here but what it really comes down to is whether or not clearly established law prohibits what the named officers did at the scene of the stop and the police station considering the evidence in the light favorable to the apple lease now just  cut to the chase on this week cept for purposes of this appeal that one of the officers officer sites through the plaintiff will be show williams to the ground wanting to tender there's no dispute for purposes of this for that your argument is he had probable cause to arrest or absolutely i'm going to get to that a little bit tell well yes he doesn't even initially have reasonable suspicion for a terrorist stop and it developed into probable cause if she had behaved like her boyfriend she would've been thrown  ground exactly that's exactly it fact she ran to a an adjoining poor church and then try to get into the house about that those are facts you've started by thing where here on a purely legal issue and you said at the opening that we have to take the facts in the light most favorable actually and that seems to be a lie it's a little more favorable to your clients and apple lisa we don't know if that's the basis for us to make a purely legal determination well in that regard your honor it really isn't because i don't think it's disputed i mean the only thing that's really in dispute is how far she went it's not a dispute that she did it stop going it's really in dispute is how far she went but she didn't stop right there she went and ran up to a porch and again there's no dispute on the record on this and was banging on the door to get in so there's not a factual determination really needs to be made in fact that the terminations should have been made by the  findings of the district court yet while we're here i think because those may not be the same if you want to say the district court's decisions were in accord with the record that's a great decision on normal appeal on will appeal from the final order not p beneficial life in a lock a tory or not what i'm saying your honor is simply that the facts here war are undisputed there's also a lot of cases that hold that where the district court doesn't make factual findings which were memorandum i mean it's not really open for debate i mean she did that the only point where the parties would disagree on that is how far did she go really but that's right in the memo i mean the judge accept that in your argument is it's immaterial how far she w it really isn't it what's patil is the fact she did stop and she ran out to a porch and at that point you've got probable cause for scape and then afterwards if you look at her conduct at the scene there is clearly probable cause at that point for  on the ground up kicking up at the office again it's a very low threshold for summary disorderly conduct and it's probable cause they're not even prove their case beyond a reasonable officer at that point would have believed that the crime was committed and that that individual committed the crime mr lavie let me interrupt you for a minute you're about the ten minute walk i don't recall you reserving time photo if you wish to do that how much do look at the clearly established facts of record in this case again it's clear we here's what's clearly established rules on an on story we have a problem with the clock the clock should say eighty seven minutes and the plaintiff in what turns out to be your boyfriend running from the scene judge rambos opinion essential he says reasonable suspicion terry stop at that point then we get to the point where fig stops again you've got to remember this is all happening quick it's happening literally over two minutes that's what this whole thing comes down to literally two minutes it's a tense situation i remember granby kind of language all that you can just which goes under the porch she banging on the door at that point they go getter it bring her back at that point she still arguing fighting such a sight strozier to the ground we admit that our point is that under those play such as the report of the two fleeing subjects where that they were both male and the clothing description that they were wearing didn't match at a minimum plaintiff at halle's clothing description and that the report of flight was in it's not an incremental totality it's everything together and when everything together comes to play you've got people you can't stop a red car because a green car rocked back now but we have two people running away and they were running in the same direction running northbound the driver of the vehicle had been clothes that she wasn't wearing in fact she was wearing i think alleging we're taking the facts most terrible would think which was certainly not one of the descriptions that either of the two suspects and so i guess i'm saying it's some level if you can't stop a red car when a green car a bank at what level do those contrary facts have to enter a police officer's mind in the heat of pursuit in two minutes it's a hard question it is your honor and the other thing from the facts i think they're reporting here too is that none of the full description was known at that point they knew that there were two males in the car but there is also an indication that there may have been a rd person in there as well at that point up rd person was apprehend it they may have at some point i don't believe at that point again it's what sergeant fig knows at that point he certainly doesn't know that all he knows is a pair three people and at least the driver of the vehicle to have males and that the driver of the vehicle bails out and goes north that's what he knows at that point all right but here's the other one of the point let's assume that there was probable cause to arrest would you address the issue of excessive force at the station house because absolutely the spring court's decision in johnson versus jones somewhat ties our hands as to what we have jurisdiction to review and in your brief you argue that williams doesn't present any evidence that the officers used a reason the force at the station but the court determined that whether they used a reasonable force was a genuinely disputed issue of material fact under johnson don't we have no jurisdiction over that now because i think the issue there and if you look at the rocker on there it's clear and i don't really think it's disputed in this case i did which again the district court could make this funny but it's clear that none of the named off the servers or the officer that ms williams claims did that and it's axiomatic that in order to violate clearly established law you have that person involve important here are there are what three named officers here mock the fake insights and the record is undisputed and i would