you live but this is the best we can do here the zoom although we're on zoom the usual rules apply it's fifteen minutes for sides and counsel who can ask for time for a bottle will  s this court should reverse the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and are entitled to qualified immunity now on the pleadings for keefe x in taylor's complaint itself or this conclusion number on the craigslist ad for taylor's website which was called my south dakota address dot com offer to assist specifically new york and new jersey motorists in getting out of state auto registration number to stop me from moment what is the effect of the new law that governor christie side europe  i would concede that because they've always been active after the the arrests we're not we're not talking about that that law it doesn't really have any bearing here is that we're specifically just talking about the insurance f statute which is what he was charged under and in response to the craigslist ad we have additional factual applications that defendant carson who was a an investigator with the office of the insurance fraud prosecutor responded to the advertisement told taylor that she heard she was able to get her car to pass inspection and see if he could help her to get auto registration and auto insurance and auto insurance and number three in response taylor said as carson forms to fill out and tells her it'll cost her three hundred dollars and number four taylor ends up meeting with carson starting an insurance application on her behalf from his computer using a south dakota zip code well let's speak if you would mr harleston to the argument made in your opponent's brief that the complaint alleges taylor responded by e mailing carson forms to tame auto registration not auto insurance that's like one of the main contention same make and pushing back to the emir was you know maybe it was not up and up on registration but the insurance wasn't what they guy was advertised in for and wasn't what he intended to do and that there was no probable cause that you know what's your what's your answer to that this was about registration insurance might have come along later but that's what that he was intending to get out well  say that he was arrested or insurance fraud and he was arrested after doing the south dakota zip code in connection with an application for insurance so whether or not arms and i'm looking at the complaint i see i recognize that that was in the briefs but i don't see in the complaint where it alleges that those forms work for auto insurance but even if you know assuming that they were only fo churn fraud statute specifically contemplates electronic a person is guilty of the crime of insurance fraud if that person knowingly causes to be made a false fictitious fraudulent were misleading statement of material fact that a person attempts to submit submit causes to be submitted or attempts to cause to be submitted as part of the order of or in connection with an application to obtain or renew insurance policy an insurance policy so i would say that the application itself is contemplated by the legislature in that statute so by  submitting a zip code in connection with that electronic application for auto insurance taylor violated the statute even if he did it let's assume for the time being that and i don't know if this is that this is enough for proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt i mean maybe it is maybe maybe it isn't but let's assume even even it's not even enough for probable cause just for purposes of a fight immunity it doesn't matter the defendants are still entitle to qualified immunity as a matter of law because a reasonable investigator under those circumstances could have believed that by including that zip code in and shuras application taylor violated the law and that's it can you go back to the then the change in law and tell us how that might influence here is it the case that before may of and fifteen there had this kind of registering an out of state automobile or an automobile for out of state insurance had not been treated as a form of insurance fraud in new  jersey and i don't mean to dodge your honour's question but it the fact remains he wasn't charged under the new statute he was charged for the open statute for insurance fraud so i don't know whether the office of the insurance fraud prosecutor was prosecuting this particular type of cases before the new will i don't know if that new law was what motivated this investigation but it change the calculus what you're saying whether it's irrelevant or should be irrelevant that this had never been prosecuted before and this these things happened these events were an april right and fifteen there's a change in the law and you're saying that even if it had never been prosecuted before that doesn't matter the new law and the new emphasis on this is irrelevant to the question of problem cos i'm just trying to get your position that that is the position right yes you're that is the position and moreover a lot of that that in order to defeat immunity they would have to be a controlling authority saying that you know big because you never prosecuted a crime not that it wasn't a crime but just no order to put the defendants on notice that are resting on one piloting a preexisting law merely because no one had done it before is a constitutional there would have to be some precedent for that and to my knowledge there isn't so even if you're honest and you know that that is unconstitutional let's say it is cos if they were not on notice so they're entitled to qualified immunity under that theory of liability as well and the fact remains circumstances a reasonable officer would have more than enough to believe that probable cause existed even if this court disagrees and the fact remains that again eyler hasn't cited to any case law the district court didn't cite any in order to defeat qualified immunity they would have to be factually analogous controlling authority or at least a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority predating taylor's arrest that defendants are entitled to to qualify to be on the pleadings as a matter of law is or is there anything in the record that would help us understand why the prosecutor dropped this case degree of the crime which requires you know five instances of insurance fraud maybe they realize that it's there was only one instance but as this or held in right the city of philadelphia all it takes is is probable cause for one crime and you have probable cause so you don't need probable cause for the exact you know it was committed so that's of no importance before it's decision or the qualified immunity analysis  but for all these reasons this court should reverse that no amount of discovery will alter this this is a legal question was there case law that was were remotely factually similar to the allegations predating tale is arrest and the answer is no and for those reasons the defendants are take over qualified immunity the court should reverse and i'm more appy answer any questions the panel might have i well i disagree with him because it is a is a fact this epic analysis and we need a factual record in all our bits there is enough of a fact that there's enough facts here that are agreed upon that we can talk about whether a legal decision can be made i mean our case was pretty clear that if a fact dispute has to be material to the question of immunity in order for us to say we don't have jurisdiction and what we