compel the court to reverse that decision and the st one is that the court district court failed to view the facts in the light most favorable to my client who was the nonmoving party this or court level number two the district court failed to consider the of the circumstances when determining whether probable cause existed for the arrest of mr schumer and the rd one is that when he violated those facts and circumstances available to deputy mcdonough it failed to properly consider whether  the statement of the alleged victim was really stressed worthy and whether mcdonough conducted a reasonable investigation as required by kings in the city of miami and the cases following that case can i ask you a question just to begin with kingsland you have this you have a statement in your brief it page nineteen that says the following based solely on dobyns sworn statement mcdonough may have had probable cause for the arrest however that changed once he found no physical evidence corroborating her statements so you admit that based solely on her statement good enough probable cause was good enough and then you say everything changed when there was a lack of physical evidence explain to me why it is that the lack of physical evidence changes anything and all right but i think that when you take the context of the complaint made by mrs dobin which was that my client largely grabbed her by the hair and punched her several times in the face and then scratched her wrist i think it's those specific facts about what was done to her and the fact that when he investigated her examined her observed her she exhibited no signs of any kind of markings on her face or even a scratch on her wrist and so i think when you take that and not only that but i you agree that the officer could have relied solely on the statement to formulate probable cause you also agree that the florida battery statute doesn't require much and so simple touching would have been enough so what you're relying on is instead of the facts and circumstances of the allegation here that there was punching and kicking and scratching and i guess my question is but that's not necessary to an arrest right i mean an arrest simply requires the touching so even if the complainant now is kind of is that you must consider the totality of the circumstances and so i think that when you take the totality of the circumstances not to mention the fact that in addition to ms durbin calling nine hundred and eleven that night my client also called ninety one that night you know so when you talk you take that instance you're talking client he doesn't express shock that he's there she expresses disagreement about what happened my client's actually released officer now knows not only ever gotten a complaint from denying that she's the party is that all a lot more than he had just based on the report of the ent well i would disagree with that your honor i would say that my client was relieved to see the officer that night she was expecting to see a police officer come to her house that night she was not surprised to see the officer because she in fact that called the police or self so i think that in my brief states she surprised that she's about to be arrested would argue that that's correct your honor and so the encounter with her with your client is and in essence corroborating some of what he's been told by the complaining party that's correct yes you're either that they had been at least and you chose proximity all we have to have here all the officer has to have is probable cause it's not preponderance it's not clear and convincing beyond a reasonable doubt anything like that is just probable cause but i agree with that your honor but what i would like to point out is that when you look at the strain of cases that i cited in the record in my brief that there is some or there is some requirement to conduct a reasonable investigation of the case and the court has said this court has said that deputies cannot ignore information  own declarations or my client's own statements regarding what happened during during her interaction with her sister but the other and i think the most important portion of it is that there's two witnesses to the incident that are there at the property it's my client's two teenage daughters the complaining parties that certainly an officer is entitle to take that into account that the witness may be biased in fact i totally agree i understand that officers are not required to judge credibility in these types of cases however the problem here is that the officer refused to even speak with them and in fact there was another deputy there and once mr mrs humor who was detained immediately upon her st interaction was there the deputies easily could have split the two daughters up asked them both the same questions got together and tried to figure out what happened you're you're you're establishing that for probable cause for an arrest officers have to do a complete and thorough investigation no that's not what i'm asking your honor i'm saying that they need to do a reasonable investigation and they can ignore evidence that is readily available to them and i think this is very analogous to the case relied upon a brief which is abercrombie versus beam talking to those witnesses doesn't mean that it was that there's something staring them and their face that they're  well i would say i'm not going to talk to your minor daughter about what what she says happened saying that isn't refusing to consider employees that happened at a gas service station or a client or customer service station accuse the manager of committing a battery on her and there was two part time employees one of them happened to be the manager sister who was present there the  deputy officer in that case refused to interview them even though they're readily available and this court found at the court that they did not conduct a reasonable investigation a lot of the information available to them just word of warning i wouldn't get too carried away with being because you know it's a unpublished and mr and so if you want to argue sort of the persuasiveness of the reasoning in that case that's fine but you understand that it doesn't minus a precedent i understand yes your honor and i'd also like to point out that you know her statement was uncorroborated the physical evidence and also her statement against the husband was on cross rated by the physical evidence of the vehicle he also inspected the vehicle and even deputy mcdonough in his testimony admitted that it's important to look for physical evidence cooperating allegations in order to make sure i can move forward the case my recollection those that florida law is equally permissive with respect to what i affected we take the battery upon vehicles as it is battery upon people right you don't even have to have hit the car with the stones to have bettered the vehicle that's correct your honor so physical evidence like exactly the same exactly like battery right the florida statute reads that throwing missiles at an occupied vehicle that may cause great harm or death so the analogy is that there is no physical evidence necessary to prove the crime or provide probably cause to the crime of throwing the misuse of the vehicle because there's no requirement that the rocks actually hit the vehicle but is also no requirement that to be any physical signs of unwanted touching in a battery and he decides that he doesn't have probable cause to arrest the husband because there's no cooperate evidence however with the same analogous evidence towards the battery he determines that is probably cause but in fact he had got you yes  had reviewed the written statement provided by the victim this statement was given after she had called nine hundred and eleven and then he spoke to her and for the cooperated on her her written statement and based on