reasonable suspicion but in the course of his investigation the facts that he had become aware of they when they did well if they had reasonable suspicion to stop him then we go to the nd did they have probable cause to think that he could there was a conversation between your client of the officers about whether he was engaged in a trespass right correct the officers touched his arm said you're not to go in when cold cold failed to go inside no that's not what happened around of what he said is he said come hang out here man and then you are all right back at them to stay and request them come hang out here ma that he said coming out here ma'am and then eight and he went in there anyway while the officer previously moments previously actually asked for his identification and that is actually where  york's instead he goes to co fails why is that a problem why is that not doing something he should know don because he'd both officers were aware that he was going minutes before deciding apparently that he was going to engage in a pursuit now he gave all the officers do do it met that he said he was going to get his identification and that that's what they understood him to be doing when he literally or in the video earlier in the video doesn't gonzalez kind of point towards actually what turns out to be the camera when he's basically saying that's where i am that's where i have to go yes mr york and you think that's on the record somewhere yeah that's that is that is my understanding so i'm sorry go ahead i have if i'm incorrect on that i will i will correct myself but that's my understanding so him and as far as what the officers understood at the scene under the objective circumstances he said that he was going into his house to retrieve his id and that is what they understood and that's about as undisputed so as far as that is not food because that's what i asked you about seemed to me was going to go to york for residents to give his i d but he did go to your friend but i understand why you want to make it on disputed but that's why i was trying to make it decide if one is officers have probable cause then they can do what they needed to do in this situation and one hundred and forty eight a one says what you've got to do in order to have this is the defendant's got to willfully resist delay or obstruct when the officers in gauged in the performance of his duties that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the other person was a police officer conversation between your client in the observation of whether he was engaged in a tryst fast and if in fact the officers touched his arm or said you're not going to go in  princes from the facts so staying come out here man and touching an arm that does not indicate a show but they already necessarily bad something about a jury would have to observe that video and i observed that video doesn't look to me in any way that it was a show with  looks to me like it was a it was like a friendly pat on the young as far as saying come out here man that in itself can amount to a demand to stay that sounds like a friendly invitation to stay and that's how a reasonable person in our client's position could and we believe that that we are entitled to present that to a jury because you can't you cannot say as a matter of law that touching somebody is on like this amounts to grabbing their arm or trying to trying to impede their movement you cannot say as a matter of law that telling them to come out here ma'am amounts to demanding that they stay that is a pelleas argument and that's something that the courts should not decide as a matter of law for the inferences from those facts so it's not disputed that he touched his arm but the legitimate in that investigation because as the brief discusses of life you needed to have specific content you need to have evidence of a specific intent to trespass and under every single one of those sections of  but he is certainly entitled to investigate and of course they should but that does that is not carte long in order to detain a person indefinitely and there are facts that can they can become aware of in the course of their investigation they can lessen any probable cause reasons was reasonable suspicion they may have have so for just isn't part of your isn't part of your argument here that they didn't actually detain him in other words this was a this was more of a voluntary conversation is opposed to it  that's one facet of it so the the initial detention and i'm going to assume that they did have a basis to initially detain him but after they were had started their investigation they became a more  e more facts any justification they may have had dissipated so again after you you you talk with mr stupid or you find out that he doesn't have a backyard you see that there is no fence and our client pointed out the exact location of the scene where he's allegedly standing and that was in a public alley none of that is disputed and what that does is that rebuts the allegations that mr skip would have made me had nothing he had nothing independent of his allegation that probert it what he said and that's what the subsequent investigation found and that's why a client was never charged with that with trust us and again what it says is it's not it doesn't just say you know we've looked at the boundary map and we saw that he didn't have property it was based on the statements that mr to bhutto had provided and that i plan to provide of the officers based on those statements there was nothing there that they could charge him with there was nothing there to justify the trespass charge think mr hands made oppression in berkeley and st is the idea that new york residents and the co founder residents are one in the same there is a satellite photograph in the record and you are