here i do believe is the district court really ignoring several facts in this case that to evidence from mr martin's brother that he saw the marshals at all times on the stairs and we have evidence i think from your own expert mr vinnie that would say that the placement of the gun had to have been inside inside the room basically so the weight of the room is set out  anyone as i see it on the stairway would not have made the shot and have it be consistent with what you're an expert depicted in terms of where the shot came from so what evidence is there that the marshals or other in the question via his her own i'm having a problem though that like in every case is contradictory evidence he could bite the same side against its own interest even given the contradictory evidence of the mortals needs of the one another let me go to ask you this mr obvious you don't want to you don't have that much time here you're talking about the evidence but you have a variety of claims here against different  and let me ask you specifically why did the district court here in its analysis of the fourth amendment claim on the unreasonable search somebody was shot somebody was killed these are the other two residents of the home wasn't it reasonable to take them down and ask them investigate if question you know you  who did question who did you tell them was in the house with you answer my son philip and wade and what happened after that answer they forced herself in my house that's her testimony that would be eno training were present the u s marshals then stormed into their home so there's absolutely no question on this record that these marshals even looking at the plane's version of the facts did not enter the home until they knew was stablished the fact that when they arrived at that house they had reason to believe that there was there for presided there well donna what many of the facts already in this case is very similar to deal but you go through brain cell phone what else we have the fact that he they had visited the home of sherry boyce that morning at and record it came against a six seven of the record a record that came from the virgin marshals know that there were several calls back and it did the reasonable belief that he presided there because they ruled out every other location ok that they could if they could reasonably says that they reasonably could have looked for him at the end of the said there was any doubt a district court would be protected by place it was called upon to videotape and photograph the scene take very special minutes and prepare a report basically just a crime scene investigation the main reason that the district court was correct in allowing him out of the case was to the extent that any of the allegations were that he had been negligent in his duties those would be consumed within the new jersey twit claims act and no court claims that notice was ever filed here nor was there  act notice and that was the primate basis for allowing john ellis out of the case in the original opinion there was also an indication that he he was subject to and was allowed to avail himself of qualified immunity sheridan and his initial opinion was very thorough and he acknowledged at the time that he wanted some additional briefing as to the lot of the same reasons he did grant summary judgment to investigator mcbride found that under the circumstances the questioning was relatively brief was quite reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances when they're trying to investigate it that the timeframe of the questioning was entirely reasonable and appropriate the transcripts and the tapes were provided scene there's a an officer officer involved there's a shooting there's a doubt so right away there's a crime scene so they certainly need to remove the residence from the home while they're investigating the crime scene they take them down to the police station which isn't very far away and mcbride testified at his deposition the reason he interviewed them at the police station is that's what he told was told that they had been taken and again he questioned them fairly on a fairly limited basis and then later they were returned within a short period of time three hours well that was the total time that that certainly wasn't the total period of time that he interviewed them the interviews where it was about eleven and eight minutes respectively were they could they have a right to interview them in the first place if they did want to be interviewed well i think they had a reasonable right to investigate the incident if they want if they don't want to join in the what makes you think that they have a right to question her she doesn't want to be involved in the investigation well i think they had their reasonable right to ask her those questions and she she didn't refuse your answer my question she doesn't want to go to a orders and she was a room there well it wasn't either officer ellis or officer i make right that were moved off both of them testified they had nothing to do with the transported up of course not but again they have their obligation was to try to conduct a reasonable investigation and all of that still fits within the qualified immunity ok that's all right i think we understand your from the scene back to the police station i want the court to to recognize that that issue is not before you so much as great as as you well know for the record we have one question remains to be tried and that was the question of whether or not it has not been appealed so we have a situation where the factual circumstances surrounding the removal from the scene are really not issues because the jury has decided that i or my argument as judge i don't think so i don't i don't think it's incumbent upon anybody to tell somebody how they have to go about suing them so i would say i would say no ok mr down and thank you we understand your position and take your hear from  civil rights violations despite the fact that profiling had no contact with the seaton until after he was after he was deceased he was not part of any action that produced that autopsy in a discriminatory matter that he treated african american the scene somehow differently then other decisions and there was no evidence of dues to that effect so in response to the summary judgment sea and there are no civil rights that can be violated once the individual is deceased and that's the first time that a doc if i can had contact the only other claims were  opinion was very clear on that with respect to the state court a state law claims that was never a tort claim bottle there was a letter allegedly that was sent to some people but not to any of my