that he went to the home of her sister and arrested her some sister for simple battery as this court has pointed out a physical injury is not required just a simple touching is all that is required under florida battery law and so based on the statements of the sister the elements of the of the charge had been established and the court and the officer had probable cause to make the erast the law in this circuit allows a police officer  to rely simply on the statement of the victim when deciding whether they have probable cause and so there what about his point though that even though the florida battery statute doesn't require anything more than slight touching the crime the in the in the the assault whatever that this woman described went beyond simple touching it was kicking and clawing and scratching and pulling hair or whatever and so he gets there any sees not no evidence of that any i mean at that point is he thinking like this is not a credible allegation out of the deeper here rives about an hour after the incident occurred and he knew that the alter cation occurred with the victim sitting in a car and the sister reaching in through the window so there was somewhat limited access to really inflict any serious harm in other words the combatants if you will were not face to face slugging it out one was sitting in a car and i believe the window was even rolled up a little bit and then the other sister is is reaching in and attacking are in so it was reasonable for the arresting officer to decide that an hour has passed and there was probably only a minimal impact caused by this altercation and it's not inconsistent with the victim's testimony that there are no marks left by this somewhat awkward alter cation and so he had probable cause to my my sister hit me you also says you should talk to my my two behind her daughters and so but the police officer makes a decision that he's going to rely on the statement of the victim and goes ahead and places st one to call the st the st one to call that that's right your honor and goes ahead and places her under arrest so arrestee has done is cooperate that there was an incident that this is her sister and that there was some hitting it during the it's an absolutely in fact there's a there's a lot of consistency  in the statements by the two sisters of course who started it and who hit who is is what is debated but that there was an altercation  court has said in the district of columbia versus was be case probable cause is not a high bar on and and certainly that bar was met in this that his conduct violated the constitution so i guess you know he's going to say kingsland then so now you distinguish kingsland king's lynn is an extraordinarily unique case it involved a motor vehicle accident not a simple battery involved twenty police officers arriving at the scene one of the persons involved in the car accident was a fellow police officer and the the other driver was the one eventually arrested and there were conflicting efforts by the police officers  st to say that this other driver was intoxicated and under the influence of alcohol and then to say that the other driver was under the influence of of and eventually the other driver was found to be under the influence of neither drug there was all the test results came back  negative and ultimately when the plaintiff brought her false arrest case she says that these officers were mean you factual probable cause the facts of kingsland could not be more different than the facts of this case  not put arresting officers on notice that relying on the statement of a victim violates the constitution in a case like this and so on are so you see i have more time but we're going to rely on our brief unless there are further questions from from this court always appreciate being given time i think y presentation which i think of the dish recorded too which is when my point is that it took the it took the the lack of visible injuries to miss dobin and inferred that in favor of the defendant who have filed a motion for summary judgment this case necessarily make the open sworn statement untrustworthy he arrived in the scene over an hour after the original author cation that lapse of time could have had the effect of calling her any red marks inflammation on her arm could have cleared now that's not drawing every reasonable inference in favor of the nonmoving party that's drawing an inference in favor of the moving party in this case but we also have a florida statute that says mere touching isn't enough so even if we acknowledge what you said potentially as erroneous we still have the florida statute touching as enough we have it's enough to have a victim's testimony to the police officer to give him probable cause correct right and if you read the cases that the court cited and also cited by defense counsel are the entourage the city of orlando case that case involves a battery as well during a road rage incident however involves a shoving doesn't involve punching and so i think i completely agree with the court that the battery doesn't require physical sign of any injury at all and i think that when you start talking about the totality of the circumstances and even in west be the thing here's the thing what the district court saying though is i mean you even admit today and uncorroborated statement from a victim can be enough to supply a probable cause period right i can argue that no sir you can't argue with that i can't argue with that statement no yeah so we have that and then the question is just something else will become evident to the officer that would cast doubt on that  and what and what the court saying is this other evidence doesn't really do it the fact is an hour has passed the fact that there might be the way that the incident is described it would not necessarily be surprising that there wouldn't be you know a distraught person anymore that she could have calmed down an hour later that there wouldn't be any visible scratches given the awkwardness of how it was describe reaching into a car window that a point is there's nothing to leap out to the officer that says i can't rely on this the the st to call victim statement anymore right well what i would what i would ask the court to do is consider what the as you can't that's not considering it in isolation that is considering the totality of the circumstances it may be you disagree with that but that's not the that's not the point this is only probable cause right but we're not also understand that probable cause in and of itself is not a high threshold high burden to me however we're talking about what could reasonable jury do or was a reason we trust where the information you find other district courts and other courts finding that a reasonable jury c infer this and why and when i say totality of the circumstances i believe you have the her statement regarding the battery which is uncrowded about physical evidence you have a statement of regarding the crime committed by the husband which is uncorroborated by evidence then you have the availability of two witnesses the fact that my my client also called nine hundred and eleven and his failure to do any kind of reasonable investigation to determine what any of those circumstances were i think if you present that to a jury a reasonable jury could infer that probable cause did not exist from my client you just a quick question as precedent and take it you don't dispute that this case would require an extension of king's one right this is not kingsland is a pretty outrageous case correct if you want to refer if you want to go all the way back and refer straight strictly to king's lynn with although it would require an extension from that original kings in case i think this court has recognized that kings and does not apply only to these types of police coverup cases thank you for a time your honor