it's our position she was exercising her first amendment right under city of used in versus hill to simply ask the officer what's the purpose of your engagement with me is that really interesting case because it arises out of a dispute over a parking space right yeah we made a federal case out of different versions of what happened both sides called law enforcement that's correct so when the officer shows up he's heard one side say  this woman drove into this parking space and ran over my foot and then tried to get away that's one stop it right and the other side was this woman said which tries this fox your client is trying to pull into a parking space but she can watch your daughter compete in the volleyball mansion and there's a guy sitting in the parking space presumably saving up for someone else and she drives up doesn't hit him right but he sticks his foot out and kicks the underside of the car she drives away and calls nine one one so that's the two sided information that the officer had when approaching the scene that's correct you that's exactly right what did you do wrong well one important fact that i would urge urge the court to consider in that respect is that she called first and her call was in a difference i think it does because by the time the dispatch sent out the call on the second one the officer was on route and knew that there were already been a call from someone purporting to come a victim so that sets up the scenario that the court describes but at least when he leaves the station he believes he's going there to assist her and that's what she testified happened when time the officer gets there right this batch is told him about the other people on route yes prior prior to arrival when he arrives at the scene he's got this correct on disputed facts as to what happened though that's correct parking space that's correct and that's that's one of the reasons why we withdrew any claim of unlawful detention because she had no intention of leaving the scene she wanted to be there to provide the officer with the information she possessed in order to resolve this situation i don't think she was looking for anyone to be arrested she just did what she was told she was told to leave the scene by dispatch she did she saw the often comes i comes to the scene the officers there and any asker more than fictitious well that's not disputed what's disputed is when he asked for identification and the manner in which he did so she testified that she were approached him and said hi i'm glad you're here to help me you know and that's when he immediately demanded identification she was a little bit  court's precedent it's not a crime in california to demand refused to demand produce identification upon demand unless a statute requires that in this case vehicle code section two thousand twenty thousand and one and twenty thousand and three do set that standard but those statutes also require under california precedent from the california supreme court that the there be probable cause of some knowledge on the part of ms fox that she caused an injury it could be direct knowledge or constructive knob and the officer at that point in time had really no basis at all to assume that she had knowledge of any injury because all we knew all he knew was what she reported to nine one one and what mr platts wife reported to nine one one as well but he was certainly on the scene talking to mr platts before she arrived and was able to see that there was no signs of any visible injury on his on his brow as the other side asked for id i don't know i probably should have asked that but i don't seem to recall asking that particular question at the deposition but i would assume he would be because it just seems reasonable for an officer to do so what happened when she refused to put it in the patient well she said she testified that she didn't refuse to produce identification as much as she didn't produce it quickly enough in response to his demand so he threatened her with a taser and ultimately grabbed for her purse at which point taken aback she correct your honor but it's also important to remember that she identified herself by name and phone number two nine one one one she called it and went up to the officer and told him i'm glad you're here i'm the one who called so he had there was some basis on the part of law enforcement as a collective whole under the collective knowledge doctrine to know who this woman was but there is no absolutely no sets rule that we're not asking court to find all that whoever calls for us should be officer to request her driver's license yes because he had no facts to indicate probable cause that she had knowledge she had injured anybody based upon the manner in which she described the call to nine one one why was the entitled to to credit the other version the way she described it he sat down and simply judge hawkins introduced the facts he sat down in her car and kicked the undercarriage of a car and even though investigating officer said this story sounds kind hokey i mean how possibly could he have his foot run over if he's sitting down in the middle of a parking spot the tires are going to be you know over the side but be that as it may we're not contending that  officer didn't have a right to investigate miss fox wanted him there to investigate she called the police right so so he's demanded or vested her or her identification and at that point things go south but very quickly on yes so where is the an arrest for a one forty eight and that's what he testified he arrested her for the resisting one forty eight obstruction not for the vehicle code violation and see if the facts as she posits them are simply that he failed she failed to respond quickly enough then that would