really say take a look at their brief that plaintiffs testified that it was not any of those three officers who engaged in that conduct at the station so the reason it's qualified immunity is you can't violate clearly established law and you can't show the personal involvement of the person that's involved there to there don't do anything by her own admission why should why should we even be here at this point when we have the admission literally of the plaintiff that these officers didn't do it well let me just follow up on that your line of question what did what did everyone do what monte do at the probable cause stage i thought he was arresting and working on the detention of that then boyfriend he wasn't is there any involvement that he has that oh ok are no that's one kind of baffled by a lot of the snow that's the thing it's just all generically the officers did the police did no we didn't and that steps the point that we made in our brief that he did not have involvement in th early sights and mani had no involvement at the station and fig didn't grab her by the arm or twister r and that's really the problem you have here i mean this is just in a vacuum the police did this to me therefore i named three officers therefore you three officers are liable for this that's essentially what this case comes down to and i think if the record is checked closely it's going to bear that out but we were  and then he was also if you go a little further down on that page but on page of the top of page four he also ordered the plaintiff and scott to get on the ground scott was the companion scott did get on the ground that's when she runs to the nearby porch and starts banging on the door we looking for work immediately and there wasn't that connect i think to whether whether the word immediately appears he observed two people running away from the scene he ordered his people to stop all reporting on the radio at that point dispute but she did not stop did not get on the ground she ran to the porch was banging on the door to try to get it that's not compliance one more question on the on the issue of  excessive force how much cites at the scene he was the one who threw her to the ground that night run that is correct or  much like i said i don't think there's a whole lot of spewed that at the fact at that point she hadn't complied that we have a violent felony at that point she had run up onto the porch he grabbed her and her down i mean i don't think those i mean to me those of the material facts that you have here that really aren't in dispute i mean you could view them their biggest the facts i guess they're not viewed in favor of anybody but that's what happened so i think under those circumstances it's pretty clear at that point that a reasonable officer it would not be clearly established the reasonable officer could not throw a suspect down to the ground if that's all he did and that's all it's alleged that he did do under those circumstances oh had a different beginning to this argument planned but i i would just like to call to the attention of the court that much of what mr lavery claims is undisputed is in fact not undisputed and  can agree on what the facts because not all the facts are disputed correct that's correct there are some that are undisputed many of the let me let me give you a recitation of what i understand to be undisputed and you tell me if they are in fact disputed police officer defendants in this case received word of the shots fired on the evening in question correct and they here that they were running the dispute is that they were fleeing from the scene or from any police officers they were observed running east bound within four blocks of the crash of the right kind apparently based on what we know  now they were running because they were probably scared because they heard shots fired but they were advised by police officers that are back here are and and that's right they were in a park or at some disputed that they were told by police say get out of here correct so they initially do with the police tell them to get out of there correct ok is it also undisputed that your client was told to stop yes it was one time sergeant figs testimony is that he told them to stop he pointed his gun at them out there when he stopped his car pointed his gun at them out the window and told them to get on the ground sergeant they could not get out of his car or move his car before officer monti arrives how far could she have actually fled when he didn't move the car and didn't even get out of the car and there she is at the scene when officer monti arrives to handcuff mr scott which by the way we are not we are not making a  false arrest claim against officer monte he what he did it was sights and fig who did the on who made who made the decision to arrest ms ms williams and we made that clear  she she sees a gun out the window of an unmarked car he doesn't identify him as i don't don't have to know that i'm sorry i'm trying to go through it systematically because we want to avoid would we think might be in people's heads so just stop she did not leave the immediate vicinity of where she was told to stop sergeant thanks testimony on the porch when she was told to stop i don't believe that there's evidence in the record that specifically i would think not but i don't believe that it seems obvious there is any warning that they would say that she was on the porch and she's highly charming down the street and when she's told to stop instead of stopping her fiance did she goes to the porch correct maybe because she's afraid and wants to seek refuge in the house right mark are you arguably white one of those what about if she didn't stop and then they go to the porch and then what happens when they go on the porch officer or sergeant figgs stays in the car until other officers arrive so so she's on the porch but she stopped and started think testified that the amount of time it took mr scott ms williams to stop it could be measured in seconds and the distance they ran could be measured in feet it was some small portion of a block ok so then what happens when she's an officer sites arrives at which point sergeant fake directs him to handcuff her and tells him to arrest disorderly conduct so all of the probable cause has to be based on what's happened up until this point in the scenario ok how do we know the big determine that she should be arrested for disorderly conduct when she was standing on is this is testimony that of sites that that doesn't seem to help you because here's the question did someone tell you to arrest her answer i was told to give her a citation she was going to city hall and given a citation for dishonor disorderly conduct question when did they tell you