff's counsel's questions to witnesses references in the in the order that refers to add them in your stomach and that's play this argument in their brief there's also no evidence in any anything plainer presented that the so called nie in the band cut off any oxygen so there's no evidence to support that part at all moving on to the other part of the argument well wait a minute maybe by parsing it the way you're doing it you're not helping your argument much but these reading on page eleven as i read the biggest records of the officers five of the officers contorted his body until they cut off his oxygen supply one part and meet him repeatedly in the middle of the body and you just said where there's no evidence that the mean led to cutting off oxygen but i don't think that's what the district court was finding in many of them this is an excessive force claim well your question is whether piling on by five officers as reflected in the go if you don't have in front of you might be useful if you did it's specifically referred to cutting off that's what i said in seoul that i'm reading it until they cut off his oxygen supply and need him repeatedly in the middle of his body the stomach would cut off oxygen supply unless it yet you have somebody and it causes them to lose their breath so i agree but that's all right so i take it he claimed there is an ambiguity and you think that's that's it we should rule out the nina's have at it correct officers are not held to know that merely leaning forward an inmate is necessarily going to cause any problem for that inmate that that's excessive force you have to have some notice in a particular situation that it's causing away while they were actually placing him in the chair she was a few feet away behind a door but she returned after he was seated in the chair with and secured and that's when she began checking the restraints so this is after he's been leaning back up so the first sign of him showing distress is after nurse lewis is returned this is also going to be reflected in the other feel you're going to hear today and in fact on in the athlete's answering grief and that other appeal i believe the specific time the plaintiffs refer to is around between twelve ten and twelve eleven on the video surveillance clock which is after nurse lewis has been for a few minutes making her checks if if the first notice of distressed by mr  x is after they've already linked him up then there was no notice during the time he was leaned over of any distress there being no notice of any distress plaintiffs cannot show any basis for these officers to be mid section of course there is evidence in the record it is in the video more importantly or as importantly it is in officer rush's statement that this three hundred pound man took his knee into mr actually midsection and thrust forward and held him in that position for a minute and forty seven seconds the record shows there was utterly absolutely no need to do that why because these three officers said and there are statements that are in this with the record on factors there were nineteen was on this one hundred twenty five pound man he was clearly ill they knew he was ill they thought he was a nine and there were nine jailers what you mean then and i'm sorry your honor there were force so you said there were nine officers on this lightweight harmless man i mean that creates an image and you've got a group of nine burly deputies jumping think and she also participated in additional reports she told i didn't ask you about other things i'm just trying to go sense from your description of your case so we know whether you know what it is about your case that falls into the exception to qualified immunity so i'm my question was when she's holding him back sitting in the chair which you can see that there may be other things going on i don't know i'm just talking about the video is that exce all they knew he was mentally impaired they knew it was clearly they knew he was a man of slight build one hundred twenty five pounds probably didn't know the exact weight but they knew that he was a very small man importantly they knew he was noncombatant in the record record to show they were any point concerned about their safety or the safety of others  described toughest sheriff in america has publicly stated that he wants his geos to be quote places of punishment he wants to quote educate who punishment closed quote he has said most of the he  the sheriff has created an atmosphere of brutality and excess to force in this jail and this is most evident in this case here where they took this man  supervisory municipal liability the created a culture of cruelty by public statements both to the public but more importantly to the detention officer been any proper of evidence on your part other than the facts of this case which you claim are cruelty and the public statements to show that anybody else in this jail has been subjected to any kind of excessive force only only only some other cases that are notorious cases  extensively covered i hope in their reply brief your honor where we go through and point out that in the original complaint of the plaintiffs they didn't identify any particular acts by the sheriff so we included the sheriff with all that attention officers and when they came back in their response to that qualified immunity motion they specifically limited what they said about the sheriff then it was only in addressing the well call it global or substance summary judgment motion that the plaintiffs first honor regarding mr many statements about royce if you look at pages one eighty seven and ninety of his deposition two eleven and two thirteen he does not say what mr manning says about the need for the mid section i would disagree with  investigatory stop case and specifically says there's no generic rule for section one thousand nine hundred three places cases and comes up with it's test for the arrest investigatory investigatory stops right from saying that word situation if you look at wolfish which is a detainee case much many years earlier though that talks about rational basis and unless there is shown an intent to punish as an as opposed to a rational basis for we strengthen restriction