in this matter your honor the evidence is pretty clear that the officers used excessive force and there was a reasonable seizure under a grand there are three factors that the court typically looks to and in this case all three of those factors clearly show that the seizure was a reasonable first there was an officer who now only according to the officer was there no crime but the this is the circumstances for which he was arrested failed to give identification was not a not he was arrested for kicking on the door of the of the police department yes which would be disturbing the peace or some other type of crime not just for failure to give an invocation well no he worked that's what that's why the officer approached him he kicked the door he was that he did not disturb the peace and he was in that malicious first place officer in this case the kicking of the door is not a crime if the defense has suggested that maybe it's malicious mischief but that it wouldn't fall six forty seven well he did not when he is not required to to leave he was not obstructing the street but  kept kicking the door of the police station all night well if it interfered with the operation and apparently if there was some it interfered with if he was interfering with something their motivation was subjectively right and i think the supreme court case that i mentioned probably requires us to ask if they have grounds to arrest him for anything correct and the officer knows that he thought he was intoxicated but able to take care of himself and therefore he didn't arrest him for that but so there is the issue of the false arrest but in addition to wrack the east under graham if that is the crime it is a was unreasonable because mr fuller as indicated a record wasn't responding so the officer took one hand and put it behind his back been the officer took their hand and put him in a to him been wris conduct and being under the influence of a controlled substance and i'm glad you want to point out that devon peck vs alford case because that's right on point as well the subjective reason whatever was in the mind of officer smith at the time for a for something you know just disturbing the peace or whatever what about the level of force that was applied in putting that harm grip on him to get the handcuffs on i guess it's a summ how does your client view the force level of well frankly the undisputed evidence in the case reflects a minimal use of force at all turns at all steps in the process mr officer smith gently guided  hold that's that's widely used by law enforcement for his safety and safety of mr fuller you can request that he put his right arm behind his back mr fuller didn't comply with that request then unfortunately mr fuller decided to try to break out shaking his body kicking his legs while on the ground officer smith requested this distance of other officers as quickly as they could within a minute they got handcuffs on and then they put him into a position of recovery on his side which is an appropriate  n and they immediately called medical response which the law demonstrates is the appropriate thing to do and then monitored him carefully diligently and faithfully by listening to his breathing watching his chest movements checking his pulse until the ambulance arrived at every occasion when force had to be used because of what mr fuller decided to do it was appropriate it was minimal we believe in it doesn't have to be monitoring him he was on the side of things going to change later the judge armstrong below recognise that he may have rolled onto his back and didn't find that relevant or a material disputed  fact who knows what happened during the changeover process when the paramedics were arriving and the officers went out to greet them but the undisputed haven't shows that while the officers were with him and had responsibility to monitor m themselves that's correct only on that one specific element and that's where qualified immunity kicks in very clearly i don't believe you got it quite right on that issue to be honest because there's no duty to give c p r when it's longer breathing and the monitoring and officer smith testimony and what was the evidence as to when the officers realized he wasn't breathing i never realized that it never did so it's the emergency medical technicians get there and find he's not breathing at that point it's unclear exactly when they find it but sometime after their arrival is when it's a term that he's not breathing and they they made efforts to resuscitate him and it's interesting because that issue is is i think on all fours with the state of philip's case which in which there was careful monitoring by the police unfortunately tragically just like here the suspect died but the court found that it would be  speculation to believe that there was anything less than appropriate monitoring and that they after should have known that he'd stop breathing time while he was standing and  but who was your witness both the officer and also it's not disputed by the defendant the court simply in this evaluation stated that that he was  not so this control hall was used to handcuff mr fuller when this control hole is specifically not designed to do that that he was attempting to do that which he couldn't do