may please accord i'm matthew waring and i represent the appellant taj patterson under any of the legal test discussed in our briefs the complaint here states a claim that the show remembers who assaulted mr patterson we're acting under color of law the complaint explains that the city of new york has delegated these shown room groups a broad policing authority in certain areas of brooklyn and that the city is closely intertwined in the operations and one of the arguments made is that they really don't have any more rights than you or i do to affect the citizens arrest so what are the what's the authority of these groups that you are i don't have well they had they have they have a number of privileges that ordinary people don't have your honor they they have expensive equipment that's been provided by the city they are able to use insignia that looking almost exactly like the n y p d as they use the n y p d slogan on their vehicles they are able to access areas of police precincts that ordinary people can't go to and so they so those are the privileges they have that other people write tickets  but that that goes to one of the important points to remember about this case your honor which is that the district court heard in making this just solely about whether the the showing room groups have the same arrest power as the d there are there are cases in which a private actors arrest power becomes the paramount consideration and those are the cases that the apple e site involving people like private security guards people in private premises because in those cases where the only conceivable basis for saying that the defendant is a state actor is that they made an arrest it becomes very important whether that arrest is the same arrest power that the state has but here where you have all these other in disha that the acting in the place of the police that they are they are getting called by citizens about crimes in progress in lieu of the police they are if in some cases situation in which there was a missing boy and shawn room groups investigated that for hours before the police became involved and then subsequent to that the city responded by giving the show more funding purchasing more equipment for them so there's certainly at least a tacit approval that's being given so so where you have all these other in disha that the private actors the  performing this police function that has traditionally been the prerogative of the state that the mere fact that they are you know don't formally have plenary arrest powers it can't be just can't be the evidence in the complaint that the show or are performing the functions of the police there is also evidence of very close and twyman between the police and the shoulder him they are the there's contact between high ranking members of the n y p d and the showroom they have their personal phone numbers they conduct joint operations that as is discussed in the complaint and and that and these things can be viewed in tandem book which is i think another mistake that the district court in the apple east make here there are different tests that courts have articulated we acknowledge for state action but it's also it's brentwood academy in the supreme court it's a decision in brentwood academy describes it describes it doesn't even describe these as tests it describes them as a host of different facts that bear on the ultimate question whether the state is responsible for the private conduct so it's a it's a mistake to say that i could be with i think that would is helpful in the sense that it recognizes that these are all to some degree very fact  than they do nine one one but that but that's a choice that's made by members of the community it doesn't necessarily reflect in twine it doesn't that particular fact i don't think good goes to and twyman your honor but there give me give me a checklist of four or five of your best facts just because i think you're right that when it doesn't have a kind of like of the cataclysm of what it is that has to be it says it's kind of fact dependent so give me your four or five best facts that you show in twine here well the first one would be as it's the complaint alleges in paragraph twenty that says the city controls these groups through its ability to fund them that's not a dispositive fact as we acknowledge in the part of the control they exert their able to give them money for particular expenditures and particular purposes they solicit them for particular assignments for crowd control at this function for  another another fact would be that the city will sometimes direct the show to handle particular matters that pertain to the orthodox community and the complaint discuss isn't an instance of that where a police official told the show room go into your own community and deal with this situation we don't want to handle it and then there is all the instances the complaint alleges in which they perform operations together that they have there in direct radio contact with each other and that there will be high ranking n y p d officials you know present in the show marines command vehicles sometimes in the field that paragraph nineteen of the complaint and and so those are those i think together those facts together we submit painted paid a picture that while there is no formal overlap in the show marine leadership and city personnel as your honor pointed out that there is and the city has a degree of influence over what these groups do it has and it has a degree of influence over them through its ability to fund them and it oftentimes is physically present where they are operating and those those facts by their own by themselves would would suggest that they are that they are intertwined but thank you thank you the pollens contention that he's bringing two claims which in the city's view would vastly expand the situations under which a city could be liable for the wrongs of private citizens turning to the fourth amendment more no claim which this court has been discussing is now the critical failing especially under the joint action theory is the failure to allege state involvement in the wrong that was committed  my colleague's only response in his reply is to point to the very narrow exception in horvath which says if there is such pervasive in harmony as to create essentially overlapping entities then you don't need to show you know direct state involvement in the challenge conduct but here it is everyone is aware there's no such allegation of any such overlap and so what the plaintiff needs to plead in which he cannot plead is state involvement in the challenge to attack here just turning briefly to the allegations of supposedly delegation of a traditionally purely public function as i think your honour's have suggested through your questioning right there to the extent there is any alleged delegation it is very narrow  right i think some of the points my colleague talked about or for instance are receiving calls from the community members which is not delegated in any way by the n y p d event the community can choose to delegate what we would traditionally describe as a police function to a neighborhood for whatever reason lack of resources and so on right right but that would not be a situation where there's still more there's a precinct there and what's  belied by the specific allegations in the complaint and so there's simply no delegation of a traditional you know public function even assuming that police work fell under that rubric which i think is not even there's there's a way to view this either broadly or to view this very narrowly as confines of the facts the alleged facts of this case and on the alleged facts of this case that's the argument you're making that's right your honor but i think i think it goes i think i think it really is a legal failing in the theory here especially when one looks at for instance the articles in corporate a reference in the complaint which explain you know why the show does this and you know goes into the historical reasons for the the community wanting to go to the showmance than the police right this is not something that was thrust upon the community which the community itself has has created in which the police you know do their best to try to enforce laws in the community given the reality the situation which as the plaintiff himself alleges you know the police commissioner has expressed serious issues with you know the showman i'm fielding calls and things like that thank you thank you supports his position allowed to make three observations first is indisputable that the n y p d responded to the scene of the assault in real time and on the basis of calls that they had received from nine one one the police did not this connection it cannot be argued plausibly that the n y p d outsourced policing or steered clear of the shower rooms turf in this instance in this connection in this case i'm sorry in this case in this instance correct the police were at the scene in real time second the amended complaint acknowledges that when shermer members arrest suspects they do so professing to act under such  members are fully aware of the statutory limitations simply put they're not the police they're citizens and they know it third appellants reply papers posit member residents almost always call show the sharm room and not the police to report crime naan has citic neighborhood watch groups rarely field crime reports in the first instance and therefore by fielding are responding to herskovitz place that call what's like safety patrol members might use walkie talkies to communicate with one another to report suspicious activity in the neighborhood to be clear i'm not saying that anything wrong just that he was simply caller he was an active participant with the patrol group that responded to his observations about an unsteady paterson posing a risk to himself and vandalizing cars and flushing avenue by as reporte observations and subsequently he in two others chased patterson presumably after they had witnessed something that caused them to chase him what ensued spontaneously was a citizen's arrest gone horribly wrong not a just one one last point with respect to the public yes because with respect to the public function test it's clear that what happened in this case was not  i have two points i'd like to make your honors make the first one and hopefully i'll make it to the second one the first point i want to make is just to respond to my friend mr matson brown suggestion that this would vastly expand the scope of a state action liability if plaintiff were allowed to proceed past the pleading stage i don't think that's true this is although both the app at least describe this as a situation where you just have a community patrol that has just arisen organically and it just handle certain matters now and the city doesn't mind the complaint alleges far more than that it alleges that the city supports this they've known about it for years there's quotes from officials at every level of government indicating that they support these groups want to work with these groups they've given them lots of funding and encouragement so this is not a simple case of citizens arrest and no more the city's given far more encouragement to the shomer i'm here and then certainly any case that's been cited to this court in any of the briefs involving you know private citizens making arrests and things like that