restraints although chronologically out of order a plan to address the currency transfer port st and then the inventory search with respect to the court or to transport given the no claim related to this specific occurrence was never  certainly the maintaining of the restraints would be reasonable based on the initial commitment order but the way the court construed it was to separate them and find that the commitment order changed the analysis essentially separated the occurrences into discrete completely separate and discrete incidents with a completely separate legal analysis regarding the justification for the seizures so on one hand if it was continue all the justification would would continue but the court construed in different way in finding that finding that they were completely different in that  upon when leaving the jail the commitment order and the show upon leaving jail and going to the magistrate's order office the commitment order was the legal justification required for the restraints court then went on to say that there was no legal and that occurrence the leaving the jail was justified by the commitment order to have a claim related to that separate incident i e the leaving the magistrate's office and going to the intel lot of required a separate relief that i think the opponents were correct when they argued in their and summary judgment motion that this was a separate occurrence that it wasn't addressed because it was never applied and that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief pleading to fish and he was actually identified by the district court in its memorandum opinion where the court noted that appendix fears are twenty four dollars that wily essentially alleged that he was handcuffed and shackled upon leaving jail that the defendants argued that it should be interpreted that pleadings should be interpreted to relate only to when the opponent left the jail still under their commitment or so i think is the logical assumptions based on that and the arguments in the summary judgment motions for  situation would be construed against the drafter of the complaint as he is the master of the plants the master of his complaint certainly didn't meet the pleading standards under it paul informally the require that the complaint must states offici well because it was an argued in the district court and it wasn't argued in response the point because it wasn't clearly lodged in the complaint but what was alleged in the complaint was that he was handcuffed to leaving jail and when he left jail there's no dispute that he was still under the commitment order and that was legally justified it wasn't before it wasn't before the court was getting raised until the  part of the argument that the verdicts are inconsistent and that the verdict shows the reasonableness of the actions i think our dear here's here's a question why i think our argument was essentially that officer our argument is essentially that officer nylons conduct was completely reasonable and consistent with the requirements for an inventory search he said was that there was a difference between the two searches right long search the will nylon search nylon searched the driver's side saying areas and then back and search the trunk of the other officer did not search the truck but it was more than just the trunk  are places where valuables would necessarily be found so and searching for and conducting an inventory search the requirement is that they search in places where valuables are likely to be found people often don't put their valuables on the top of the their car people off off and secrete those in places where you would normally look and it wasn't like you did when you watched the video and it's the minute marker fifty two minutes you can see that initially you know that  didn't then they continued to conduct the inventory search and they searched all the places where you would expect to find valuable certainly there wasn't a clear there's no case law that would stablish at this point testimony of the officers that explained that they've conducted multiple and then tori searches and that this was how they conducted their searches and ultimately that they would not fill out a inventory unless valuables were recovered even when you look at the video when they recovered the the one valuable that was discovered the phone was handed over to the plaintiff probably for safe and then because they found other valuables they didn't complete the long there's no requirement one of the arguments is made by the police is that because we didn't move the actual field regulation into evidence that that somehow negates that it was a reasonable or legal end and her search whereas the franks case makes clear that the officers not required to submit the actual regulation or policy only that the testimony essential establish that they followed standardized criteria and i think the  evidence in the record based on the testimony of the two troopers including not on who conducted the inventory search stablish is in fact with undisputedly that it was conducted pursuant to the policies of  p s p and therefore even if putting the inconsistent verdicts aside based on the evidence that was presented at the very least what the jury verdict they'd be entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly establish law that would have showed them that they were outside the guy posts for normal and then tory search going back to the the going back to the currency tran it the question she posed with that sometimes got a trooper troopers pick you up from the prison the following day on may th i want these responses but some of the pick me up in the morning it could have been shipwrecked ousmane again i think it was i can't wiley specifically told during his deposition to the lawyers on the other side that he specifically appendix seven hundred and sixty two he says to do all what he did the whole entire twenty four hour period or almost twenty four hour period was a complete traumatizing experience and also to the point that it's a terrible terrorizing experience to stand over twenty four hour period when he was released from prison they trial testimony but in all reality the fact that the defendant never raised the proper mechanism that they want judgment but not a trial the evidence in the record clearly  d because we did not get back to connecticut until