to alert the cook you need to learn mistresses office of that in a timely manner so that that we could have easily had you not schedule for the st case if there was going to be a conflict in i let people know that that's a possibility in the future apologists and you know that ok ok that doesn't affect anyway your standing before this court to argue so i'm just wanted to praise you before we began and we are now going to proceed to move there was a cough and immunity argument the argument that wasn't made was the bitterns case right which is what believe the case is about it been student be extended to excessive force in this context  that wasn't made to judge ellison in that correct your honor the it was correct that the billions arguments the same arguments that were written in the original brief by me and this court which are  the best for that for that case but the qualified immunity arguments were made which necessarily does include a difference analysis for federal agent arguments as well but but st as i said cough and immunity was brought up in the trial court and both parties have had ample opportunity to address it here today in front of the collateral order doctrine is at play where the immunity  together on appeal even for the st time i'm ultimately it comes down to a threshold issue for qualified immunity should this claim even be allowed to be run which is a necessary evaluation when you're looking to qualified immunity you just can't separate the two there was a d c circuit case recently as two thousand and eighteen that found it to be true in a very similar situation that case was lift the office of inspector general for united states for thirty four  van's into a new context or a new category of defendants come into play along with some very serious separation of powers concerns all of which weigh heavily in favor of dismissing these claims first to their not being a constitutional violation in this case it is important to note from the beginning that actually there were no injuries in this case de minimus injuries do not create a cause of action under this  this court should consider the president if they allow this client to move forward if an excessive force going were allowed to continue in this case they stopped the facts then officers all over the country will be liable for merely brandishing their weapon during  detained plaintiff before he had called local police responding to his calls for help so we can all move on as to why the allegations do not include a violation of a clearly d established r a run of the mill star in any way is it you knowledge that the idea that a brandishing the weapon of legibly is extremely unusual in the gentleman was detained for over two hours and not allowed to go to the restroom i mean and it was diligently we have to take those facts like that i believe this is not just a routine this wasn't a routine traffic stop these people have  relationship well hey these two particular people did not have a relationship and the two hours of detention or not going to the bathroom those are all claims against the local police who held him longer  described and i do agree it is it an unusual d case but that speaks more to the particular reasons why there was reasonable suspicion for the stop to begin with illegally and the boyfriend this is a this is the altercation between boyfriend but that's it's a personal problem between he well and and they sued him in his capacity as a department of homeland employee so you know the personal dispute issue is not relevant for your analysis it is whether he had a reasonable suspicion for the stop and that reasonable suspicion speaks to a few you did state as it's an unusual stop but it's because of the stalking and harassing suspicion that caused mr lamb to stop it so it is unusual but the circumstances did coffer the officer to detain him and question and  not in his capacity as an officer shirt but he did your honor respectfully it's a hard mental exercise to go down because again there's no harm was done to the trial judge even said after he made his ruling this seems like the kind of thing that should have been settled by just a handshake  it's hard for me to say what could he have done to cure any harms of yeah because he didn't have any harms he wasn't the one arrested my client was the one who was arrested and charged with something and then got dismissed so my client the one who have the harm really here really even though it's your client who threatened him with the girl and yelled he would put a bullet through his skull and i edited that and continued to yield to roll down his window and just said he would blow his head off if your client who was harmed in this situation is really my client was the one arrested and charged  necessarily doesn't include the billions going so to go back to it not the allegations not having it clearly established right it has never been established that a federal agent cannot pull out his gun and call the local officers on a suspect under suspicion of illegally stocking and harassing some i do think it's important i know i'm running out of time to go through the buildings analysis the new cont as your owners are well aware all th amendment claims are not the same there's all kinds of different facts different contexts different circumstances different legal analysis under th amendment jurisprudence and so  certainly the word context and extending the ins context is not just merely which amendment of the constitution it's been there have been only three contexts that different claims are limited to in the supreme court's trilogy of cases medical attention to him as magic prisoner in federal custody in violation as correctly stated in a lever virtually everything else is a new context as a supreme court is going to size the understanding of new context  even the modest extension of the bill is a trilogy is still an extension in this case factually there are specific new context distinctions there is it was done in a parking lot not a private home just or conducting a strip search it's also important to know that this would be extending the evidence to new defendants the evidence was different officers from the different agencies that ins has never been applied to a department of homeland security and no case exists where department of homeland security employee has was not given cough and immunity to date if this court were to do that here be the st time that's been done it's important to know to disappear separation of powers issues congress can correct any  action just for the sake of time direct to this court to be a lever for the discussion of that i'm talking about why the silence of congress is relevant here and they can decide the corrective action here it's not for this court to decide notably they basically can see that this crime is an extension of buildings and and seems to ask for equitable relief but that's just not the law as written here you're ours in conclusion because in this case no allegation of constitutional violations made no allegation of a violation of a clearly established right occurred and you should not extend begins to new context or new defendants this court should apply the law as written and grant our mission to the thank you have against anything that mr willie just said we submitted i think a pretty strong brief and i'll rely on my papers unless the court has questions i can tell the panel as read the briefs well i have a we have a we're a strict rule of orderliness court and so you know i know you cited the district court's person of the case which was in your favor but the new the court of appeals opinion is not very helpful to your side of the case  only time right i mean the the point that they contended and why international was because of the duties of the federal agents but the duties of the department of homeland security officer goes far and wide beyond just merely international rounds and they were the ones who chose to sue him as a department of homeland security office there no further questions i have nothing left to address thank