to arrest her for disorderly conduct objection a form answer when she was on the ground struggling with officers that's not when she's on the porch behaving  yourself now correct our position is that they arrest while we argue that their arrest occurred when she went she had a gun pointed at her and her movement was restricted but at the point at which sergeant fig made the decision she was to be arrested and handcuffed that was the point in time where where we maintain that probable cause must be established as of that point in time i put a minute ago you told us that he made that decision a kafir and arrest her when she was just standing there on the that was the point at which the arrest occurred that was the arrest decision which when did the arrest could cause a minute ago you said is understand a rest happens at a point in time where an individual feels that they don't have liberty to leave and i thought you said a minute ago that when an unmarked police car pulls up with a police officer in uniform be it points a gun out the door at the window and says stop that that is an arrest so is that is that  get your position on when the arrest or what arrest are we talking about here was that arrest was that not an arrest because that at least is a legal question i would have to say that i believe that the initial seizure i think you could argue it was harassed i believe it's more properly categorized as an investigatory detention but the point at which officer sites was directed to handcuff ms williams well well there's there's a gap of of time for execution but we would argue that it the arrest began when the sergeant fig directed officer sites to handcuff her that was the point at which the arrest decision had been made and probable cause needed to exist as of that moment because the sergeant thing is the one who made the arrest decision so he it was when he had probable cause and he did when he directed sites to handcuff her that was the point at which the arrest decision was made already i took some time to handcuff her and we maintain that different things happened then ok got over sneezing take us from the porch then how facts do we agree on occur after she's on the porch how does she get on the ground kicking and screaming and cursing and all that other stuff i don't think that there is there is agreement about that we we say she was thrown to the ground and manhandled so you're view of the facts is everything's calm she's on the record she's handcuffed they take her off the porch and they just throw to the ground and start start abusing her you know you are i don't want you d i don't believe that she was handcuffed on the porch i believe i and it was a she was handcuffed once she was thrown into the ground she is not she was not handcuffed prior to being thrown to the ground the st time ok do we know you know was she thrown over a railing thrown down the stairs how did she get from the porch thrown onto the ground which so i guess the point you're making is which makes some sense i think is that if they arrested her for disorderly conduct before she was kicking and screaming and cursing it's immaterial that she was kicking and screaming cursing correct that's the crux of your argument it is ok for him to tear it's immaterial to the probable cause determination it may be material in the purposes of a jury in determining whether the force was reasonable right and the other but the other side of the coin i think you would concede maybe you won't is that if they did a terry stop and she's resisting and the resistance requires her to be taken on the ground in which case she's kicking and screaming cursing they would certainly have probable cause to at that time arrest her for disorderly conduct would they not well correct but i would i guess what i would argue your honor is that a terrorist up is an investigative detention and there was no investigation that took place no one asked her a question no one spoke to her feeling waited in the car with his gun pointed out or tell tell another officer arrived and said grabber but well that's different than your answer to my question my question was when when because terry stop stop and when does arrest begin and you said that terry stop believe that it would be i believe the up the arrest the the time that we have are concerned about is the moment at which the the officer who made the decision about arrest made the decision and that was when he directed sites to arrest her i mean the point in time of arrest is hugely important because that's a point in time which we evaluate probable cause correct k all right now at the station house it seems to go against you ms bays all in the sense that your client was given an opportunity to identify  of the defendants for mistreating her at the station house during her hearing and she said the person was not in the courtroom in fact she identified the person that was rough with her as the terminator and she also say that terminator was bald and these guys aren't i mean there were other there are these discrepancies that seem to make it clear that neither faith nor monsignor sites could be this  officer known in the community as the terminator however and particularly as a supervisor all of the officers it's our position had a t v to intervene in what was a very obvious use of force where miss williams is art fair enough but i know they can be liable on that basis sure they could but i didn't read the pleading if you had pleaded that this officer last name unknown called the terminator had manhandled your client upon the instruction or with the acquiescence of these defendants then maybe these guys are in trouble for that but i didn't read the pleading to be that or the discovery rather you seem to have a problem under our decision and judge because while you can file a complaint saying that your client suffered false arrest which is prosecution excessive force by john doe's twelve and three it's pretty clear i think correct me if i'm wrong under jervis prudence that during the discovery process you have to ascertain who did what to whom at what time and i don't see anything in this record to indicate that site's monte or figure did anything wrong to your client at the station we do have i think undisputed facts that one of the officers i forget which one handcuffed her i think her right hand but she's complaining about the other officer who was doing painful things to her left hand is do i understand that correctly i think  pleading she should be liberally allowed in can and the pleading can be amended up until the kind of time of trial can be right it can be amended all the way up until the time the case goes to the jury for ver but but rule fifty six dollars requires that you put your best