be the constitutional violation i forgot to request rebuttal time and i see i have a minute fifteen left and i was there the balance of that time thank you very much arrest and excessive force in violation of the fourth amendment the trial court ruled in favor of defendants on summary judgment on both of those claims and all of the claims of sort of by the appellant in this case in doing so the trial court ruled that the undisputed facts established the deputy smith had probable cause to arrest the appellant and that the force used to effect that arrest was reasonable under the circumstances in reaching this conclusion the trial court relied principally on six undisputed material facts back number one deputy smith was dispatched to respond to a parking lot dispute that culminated with one party accusing the other of running over his foot with a car essentially deputy smith was called to investigate a potential assault with a deadly weapon and that dispute of the parking lot and the two parties had different versions it was proven one of them already claimed that his foot that been run over that turned out not to be true that's correct deputy peterson who was not a party to this lawsuit conducted that part of the investigation and they made that determination the other party said i was pulling into the parking space this guy was sitting there blocking million trees i stopped before my vehicle make contact with him and he kicked the underside way with the questions that were asked of him by deputy smith or deputy peterson deputy smith interaction with mr platts lasted only a matter of seconds before appellant showed up on scene and his entire interaction with mr platts was just those sort out the situation but the two accusers were treated very different i agree and with the court's permission i can answer why they were treated differently and certainly go ahead but i force in this context yes your honor deputy smith made that verbal threat with the intent to compel compliance based on his training and experience of threatening someone with the possibility of being tasered or any other physical force typically compels come of compliance from a suspect and that's what he was intending to do in this instance and he called her sweetie right he did not your honor if we look at the video the person that's calling her sweetie is the off duty that mr platts told deputy smith that his foot was run over and identified the appellant as she was walking as the person who had run a verse put at that point in time deputy smith at the justification to appellant in order to investigate her involvement in the parking lot dispute and the possibility that she used her car to run over this man's foot and that just occasion to the tane or it extend existed until he was able to complete that investigation in a reasonable amount of time that amount of time was delayed because of the interactions and the resistance that was offered by the appellant in this case she was taken into custody in  record but she arrives back on the volleyball location at approximately twelve forty five the rest of the record reflects that she was anticipated being there until two pm that with the point is that the law requires her to provide identification under the set of circumstances because of the vehicle code that both parties agree apply in this context and the appellate contends that there's a question of fact as to whether or not  deputy smith had probable cause as to the appellants knowledge of the injury however the undisputed fact established that appellant heard the other parties wife call the police and she was  heard her yell at her what are you trying to do are you trying to kill my husband so there was probable cause at that point for deputy smith to believe that there was an incident that  could lead to conviction under this but now can evidence a conviction isn't necessary it's just probable cause and those are two different things and i think that's the appellants argument misses the point on that issue  nothing to indicate that in the record your honor deputy smith also warned the appellant that physical force would be used if he did not comply appellant contends that that warning came in a form of a threat of physical force deputy smith contends that she he also said that he would have to sit in the back of the patrol car now that's a minor discrepancy deputy smith agrees that he threatened the taser but regardless of the force that was threatened there was a warning given to the appellant that force would be used if she didn't comply and that's an important consideration in determining whether there was a constitutional violation of excessive force in th important undisputed fact in this case is that appellant physically resisted being detained she resisted being moved to the back of the patrol s u v this is confirmed by her own testimony this is in deputy smith of the officer to guide her to the patrol car she resisted be in hand and that resistance is captured on video and what threat to cheapos at that point deputy smith was the only officer on scene he did not know that there was an off duty officer also present he didn't learn that until they really contending that she posed a threat to the op i thought that point the threat that she posed was the vicinity to mr platts in a really ignition of the volatile situation i judge thomas to follow up on your last point it's also important to remember that the officer testified that he did not be the crowd as posing any sort of threat to him whatsoever they were a bunch of volleyball moms and dads who were just observing  doesn't believe police safety depend upon the police being able in the sort of post escalation of force world to be able to expect citizens to comply with