four after four pm back pain day so we prevented sufficient no event and in fact opposing counsel during the death straight back to connecticut yes and then prior to that the lawyer for the defendant that mr watt lee i don't talk to you i didn't talk to you about of cleaning your car from the vehicle and what process was part for you to get your car back answer i had to pay it to go and storage fee and then question do you recall how much that amounted to answer you know i forgot i believe it's in the glove box of the car still in the front of my sister's own deposition transcript you know that they did cover that area relating to the entire transport plane which clearly had never even uncuffed him in court so clearly dollars to twenty five dollars and the belt with a loop that can go through limits and hands and arms and that would be appendix two times the twenty so clearly there was sufficient evidence that was developed that they should have known that they shouldn't do that and secondly if there's some rejection record they never place any type of you know courtesy trip or anything there's no look at that there was only two deposition so that seems to be the exact opposite of what the legal standard is because it isn't the case that the legal standard isn't that there has to be a case that says the officer may do that but while there there has to be a case that says the officer may the defendants never raised this issue of qualified immunity at the time a summary summary judgment they never talk about the events of five hundred and twelve two thousand and sixteen so they never presented of that issue for this court to decide and after can preserve that for the court to hear and most of the time the defendants immediately appeal a quality immunity issue findings so that they'd court could decide you not that they go or you know a minute the power of the you maybe but the state is obviously you know represented by the attorney general's office that therefore there is no insurance or anything like that that they would get more for carrying the case longer than it should be there and that is getting out and quickly as possible so that the defendants don't have to be more time on a case so there is a difference there but again they never preserved because they never number one filed and their brief in opposition to my partial summary judgment or in support of their motion for summary judgment the three never talked about five hundred and twelve two thousand and sixteen a gain in their briefing which if you have to lock time in that mode they never address the qualified immunity in the summary judgment motion and the cross motions related to the events of fact th two thousand and sixteen when they clearly were summary judgment motion in connection with the verdict formulated to the inconsistent verdict that was the only argument raised by defendant nylon and connection with the that jury verdict the question the problem with that is they again did not preserve that issue for this court to hear because they did not raise an objection right then and there when the jury came back and said we find for nylon and i hope you have the dash cam because the dash gland actually dispute what the trooper testimony is again and we have no policy in place that talks about a search and a toy or showed what nylon going behind and actually going into the trunk which wasn't any part of the three tickets that traffic tickets that were issued and  report because they don't even have a separate form to fill out why do you put in the form what was actually present which in the trunk was like jim clothing so that could have been put there the money should have put there you know so admission that counsel is referring to was i think or the statement of undisputed facts number nineteen and in that statement again the language that was used was the same language testimony that talked about being handcuffed while leaving the magistrate's office but in applying the summary judgment standard essentially the court construed that admission in the light most favorable to the a issues with the jury instructions draw your attention to appendix thirty two where counsel did object to the jury instructions for the other preservation issues at all times counsel raised in the after the as for qualified immunity honors correct that the qualified immunity standard that was applied was exact opposite of what is required by the court and which was just recently reiterated in the james vs new jersey state police case the  court essentially construed that there had to be a case centrally telling them their conduct finding that the conduct was lawful versus unlawful and with respect to to provide for a reasonable opportunity for the other side to be heard and to brief so had they done that that would have cured the g issue in this case and as you also stated there was with respect to the inventory search it was testified to the fact that there was a policy all the troopers testified to being for miller with the policy the policy was outlined on the dash cam fifty two minutes to the two pelley what way so he knew what was going to happen he was asked to identify and read any valuables that you would like to see that they could be properly preserved there was nothing located in the search and overall for the handcuffing for the courtesy ride you're correct that it was a conditional offer he had been on handcuffed while he was in the magistrate's office and then he was asked if you want to ride home after  through the entire situation which makes this absolutely unusual for corporal one thousand and to deal with he said it was one of the most unusual circumstances he's ever had to deal with and you know based on that conduct reasonable under the glover case and the appellant pallies background with a criminal conviction with you which he was aware of for assault was reasonable for him to want to ensure that safety was maintain while he's driving the vehicle he can't you know control what happens behind him so if he's going to give him a ride he doesn't need to take a risk with the gun situation and his own wife it's reasonable for him to continue with the phallus quo and maintain  the restraints during that course and there's no case like you said in fact the if you look at the case off from this within the circuit not rd circuit cases but the district court cases including