foot forward factually at the time that the motion for summary judgment is made and i don't see anything in the record indicate that you've identified any of these three people doing anything wrong at the station house is there anything in the record to support that other than being present on the scene only there's evidence that that one or more of them were present at the station house but if part of me is treating your client i don't see anything in the record ok and i suppose you know we don't have to get into johnson with you because you'd be more than in agreement with us that johnson deprives us of jurisdiction to countermand with the district court said about what facts are handcuffed at that point so the fact that handcuffing occurred does not automatically make it an arrest at that point it could still be a terry stop the other point to sort of make very big ok fine but is there anything the record to undermine what ms badal said about the fact that ms williams was tossed off the porch and handcuffed before she started acting unruly no she was not purposes of this she would have to accept the fact that she was thrown onto the ground by sites who then hand copter our argument is that under the circumstances of this the undisputed ones that are clear here and you take this to court's opinion on that that it would not violate clearly established law for a plea for a reasonable police officer to do that under those circumstances at that point fig says handcuff or that point that can be done as part of a legitimate terry stop investigatory why wouldn't throw your off the porch be excessive who knows what how do we know how do we know they had a right to throw her off the porch was how do we know she wasn't you know she's banging on the door they don't let her in the again under the circumstances with in two minutes not knowing who this person is known that this person unlike the other one is banging on that door trying to get in and get away at that point from them i think it's not unreasonable that point at that officer wants to get her to the ground and again i mean was that the best way to do it i mean i would say probably under the arthur murray dance school method no it wasn't probably you don't want to do that with your partner but under the circumstances then they're presented to the guys again not in the quiet of the judge's chambers of the courtroom this is what cops deal with and i'm going to make that split nd decision that someone reasonable decision now if he if horner to the ground started beating on her yes that would create an issue but i don't believe the law is clearly established on the circumstances that a reasonable officer could not take her to the because at that point it was a terrorist stop for the original incident but it was also probable cause for a skate because he had told her adapt point to stop she did not stop how far she went is another matter the disorderly conduct can help you only escape can help or skate can what escape helps because she was not kicking in cursing etc when she was on the porch and happened after she was thrown to the ground exactly your honor i agree with that but in put to rest i'm what i'm saying is the except point was not made until afterwards and it was made on both basis it was made on a state but there was clearly probable cause at the time she was thrown to the ground to arrest her st skate because now what about the three men i mean judge fitch raise this and that field saw the three people jump out and fig couldn't tell one way or another but let me ask you this question and this question is i just wonder if you agree with this statement or not so in this applies in the context of qualified so i want you tell me if you agree with this quote or not where the district court denied summary judgment for a purely legal reason we do not have jurisdiction but we might we do have jurisdiction but we must adopt the facts assumed by the district or that means that all we're looking at is the district court's assessment of the facts in this case and all the sites of the record are not part of our review at this d stage if that statement is true which you agreed with i agree with that statement if those facts that are assumed to have actually been assumed in this case what i'm saying in this case are honors the facts that are clear end of record even if you read the district court's opinion a stablished the basis for qualified immunity so it's not what i'm saying but it but we don't do any other fact finding i don't think i need to i really doubt i could take that opinion i mean if i facts right there that are going to say a sensually this is a qualified immunity case well i don't know i didn't see the district court necessarily following are jurors prudence regarding how to deal with rule fifty six point one statements because i don't see clear statements findings by the district court  i don't see clear findings about what happened during the allegedly false arrest i don't see any clear findings regarding what happened at the station house i don't see much discrimination among the three defendants in our case is pretty clear that you can't just say a bunch of officers violated my rights you've got to you've got to identify who did what to get what particular time is in a hat isn't that our case law i agree and that's why i was saying to t who question me that i agree with that as long as we know what facts they did assume but and here what we don't know so why shouldn't we just vacate in rimi hand and ask the district court to more clearly and precisely pars the many facts you know i was going through with both you and ms bays or in some excruciating detail what we agreed on and what we don't agree on are the facts here in why should this court at this time try to passion that out rather than just putting the onus on the district court to do that in the st instance i don't disagree with their your honor that should have been done and it wasn't there i do believe there is case law that says but that's not done though that this court can find the facts that are there in the records any gaps in the district court's factual recitation we can determine what facts the district court in the light most favorable to the non moving party likely assent at that point and then under brown  judgment motion at that point and the baron's case i think also says at that point as well when the district court fails to make an appropriate factual finding to facilitate review a court of appeals may have to undertake a congress simply a few of the record to determine what facts the district court likely assumed which again would be essential what we boss as well sal so we we are we have it we have the ability to do that but we're not required to