one on one easier if you look closer to the waterline so on the on that same photo which one is is the co founder residence is it the on kind of rectangular one that's kind of more towards the wider than the g th right rummaging around in my back backyard which is not a large yard gives pretty built out to the property line but there is a space between his property and the cocoa property and he consider it a sense that he considers  a water line to be the front of his property and and that's where the trash cans are cats he says to be after this guy i heard rummaging in my backyard with my trash can or what are you and what what direction do you understand he's calling the back you're at the so i'm looking at b s on one side there's water on one side there's a couple of boats on the other side there's the g then there's something that looks like another earth or something like that so what does it eat you think he considers that you're the space between his property and the kobol property you know in chicago we call an alley we have alleys in chicago it's not legal for you on an alley because that's that's the property that i know they don't have alleys and california anyway i'm just i'm just   he was trespassing and he says that mr gonzales walks down the street and he points him out literally points him out and says that's the guy who was trespassing so clearly there was at least reasonable suspicion and actually there was probable cause to believe that he was trespassing because mr fisker food or told the officers not only that he was found on his property but that he told him that he told the appellant you need to get off my private property and  have the right to continue his pursuit of a michigan dollars when i think especially nowadays officers are taught to deescalate whenever possible and to to turn case where there was an altercation between the suspect and the officer in a rural area and then the person went down the road and the option waited for thirty minutes for backup before going down the road and then entering o to a private property that they'd had no idea where where the the individual had gone to and can thank this one circuit distinguished the hypothetical and said this is not a case where the police officers always knew exactly where the suspect was but decided that it would be dangerous for them to enter the property until reinforcements a crime under such circumstances the continuity of the chase is the late but not broken and we sent this but it but but but your argument just used stop here in those cases the officers may have known the word the suspect was there waiting for reinforcements in this case that was that didn't happen just back actually  issue and as they did so they were confronted with a very large man and alexander in this acquaintance who came out to talk to them and confront them and instead of you know forcibly pushing their way past they said hey we're arresting that guy you need to let us let us through and that's exactly what mr alexander did and that's when mr gonzales ran into the home and and contemporaneously mr alexander was telling as coachella has heard on the  let me ask you go further supposing i think that they needed to wait for a warrant they needed to go get a warrant if they're going to let the guy walk away they're going to talk to two people they're going to do what they have to do they have to have a say ok you're right what do i do about the false arrest on the state charge well your honor i would say that he find there is no reason charge because officers have no general muti from blames for false imprisonment they get on to have a false arrest if it's not if it's not based on a further you only get a false arrest that's based on exception but i've got to find a bird exception in order to go there and there was no destruction of evidence there's no merge and see nothing about being armed and dangerous the only way for me to get t turned and confronted go fail he stopped and talked to anderson alexander whoever it was and that that did not in order for me to go with you i've got to say it's still legend circumstances if i testified the entire time that it took for the officers to get to the property was less than thirty seconds in his own words it was in the blink of an eye well it was more than thirty seconds because they say one minute the guard to go bail and then another couple minutes to quit and then and then they walked into the yard and then officer gonzales prudently waited for officer jackson to come around the corner so that he had back up and then they both approached the gate and when they did so the heretofore unknown large gentleman dallas alexander comes out and they take a moment to see if he's going to be cooperative or if he's going to be somebody is going to get in the way they secures cooperation and then they enter into the to the to the yard and again that's exactly the kind of situation we want our officers to deescalate and not to force the issue if it's not necessary and so it would be an audience and to be telling our officers in order to preserve the pursuit exception you have to bowl people over and potentially you know escalate uses of force in situation that don't require it so can you could you were you earlier and you gave a couple or record stations and hoping you might be able to repeat it's where m residences but i don't think that affects the analysis unless there's any evidence that the observations knew that one person own one residence over the other so i'd also like to point out that under state law there is no qualified immunit the court has pointed out and so if this court were to decide that the hot pursuit exception does not apply a but it's a close question and so of the appellate he qualified in for example that still would not affect the