we're going to take one more case and then we'll take a short break third case up this morning is number seventeen dash one four four five two and verses ileus g and which is a very common scenario which makes this unique is i don't normally find myself of being on the side where there is independent scientific reliable evidence look at the facts the context as it existed at the time of the stop or the arrest however there's also a principle that i love to invoke when when i do trials omnibus is the proposition he who lies about one thing may very well be lying about everything and therefore you can't necessarily trust with a purse where the reason why and th or jury or trier of fact can then look at what occurs after and the lies that are told by the officer after that seek that it had to terminations you may be right that if you get to a jury you get to put that evidence on but in determining whether or not a police officer gets qualified immunity you look only at the set of facts and circumstances that he or she had available at the time of the act in question right i would say that you would look only at the undisputed facts and if and because i know if we're going to look at the facts in the light most favorable to your client who was a nonmoving party but you freeze frame it at the time of the arrest that's correct the time the stop and the rest everything else that happens afterwards doesn't govern or isn't relevant to it may be relevant to all to my liability but not to qualify the immunity is that accurate that is that is accurate in this particular freeze frame what happens at the time that a police officer is driving behind my client you have to credit the officers version of events in order to give qualified immunity to  but even so we have to look at why there was reasonable what the officers interpretation of that was was that a reasonable interpretation by the officer because the officer obviously is not in your class that's correct perhaps and i'm not conceding that my client was committing a violation of the traffic oh but we have perhaps at best a traffic infraction and i think there's an abundance of florida case loads turning from the left lane into the center lane is not illegal especially when because the officer at that point is laser focused on resting my client for driving under the and as my client testified i believe the officer conceded the stop is extended for approximately peanuts at the side of the road which is more than enough time to run a license check more than enough time to write a summons the summons aren't even written at the where we freeze frame here is where the officer says that my client smells stinks said sobriety tests he did not stink consuming one beer and two hot dogs several hours prior would not justify that and this is where the later evidence would undercut the officers position because within a short amount of time evident on the video i've had to deal with and i understand the officers frustration having to deal with an annoying person and it's just a fact of life but on the video certainly reasonable minds can differ as to whether he appears intoxicated annoyed and annoying certainly maybe i misunderstood here's how i see it you have the time that he's a nationally arrested and then there's a question about whether the he basically says something to the effect of well can i go home now now the narrative on the officer changes now it's not that you're intoxicated by alcohol but in disbelief i can't believe this person  yes no drugs at all whatsoever so what we have is an officer fabricating allegations as he goes along to try and fit a square peg into a round hole to justify this arrest and at the point that my client below zero is not reasonable for an officer to then change the narrative despite what he writes under oath later and say you're now intoxicated by drugs i'm going to continue to hold you at that point there's only two sorry i'm sorry you said it most that weren't right at most even considering that even considering i because there's some there's some if you if you look at some of the things that the police officer thought that your client had done he legally some of those things are not illegal under florida traffic law they're not illegal correct changing whether other stuff may give you they're not in in of themselves illegal they may give you a base to think something else is up right and at that point  you change lanes you know ten times in one block you might think there's something going on but the change themselves are not illegal exactly and but at that point it doesn't matter because once you pull the person over you can't then start saying court engaged in judicial fact finding because once you make the decision intoxicated on the video which i believe is not justified in any event that something the jury has to me then everything the officer does is fine if you determine if  jury determines that that's not how he appeared and the officer is lying about what happened at the time the stop what happened the time the roadside detention and what happened off camera then the entire defense calls but either way error by considering the video in history or rent his appearance but not considering and expressly refuted consider the result of the breathalyzer you can have it part way if you freeze frame it so that the only no natural law or causal it's what the videotape was appear but you're viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the officer who says that's the way i viewed him that's the way he was acting that's the way i but i believe you have to you have to look back and look at the reality of the of the contemporaneously in light of the allegations that the deputy fabricated these charges for whatever purpose in light of the fact that we have a contemporary as video finder viewing piece of video and making a qualitative determination about what it showed or did not show that was consistent with what the officer testif have appeared would have been helpful to your client i'm sorry if he looks drunk it's because that's what the officer saw and that's why the officer arrested him if he doesn't look drunk it's because the passage of time has dissipated the effect of three to a drug we do it no there's no there's no doubt about that and we want police officers doing that to keep our streets safe there's no doubt about it but a big part of the picture not the only part but a big part of the picture from my perspective is how mr you're into performed on the field sobriety test because those tests go a certain way towards confirming what the officer has as a suspicion or saying oh there's really nothing something we can't base and we the rest cannot be saved and the subsequent detention cannot be saved by the fact that florida law may give an officer the right to briefly detain someone in order to write a summons does not give them the right to hold them thirty six hours