appeal and the circumstances that confronted officer eddie boyd can be summed up in one word and that one word is no no front license plate no visibility because of heavily tinted windows no seat belt even though the vehicle was in operation no compliance and no reasons proffered for that noncompliance no valid driver's license or registration no valid florida address but most significantly no clearly established law presented by mr watson so we believe that as a matter of law office a boy is entitled to qualified immunity and as a result of the void and the city are entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law now i would like to start and focus on the  prong of the qualified immunity analysis which is the clearly established law problems and that required that mr watson present cases controlling  consensus of persuasive authority that placed each of these various constitutional questions beyond the bait beyond the bait at the time of the incident in this case august  particularity that the case must be particularized to the facts of this case in this case it requires that a case show that an officer acting under similar circumstances was helped to have violated the th amendment and in addition in this court's decision in rogers versus night qualified immunity also protects an officer who reasonably interprets an unclear statute and so we believe that mr watson has not cannot identify any factually analogous cases that  the various constitutional questions were beyond debate and i want to tick through a few legal propositions that we think coupled with the undisputed material facts that we believe establish qualified immunity and i'm going to go through each of those number one any traffic violation even a minor traffic violation gives an officer probable cause to stop and arrest the violator that's occurring at water versus the city of la vista the united states supreme court two thousand and one needs versus bartley two thousand and nineteen the nd proposition is that so long as an officer has probable cause for a single violation in a multi violation case that is sufficient to justify the stop the seizure and the arrest and as per this court's decision in foster versus metro airport and various other cases we cite proposition number three to the failure to have a front license plate alone where it's required by law is sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion probable cause for the stop investigation where it's established there was no front pla arrest in that circumstance and there is no dispute in this case that mr watson didn't have a front plate he was backed into the space without a front plate we cite united states versus smart united states versus givens two cases by this court that established plate is sufficient and mr watson cites no factually analogous no front license plate case to the contrary the four proposition is the presence of heavily tenet windows provided adequate reasonable suspicion probable cause for the stop an investigation and there's no dispute that mr watson had heavily tenet windows he had heavily tinted windows for a purpose according to his undisputed testimony he had heavily tenet windows to reduce racial profiling according to mr watson such that no one could look in the vehicle and tail it was an african american driving that vehicle per his own testimony cite cases united states versus boy western district of missouri united states versus slaughter the eastern district of missouri and mr watson cites no clearly establish case to the contrary relating to tenet windows the th proposition is that an officer may investigate and charge an individual idling in a vehicle with the keys in ignition for failing to wear a seat belt because the vehicle is in operation and that is per the missouri supreme court's decision in cox vs director of revenue and this court's decision in williams vs decker which was decided in two thousand and fourteen the next proposition is that both illinois and missouri law require a resident to properly register a vehicle within thirty days of that residency and to obtain a new driver's license within ninety days of establishing that residency and in this case there is no dispute whatsoever that mr watson resided in the illinois and he had not resided in florida for over seven years per his own admissions missouri law also required that he was to surrender his missouri driver's license in order to obtain a new florida driver's license and the combination of all of those rendered his license and registration is invalid as a matter of law and mr watson cites no factually analogous invalid driver's license case to the the next proposition well established proposition is that an individual subjective intentions even though they might be innocent even though they may be justifiable from a subjective standpoint if it can be perceived by a reasonable officer is noncompliance and that does not negate reasonable suspicion or probable cause and as per this court's decision in peterson versus cop carpenter versus gage so the fact that mr wat n ignored repeated requests to throughout the his keys which he did ignored repeated requests to exit the vehicle which he did it that's undisputed that the fact that he failed to offer his license and proof of insurance for whatever subjective reason does not negate the fact that that noncompliance that constitutes resistance under various holdings by this court and provided further probable cause for officer boy was in this matter here  until after he picked up the phone and this would have been after requests were made for him to provide that pedigree information and started dialing according to him he was calling the police on the police and it was that that point or thereafter when the gun was drawn for ten seconds so we believe that the notion about keeping the hands on the wheel where he failed to provide his license proof of insurance or anything of that sort in response to questions we believe would not be last case and so one must look at all of the circumstances involved in this case and it must be viewed from the reasonable officer on the scene irrespective of the officers underlying intentions or motivations so that's a well established proposition you know i just i had to do this but i want to jump ahead to the issue that that as i looked at the briefs i kept having questions about and that is there's a claim here that there