good law today the first is that the clearly established right inquiry must be undertaken in light of the case of specific context in light of the particulars not as a broad general proposition as the court in saucy a said it is quote unquote not enough to cite graham versus conner for the general proposition that excessive force violates the fourth amendment or as anderson and other previous cases say that the right to be free from false arrest violates the fourth amendment that is not enough the right must be clearly established in a more particularized and a more relevant sense the contours the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable police officer would know that what he's doing violates the law second the qualified immunity inquiry is distinct from and not merely duplicative the underlying false arrest and excessive force inquiries under graham because in other cases the qualified immunity in korea unlike those other inquiries recognizes that officers can make reasonable mistakes and they can still be immunity if their mistake was reasonable if they did not knowingly violate the law or if they were not plainly incompetent the district court in this case we said that paid lip service to those principles but did not meaningfully or properly apply that she was she found a very follows with respect to the false arrest issue and this is a page thirty of her ruling quote it is beyond question that the right not to be arrested without probable cause was clearly established on the date on your way to the rescue and quote and on the issue you provided to the particular charge that he was arrested for which was public intoxication and this is and this is the way she did it it basically boiled down to two sentences on page thirty one of her opinion and in a footnote one of five if only in ways version of the incident is believed he was not any breed and had no interaction with the officers from which they could reasonably have formed a mistaken opinion that he was assuming mahbubani and dobson knew they don't you know he was not in the brigade at the time they arrested him they could not have reasonably believed that they had probable cause to arrest him that's a flawed analysis it's a flawed statement ruling it's a flawed in now and when you do a qualified immunity analysis and there are competing versions of what took place you you take the version of the plaintiff you do in so far as it goes and the plaintiff is certainly and i take the take the version of the plaintiff in you soon that those facts are true and you ask whether or not those facts are reasonable fact finder could find a violation of the the officers have said on numerous other point because the extent there's a conflict in the evidence you know sometimes you can't really make a real qualified immunity determination until those facts are resolved by a tr and that's certainly true your honor i don't disagree with that but what happened here is only one way basically just says i wasn't drunk i wasn't wandering around the parking lot with the two other people and i didn't talk to the officers before they arrested me but he doesn't address the numerous other points that they relied on whether the moments with the numerous other points are first the officers went into this knowing that there had just been a fight at the bar in which pepper spray been used and they arrived on the scene and were told by the security guards that these were the three people who would mourn our well i don't of says it in his police report but that's in the very beginning of the narrative in his place report here is he specifically says in the first to put him anywhere in the police report you know there's only one page of narrative of the police report and it's in the very creek security requested that p d stand in the parking lot and tell a second group of unruly suspects left the area security advised that he didn't hear the police or to cure the guard say if you just make it up i don't think that's a fair assumption the security guards were advised when they got there that these people had worn out their welcome and they proceeded to observe the situation for f going you know your honor i must have not heard that in his deposition that i took me i don't recall him ever saying anywhere that he wasn't staggering around or wandering around or walking to get a look at harper he got there and he eventually got in his buddies eventually did and the officers say they had fifteen to twenty minutes to observe him before they pulled the trigger and made the arrest he can't even account for his time i asked him both when did you get there and how long with you he couldn't answer either question when he testified about the bloodshot eyes it was that he broke down and was crying in the ride from the bar to the police station he does say that he does say that and we have several other officers that say that you testified that he had been drinking before he showed up that he just gotten off could believe that at trial and conclude that they didn't that they lacked probable cause and that's all judge morro did you all are so in the last couple minutes that i have talking about the excessive force claim i have repeatedly asked mr onion when his deposition about this of the so called slamming against a car the so called kicking he repeatedly repeatedly in response to a variety of different framings of the questions stated that he could not recall could not recall any forced by model banja could not recall any forced by dobson could not recall any forced by anyone the entire time that entire night it is his testimony alone and what she's relying to establish an excessive use of force if he can't remember it he has no evidence and even if what he said was true he admitted that he was resisting getting out of the car if that's the case and he admitted that it was pulling him out of the car and pushing up against the  resisted coming out of the car he admitted that he was told to get out of the car and that instead of getting out he started arguing with monta banja you said resisting i think that is resisting ok if you don't get out of the car when the police tells you to get out of the car you're resisting let me ask you this because this is a summary judgment stage and you've got to claim for qualified immunity we give your client the benefit of a doubt if you will but opposing counsel says that your client couldn't remember any use of excessive force is he correct in that he's not correct because you know when he testif evidence that the contrary evidence that the that the city has simply points out that there is a material issue of fact and it needs to go to trial is that correct that's pretty ok so i always the court has some additional deposition your client at one point said did he tell you to get out of your car or yes did you immediately comply i don't time it wasn't like the gift was something that happened get out of the car and similar tenuously they yanked me out of the car and slammed me so it wasn't yes there was an initial response i don't recall but subsequently he said when that question was posed the second time on a different form he said i was not given the time to respond they were open they said get out it's not like i was given a few seconds to react to said get out of the c forty seconds or make the most of it your honor you can't create a tribal issue of fact by contradicting yourself you can't create a tribal issue a fact when there's we don't address the fact and the only evidence is from the other side of this is a guy who was not harm so he was ambiguous as to how many times he was asked to get out of the car officer said it was four to six times he admitted it was at least once in that he got into an argument before he was pulled out and what he didn't remember was not what you said before you didn't remember what  when and where was asked he didn't didn't fail to remember that he had been pulled out of the car and slammed against the car according to his testimony right when i asked him about that in detail he couldn't recall when i'd ask him tell me about it he couldn't recall when i asked him w all fairly testified that he was pulled out and slammed against the car you're saying you didn't say that no i'm not saying you didn't say that i'm saying when i tried to follow up on with him what that meant and what that meant what taking meant what slamming meant it was routinely i don't recall i don't recall i don't recall over and over again he couldn't recall what anybody did at any time it was all vague generalities and you are not you don't get to abstractly go from generalities to specifics you get inferences you don't get to go from generalities to specifics and we have to be able to test