goes this is a case interesting we all know where we are we're not starting from scratch and it was probably a year ago and it was it was my last live nine circuit oral argument evaluating the scene of the subject residence and then at five o'clock the judge signs search warrants i don't know that the complaint is entirely clear d that the barracks was employed after  their complaints to allege that the police officers were there a lot merely that the force that they used was ok it's pretty profound force than th whole lot of damage was done and regrettably after the fact we now know the defendant the suspect wasn't there but i think what they're alleging is that from what they know at the th the th level right out of the gate so they don't probably know much at this point that all five of the remaining defendants either went again and violated the th amendment because they went and all this damage occurred or that they were present and failed to intervene is that her statement i disagree with that your honor and  and i'm going to call it a speech i don't mean to be dramatic and that the standoff lasted something like six or seven hours so there are other cases where he said for example you can pay somebody under certain circumstances three hundred and forty five times and when it gets already court officers as i mentioned i was there should be expected to face down a b b gun or anything else that can blind hands certainly if that person was known to be arsed and very violent and dangerous we don't have that here do we violent offender i mean we had demonstrated violence very quite clearly and i had a very significant record of violence i mean i think that's the the question that remarkable comparison there was a domestic violence situation it was threatening with the b b guns they believe the person was in the house but that person that they were looking for wasn't in the house and they use thousand and fourteen i think that you wouldn't be able to consider was something that would inform the officers of what they could or couldn't do in two thousand and fourteen that what you can use was or because of the current after the fact is what i just are on drugs is clearly established by controlling president now whether the conduct violates a general principle of law except in the rare case of an obvious and constitutional this conduct planers must identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances as defendants was held to a violated the th amendment and yes your honor i agree but it's standard but i i'm not making it up it's what the supreme court's going up to doin do what the supreme court has asked us to do so that we're not you know being complete beaten back by the supreme court on a regular basis for not doing what they've asked us to do in assessing qu inside that there and then may have been unnecessary distraction because of course a search warrant was authorized to arrest this individual who wound up not being inside very tragically but the allegation is that there are places with home and objects that were destroyed that were entirely too small to forty four percent hi dan including objects that don't strike need to be subject to destruction by a flash bang and you know soft items pillows are ripped apart and what not  you're talking about how do i know that canister didn't come through a window and hit the t v and that's that's maybe i'm not elegantly stating the point that is clearly from one of the canisters that have been fired from outside and you can tell impact points on the bed being overturned the shelving unit is destroyed like i said earlier so i think you will get the totality that they were on reasonable from from the get go and in fact i think that the best argument here is as soon as the movement under that far it should have been investigated in laying siege for the next seven hours and not having any contact with joe and this year another taste besides meena that supports your search warrant they did not have to knock down the doors they did not have to break through the windows they did have into the house i mean when you look at what happened there were two robots the person the house the person inside the house there was a system used for hours you know responded there was a scene where there are instances where it's hard they didn't look into that so then they did all of these extra things that were completely unnecessary to the house was completely surrounded by by police officers and swat team and or him to have access to the house and then go back and but then somehow get out of the house and hide under the star that would have been seen by the complete qualified immunity on the basis that more discovery needed to be done and that's what went to the th circuit originally and this the court held that no you need to decide qualified immunity using the clearly at in terms of what's reasonable or not officers don't use tactics that don't violate clearly established law boyd anthony graham mena don't fall into the station and there or don't apply the clearly