was an unlawful search and wings band to see items you can get a hold of it could cause officer safety issues at this point now you're looking for things that would actually show evidence of the crimes that you suspected of and he suspected of a called for backup they had of rested on ultimately got out of the car they put him in a vehicle they still didn't know where he those were who he was and under this court's decision and united states versus mensah and united states versus smith or warrantless search of a vehicle is permissible to establish the identity of the individual so a reasonable officer confronted with these facts have an individual we have under arrest and we don't even  is there was a search of the vehicle and based on the search and there's no dispute about this based on that search paperwork was found that a dignified his legal name freddy watson that was all plugged in to re based on that it was determined who we was and so we believe that those cases those two cases the stablish that in fact a reasonable officer searching for it to  individual and ultimately identified individual is wholly proper and does not violate the constitution i also want to touch on briefly the notion about drawing the gun pulling the gun there's no dispute based up on mr watson's testimony that he drew the gun for ten seconds ten seconds and i would like to direct the court's attention to judge eriksson's decision and clarke versus clarke and in that case judge erickson rejected a slew of gun pointing cases cited by the plaintiff in that case because they were not factually gunpoint for what judge erickson determined was an unreasonably long period of time well after the police had taken control of the situation and just to quote from that decision  the court indicated quote a reasonable officer was justified in believing the situation was not fully under control until the plaintiff had been removed from the vehicle patted down and restrain d judge erickson went further and said quote pointing a fire on at the plaintiff for a few seconds while removing him from his vehicle did not constitute excessive force and did not violate the th amendment and so we believe and it looks like that i have in the by two minutes reserve ation that the bottom line is that no clearly established law has been cited and under well established present the president office or any boy is entitled to qualified jack waldron i represent believe mr fred watson the fact before the case today the facts before the court today are that mr boyd violated mr watson st amendment constitutional right to be free of retaliation and four separate violations of his th amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches or seizures this incident in which officer boyd pointed his gun at mr watson's head threaten to kill him and brought nine charges against him and it up costing  them without paying attention to any of the facts that are in mr watt as this court is aware that it only has jurisdiction when there is not a feud of material facts but rather it's just addressing  issues of abstract law the court below found that there were many issues of material facts that prohibited summary judgment while the court would have jurisdiction in order to determine whether the facts are in favor of whether the facts in favor of mr watson describe a constitutional right the the opponents have consistently avoided and distorted those facts because what they describe is a clear violation of constitutionally clearly established constitutional law on the record show that mr boyd approached mr watson became very aggressive with them excuse him of being a pedophile and when ma when mr watson expressed displeasure with that officer boyd preceded which officer boyd is required to have probable cause for so for the retaliation judge it's not only the gun point it's not only the fact that it later ransacked his car but in addition to that there are these nine targett that lack probable refuse requests to provide driver's license or insurance well it's important we understand the facts that would have been in front of officer boyd at that point and which mr watson would have encountered well as well and then those facts officer boy had just got done pulling a mr watson threatening him and threatening to kill him additionally one thing that the appellant counsel left out is that mr he said the record that mr watson only did not provide his license after the gun point after just this moment in which he had been threatened to be killed and that he told the officer that he couldn't reach it in the back of his car at that point and to be clear as the court know this earlier mr watson's hands were the ten into position  he followed all instructions and there's no argument at any point that this that the phone that he reached for was suspected to be a weapon or anything like that officer boyd acknowledged that he knew that mr wat reaching for a phone and not for a weapon i want to talk about qualified immunity because officer boyd actions violate long held and clearly established right that bar retaliation under the st amendment and the  th amendment and this court where officials are not liable under qualified immunity for bad gases than gray areas they're liable for transgressing bright lines perhaps according to the best facts  officer boyd may have made a bad guess in some gray area however the facts that are were were confronted with today which are mr watson facts so that officer going to much more than make a bad guess officer boyd carried out a series of retaliatory acts and that ignored clear evidence in front of him and that were were intended to threaten mr watson and to punish him for questioning the officers behavior two months ago in fact in that case it was a st amendment retaliation case and it cited a host of previous st amendment law in this circuit that has shown that that whether it's questioning an officer's behavior whether it's asking for a badge number that is constitutionally protected activity that an officer is not free to merely retaliate against somebody in addition recently in taylor versus rio has the supreme court reversed the th circuit saying that with certain what actions are before the court we see that not only does mr mr boyd approach mr watts and act aggressively yell at him mr one but mr watson follow every every step that officer boyd ask before the gun point except to provide