hear mr starbucks and advertising and things like that so what's the fact dispute your point to this material that the issue of qualified immunity a factual question right he neither was against the law or it wasn't against the law that's something we don't need a factual record for we can look at the law and the state of the law at the time and know whether that was against the law or not right assume you're right that turned out not to be against the law the argument coming from the other side is the officers didn't know that and that the court here the district court asked the question  much too high a level of abstraction that the obligation of the district court is to ask a very specific question and it asked the very abstract question here's what the court said in denying qualified immunity to officer carson here a reasonable officer would understand that working with others to arrest an individual is out probably cause violates the th amendment right against unreasonable seizures that is a statement at the very highest level of abstraction that you can't do things that are against the th amendment how is that framing by the district court consistent with supreme court law and our own precedent that says you have to ask a question specific to the facts of the case before you because you're going to have time to say your own say to i would like you to answer the question i'm putting to you though and the question i'm putting to you is how can you justify the framing of the question the way the district court put it is that is that  justifiable framing of the issue when it's when the framing is you're not allowed to breach the th amendment mate it's hard to imagine a more abstract statement the now how how e to that case and i believe once again i understand the point that the court is making however as i said earlier we're at the pleading stage in this case right a merits this isn't a decision on the merits are asked for they're asking for a decision on qualified immunity and they're asking for it saying the district court incorrectly framed the question if you framed the question in a more facts specific  can find no case that is on par with this and you can't find a robust this set of decisions from other circuits or anything like that that's i'm a i'm being in artful about how i'm doing it but i'm trying to get you to speak to that point there or their assertion is the district court just shanked they got it wrong blew it when it framed the question the way it did if it's framed correctly there's no law to support the assertion that a reasonable officer should have known what happened here was incorrect so even assuming there was no problem caused because the law is as you're describing it they wouldn't have understood that and and they got their entitled to qualified immunity that's what i hear them saying to us and i'm trying alleging that all of this activity the conspiracy and the insurance fraud took place on april th two thousand and fifteen in the intervening period and a legitimate question during the intervening period on may th of two thousand the governor christie signed the bill making reverse rate evasion a crime and in new jersey well that your opponent is saying there was an insurance for under the old law not under the newly changed some but under the old law a reasonable officer could understood that that representing yourself to be from out of state when you're not from out of state was something a reasonable ask could understand was wrong you disagree with that there can only be the presumption has to be that st stick with from you can i it stop you for a nd i don't question you mentioned the the warren application and i'm a little unclear on this but what were the false statements or do missions that rosa made in his warrant keller has had committed insurance fraud i'm asking do you is there anything in the complaint that that sets forth with the false statements or mission or missions were specifically police investigation proceeds through a series of premises towards a logical yet undetermined conclusion that's not what happened in this case and i think let me ask you a question you know i'm all i'm looking at paragraph twenty seven of your complaint on joint appendix page twenty three and two paragraphs are earlier on paragraph twenty five says defendant carson completed the forms on or about april one two thousand and fifteen listening her south dakota address and only lists the south dakota address twenty seven says after noting that in her of twenty six that they met at the starbucks quote plaintiff's using his own computer because carson had done with their wind on to the east surance south dakota website and entered carson south dakota zip code at the end of the meeting he advised carson that she should complete complete application by going to recall quote section of the same website that's that's in your complaint that's what mr hale says referred to that's an assertion and an admission that he entered piece of false information in connection with the insurance why isn't that enough all by itself to provide probable cause for  insurance company with a license to conduct business and doing business within the borders of the state of new jersey because you do not have the reverse right max mechanism and language that submitted to a a new jersey insurance company for the purpose of being a benefit or a windfall that one is not entitled to my argument is that it wasn't against the law and it couldn't be charged on these facts i don't think that the law that mr taylor was charged with violating was designed to deter the type of activity that he was engaged in at the time and as i said they had in my opinion the case both for i will argue that they had no basis to charge him with a nd degree offen thank you your honor but i'm looking at the insurance from the statute and i don't see anything in here that requires the anyone charged under it to receive any sort of benefit it just says that the person knowing only submit or cause to be submitted cetera et cetera statements a material fact in an insurance application still would have to be an application for insurance in new  jersey very good point no i'm looking at the statute i don't see anything in here saying that the policy has to be a new jersey insurance policy so everything that that mr serry said respectfully it's not supported by the statute itself so doesn't that defeat the probable cause that existed or the defendants a title meant to qualified immunity even to the extent that probable cause didn't exist and with respect  discovery and you know having to explore the the facts we have enough facts on this record to make a determination we have an outline we have a sketch that sufficient to do a search and look for that's out there is this is this conduct something that is unconstitutional or was unconstitutional at the time of taylor's arrest no if that weren't the case we would be having a very different conversation but i did not hear anything during mr serious remarks citing to any cases that held that this arrest a someone for insurance fraud under these circumstances is unconstitutional so and with respect to the warrant he clarified that he doesn't even have any reason you know reason to suspect that rosa had made any purposely false or misleading statements or missions  reasons and those stated in our briefs and if there are no more questions i thank the court for its time judge joe jordan do you have anything more stricken oh ok thank you thank you