me i thought they were here for the first cases davit submitted by the defendant which materially misrepresented a number of critical facts that affidavit relied on purported statements by four individuals number one the children's pediatrician number two the plaintiff's a strange wife number three the plaintiff's former wife and number four one of the plaintiffs that employees we demonstrated in our papers in opposition to the motion for summary judgment that significant portions of the defendant's representations about the statements made by dr katz ghost former wife and the statements supposedly headed because it was the conclusion of judge under hero that the strange wife's statements were buttressed by the statements of the pediatrician but in in coming to that conclusion the court made the mistake of believing that the pediatrician had stated that she observed a medical condition repeated that gentle discharge on the part of the daughter which was consistent with  didn't tell that to the issuing magistrate therefore the judge who issued the warrant had no basis for drawing such a conclusion she put that statement in her affidavit in opposition in support of the summary judgment motion and i think that whe literature has strongly takes the position that that is not evidence of sexual assault but really the bottom line is that the issuing judge had no basis for coming to that conclusion so what does that leave you that leaves you a completely neutral statement by the pediatrician who simply reporting the allegations of the estranged wife so we're back to the claims of the estranged wife and in that respect although the defendant did state in her arrest warrant affidavit that the that there was a divorce proceeding pending she failed to follow up on that on that issue and she should have given the reality that all it was there was the uncorroborated allegations of these strange why it says it says in the affidavit of the mandated reporter this is the pediatrician stated the five year old daughter has been treated for these conditions twice in the recent past and the report expressed according to witness number one for drawing toilet train your five year old girls now having two other conditions for the introduction to the affidavit the the state police detective those say that she's been involved in a lot of sexual assault investigations physical evidence things like that's white white like if you draw the inference that maybe she knows something about this kind of physical evidence that she didn't say that you might as well you might as well say that  based on her training and experience the fact that this man works part in addition to being an anesthesiologist who works part time as a hairdresser is evidence it's a neutral it's a neutral claim it without putting a connection in there whereas the probable cause so that you're left you really left with nothing except the claims of these strange wife and in that regard as this court has pointed out  recently actually in the in the me he's just in twenty four teams i've said it in my brief and as the eastern district is hell repeatedly between twenty twelve and twenty fourteen when you have only the uncorroborated allegations of a person who does not appear to be neutral we have reason to suspect because of the times but then he called but then she called one of the two other women cheryl was lying about it that's not the point maraton submitted an affidavit which is part of our opposition to summary judgment saying the statements that the trooper attributed to me when i was being interviewed are statements i did not make that's classic frank's against and so again i get back to what we were there was that she had nothing she cheat she lied about mera naam she lied about our debt and the pediatrician statements were neutral that left just the estranged wife and given the estranged wife's obvious interest in the case she had an obligation to do some reasonable follow up without unduly stressing herself which she could have done because all the evidence she needed to show that the ex wife was lying was right there in the judicial district courthouse in rockville connecticut where she was dealing with the state's attorney so without any endor effort at all she could have on earth that is the affidavit that was in the family court and she could have talked to the family services officer who had to interview her in connection with a divorce case judge  available to her all of these things would have further shown that the ex wife or this is strange wife was light which she didn't do it she didn't do it and that itself suggests at a minimum recklessness and and  watched child pornography flat out told her no during any to you in the trooper put that into the affidavit that she prepared in support of the application of the search warrant she basically put forth that had been made by the wife beef she put that before the court for the court to consider i think that mr williams point with respect to the fact that no one drew a straight line here in the application for the affidavit is an interesting one it does say something for the fact that under the statute to which this man this physician made the report under the statute which he made a report it is a mandated reporter under connecticut general statute section seventeen  a one a one who must report if they have reasonable cause to believe that any child under the age of eighteen has been abused or neglected in a physician's  neglected it's an important here as well that the we have abuse or neglect of children being reported by a physician and then we have the risk of injury th judge underhill cited as a very significant crime that he thought was implicated by the rip contradicted report of the mother with respect to the father's behavior will in front of the computer with the children being present that's a felony if this court is it all troubled and i go back to back up with respect to judge under his reliance on his reading report of the physician and i think that implicit what judge underhill actually said it one point in appears in the appendix on page ninety one and also appears in plaintiff's brief is we have a mandate reporter reply in effect that the children are presenting with conditions that are consistent with child abuse which i think is pretty significant and that appears in the appendix on page eighty six as well and that would be appendix two i believe so that the judge was not didn't really make a mistake here when he used the words in effect he was drawing that conclusion from the fact that we have a physician calling the mandatory reporting line at the department of children and families and making certain statements which a trooper who has special training would interpret as signifying that the children had been subject to put together a motion for summary judgment to address exactly this issue consistent with that our motion for summary judgment had an affidavit from the trooper laying out a probable cause because even if this troopers warrant were invalid she had cause at the time she arrested this individual in his public place of business is here dressing business there is no case in connecticut state law that  addresses that one can follow the supreme court of the united states rulings and come up with that conclusion one can also look to a sister state from the first circuit which is massachusetts where in two separate cases it's been held at least that it is correct that police may arrest an individual in public not withstanding an invalid or restore if they possess independent probable cause at the time of the arrest and that's merely in a ministerial fashion and it could get thrown out in massachusetts if a warrant was defective he need only have probable cause here she detective compaero need only have probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a felony when they meet face to face so i'm saying that probable cause is the determination at the moment of arrest under michigan versus default under back forces so high she had probable cause and as mr williams pointed out it wasn't completely spelled out in that affidavit but this detective's particular background training experienced enabled her to form the belief that this individual had committed a felony fail to accept the proposition that it's licit in the physicians report on a mandated as a mandated reporter on a d c a hotline of her person who the officer has reasonable grounds to believe he has committed has committed or is committing a felony and the phrase reasonable grounds to believe is under connecticut law synonymous with probable cause and that's   reality this is a case about an arrest a person went to a war and the evidence is more than sufficient to create a jury question of whether that warrant was issued because of misrepresent affirmative misrepresentations and and at a minimum reckless withholding of other exculpatory evidence and it seems to me that's the issue not whether or not they could have had an alternative a basis to arrest client which in fact they have never claimed until today with regard to the mandated reporter issue the mandated reporter indeed who that is a pediatrician had a clear statutory duty to notify the department of children and families once the mother of her patients made these allegations to her she would have been subject to arrest had she not as nothing to do with the physical examination and has he treated these children to i'm sorry he treated the children to concerned i mean i've got a patient who has a badge and all this church that didn't happen it was the fact that the mother came and said you know these might be your patients my and my husband's abusing them so she had to report it but the  bottom line in this case is that there is absolutely nothing except except the uncorroborated claim of the strange wife the trooper misrepresented what the former wife it said she misrepresented what the employee had said and she failed to conduct an easily conducted bill investigation that would have further demonstrated that sydney casco was simply lying that she  was clearly a mentally disturbed person who manufactured these issues having having testified in the family court having submitted to a lengthy interview by the family relations officer having filed her own affidavit in the family court all against dr casco none of which even hinted at any claim that he was abusing those children all of which would have in fact defeated probable cause in this war it would never have issued but for the  wrongdoing of this trooper all we're saying here is we're entitled to our day in court we're in time to present this evidence that was not enough to justify issuing a granting summary judgment in the trooper's favor and taking away dr castro's right to abstain or so we ask you to reverse and send it