social security number follow that up officer boy pulls his gun threaten to murder him arrest them charges them with nine false charges and then he ransacked the car this entitled to qualified for qualified immunity counsel question for you would you concede that based on the facts that presented themselves to the officer then the officer had probable cause or reasonable basis to investigate the vehicle in the dropper and i'm talking about is where the district court found that there was actually a material dispute a fact about what officer boy do at the time he seized mr watson and the reason for that is if you read the appellant briefs it with appearance the officer boyd has consistently sa the two reasons why he sees mr watson where because of the no front plate and because of the tinted windows in reality officer boyd has suggested seven or eight different reasons that he has generated after this  stop and during the course of the lawsuit that he has used to tempt the justify that for instance he suggested the presence of children nearby that might somehow raise reasonable suspicion at the park at a park and a district court found that to be incredible he also said that there was a playground thirty or forty feet nearby and that raises suspicion but the fact is controverted judge effort this court has held that when when that witness's testimony is necessary to carry his burden of proof inquiring into officer boy's motivation how but what we are looking at is what he was necessarily aware of at that point and a definite pack of cases a case that was cited by the appellant it says while the officers motives may be irrelevant what is relevant is what's the no and just below found that because of all of these different reasons that were suggested by officer boyd because some of them are contradictory because some of them don't make sense it is simply a matter for the jury that at that moment we don't know what officer boyd had in mind it's entirely plausible that only during his so you said when i think you're you're sliding off into the realm of subjectiv warranted in approaching the vehicle and investigating and striking up a conversation with the driver if that is in fact what officer boyd knew but th windows are tinted and as it gets closer you observe she's not wearing a seatbelt all three of which would give rise to reasonable articulable suspicion right and at that point got the right to ask questions and try and figure out what's going on and in fact you have probably have a problem because if there's not some explanation i could be in the front tag ultimately there could be an explanation that says it's a car registered florida it's not required and you know that that would be legally true and and there's no crime there right there but he's got the right he's got a reasonable articulable suspicion enough to start those conversations and it seems to me that th had in articulable suspicion right and we don't really care whether he's got he's got it in his brain so much as whether or not that reason more than part of due to most suspicion exists or am i wrong well judge i draw the court's attention to the united states versus real property case which talks about the nest necessity at at the level of a summary judgment for testimony to be but however even if even if officer boy did have reasonable suspicion to come up to mr watson and ask him some question that does not obviate the fact that he needs probable cause or arguable probable cause for each of the nine separate charges that he brought into mr watson and let's be clear those charges were brought after officer after officer boyd drop his gun point that mr watson and threatened him whether there's no issue that before the court said that there was a suspicion of weapons or that there was a danger as most all officer boyd ma  the gun with the gun pointed to that if it's longer than necessary if a gun point is longer than necessary or prolonged based on the danger then it's unlawful and what's clearly established in this circuit is that i that officer boyd conduct was not lawful because he's he initiated this issue he's the one who came up during a traffic stop threaten my client and then drew his gun and then after the fact trying to generate this  idea that there was danger or that that it was necessary in order to calm the situation when in fact it was officer boy himself who had generated these problems than so i want to be clear about about one other issue of color that the city has its own liability based on the actions of officer boyd that are before the court today that must be construed in mr watson's favor we ask court for him to die summary judgment because of the wealth of disputed interior facts thank you the verses barclay and in that case the court held that if probable cause exists for the stop the investigation and the charge any claim for retaliation is precluded as a matter of law point blank and to address the issue of the reasonable officer standard the court is exactly right that's the focus and in this case a reasonable officer on the scene unless it's more glasses or was blind could not help but see the fact that there was no front license plate and the fact that it was pulled the end you couldn't tell what was on the rear plate at that juncture a reasonable offers on the scene could not have helped but to see these heavily tenet windows that were installed to reduce racial profiling a reasonable officer on the scene with a big spect if someone in response to what is your name an address to provide their legal name and their legal address and that some address that i lived in seven years ago down in florida a reasonable officer presented with these undisputed violations after asking requesting an individual to exit his vehicle and his keys that was refused without offering any reason why which prompted backup to be called a reasonable officer would have arrested him for those violations and a reasonable officer would have searched dead vehicle to try to identify who this individual was which is exactly what officer boy did in this case and based upon all d of that  we believe that off the board is entitled to qualified immunity and the city as a result of the fact that there was no constitutional violations anywhere across the board would likewise be entitled to a summary judgment in its favor thank you on counsel thank you very much for your arguments case is submitted