district court's grant of summary judgment to be reversed for three different reasons one probable cause did not exist for david camm prosecution to the facts in the opinion were construed in the light most favorable to the defendant's violating the summ judgment standard and three no reasonable officer could have relied on stites on qualified opinion for probable cause as we know we are looking at probable cause the officers in the court are looking at the totality of circumstances facing a reasonably prudent officer we know that the probable cause standard is a loose concept however it leaves no room for the absurd q are you focusing right now fact without full context of the circumstances they cannot close their eyes to additional information and that's exactly what detectives lead detective claimants did when he signed the first probable cause  admitted in his deposition that he did not review the evidence he admitted in this deposition that none of the evidence was tested at that point he signed it within two days of this we get it and when you look at the district court's opinion the district court makes three man three main points when discussing probable cause the first point that the court made was that there were an opinion of the presence of h b o s high velocity impact spatter that the officers but there were some blood on this or cam's shirt there was there were eight droplets of blood and that was left lower plaza of his shoes and david a point of arriving home after seeing his wife in a pool of blood he went over to the vehicle which was to a bronco he opened up the door to move the seat forward his daughter was immediately to his left he got in the bronco and moved past jill when he pulled bradley out those eight pieces of blood of one millimeter size are most likely came from a contact or transfer stain when he brushed past  ties to definitively to mr i know they've had some conversation about the wet mop and a cleaning fluid but i don't know why that would point to mr campbell suppose anybody else in the world there was some injury to the much else other than saying that those spots couldn't have gotten onto the shirt without him being close to a weapon discharging right that is correct and that's where the opinion that it was h which is the problem that is a quantum leap from there eight spots of blood on somebody's sure and the fact that it was made by mr sikes who was completely unqualified to even be there this gentleman only had an economics degree he had never processed a crime scene before he lied and said that he was getting a master's and ph d and fluid dynamics at portland state university in the first  trial state university doesn't have those degrees he has later admitted that he was not working on those programs stan faith was going to him the professor throughout the entire first trial he had made it that he wasn't a professor two days this person that's i'm qualified to process a crime scene i'm qualified to render an opinion on blood pattern analysis or blood spatter h b r yes is making a finding about eight drops of blood with a magnifying glass and the individual officers that were there could sell niemeyer testified i knew that he didn't know what he was talking about niemeyer at least had the forty hour blood pattern of course he approached him and asked him a very rudimentary question that if anybody knew anything about blood spatter he would have provided the answer the answer was wrong this gentleman was handling evidence  the garage the shower curtain and multiple other places when it was not even what yeah i mean there are obviously huge number of problems let me ask you this question since this could be pertin to you know the ultimate theory he's arrested david camm is arrested after tobar one two thousand and he's acquit i'm getting my dates right ultimately after the third trial on october twenty fourth two thousand and thirteen and so is it your position that from october first two thousand through an not until october twenty fourth twenty thirteen is he exonerated in other words i mean there are periods of time there's the end of the first trial it's a technical problem the indiana court of appeal he's just in one big monkey period of custody from october first two thousand and two october twenty fourth twenty thirteen yes this was all the continuity or the continuous prosecution in other books versus ross the circuit makes clear that one thousand nine hundred three and brady claims are most analogous to what the prosecution claims which is what we brought our claim here on the fourth amendment because the state of indiana doesn't have an adequate state law remedy because their community issues during this period of time whether it was actually in the local jail the department of corrections or at home could incarceration for a period of time he wasn't released until he was acquitted so whether it's a fourth a amendment claims and those attached to our challenge to the custody and he he was out of custody for some period of time but you just said he was on house arrest i did not see that in there that was that was my nine two thousand and five and so the factual question i would say is what are the conditions frequently if you're out on bail you're not just a free person you you know maybe you're confined to your house maybe it's like being on probation or something else so that the those are the only days that i can find in this record between october first two thousand and october twenty fourth when he's not actually physically incarcerated but he does seem to be under a restricted status i don't have the answer to that specific factual question i will try to find it for my rebuttal time ok as to what restrictions he was undergoing that period joliet you know even though you've been arraigned if you're still continued in custody without probable cause there is a claim that can be stated obviously you know further proceedings which would happen on that claim but that's that's the theory and and there is also we are going to really quite had to consider this but there's a legal question from our earlier cases that we're looking through the malicious prosecution l s about what takes to have your your claim of crew you know when you finally freed up to check against humphrey barr because there are on innocence grounds or was it on some other grounds that there's a line of cases that also require that investigation but anyway in his case i understand your argument that none of these three point independent malicious prosecution claim here you have a fourth amendment claim for the lack of probable cause for his detention and then you have your break claims that's correct and i thought that the malicious prosecution claim under grady obviously statements of witnesses physical evidence that conflicts with witnesses and evidence that could allow for impeachment falls under brady into brady material that the initial the initial prosecutor gave him the scientific method that demands counsel deliberately for challenging his qualifications because he thought he was quote and it and the jury would see that that was his testimony he he did take his deposition he did not do any type of government challenge of him he wanted the jury to see him for who was now but was he was counsel aware of his lack of qualifications that's the material point for brady purposes if he was not and that didn't come out until many years later so you're saying his strategic decision not to challenge the state's voice not being informed decision because he didn't know what he needed to know background that is correct he thought that his opinion was preposterous but he had the initial assumption that he had the credentials the training and the expertise to do what he did i cannot recall specifically in the deposition but if you recall the testimony from the first trial now i know that not just when a deposition that would normally come up right and so i'm just wondering if take light at the deposition as well as at trial or whether he was able to three trials most of them were deposed before each trial and then in the civil case when i got to take discovery of this for the most and most instances it was the seventh time he went under oath so i can't remember factored into his decision not to challenge the status quo dentures in front of the jury and you don't really have a great night if you knew right and i know that he did not know from talking to him to talking to the first also testified about the other issues with evidence that was supposed to be run under the code a system that was those were the two issues the d n a yeah the d n a with the unknown male and immediately after this that's another unexplained the cell another eyes closing to the evidence that existed in this case well i'm going to alert you mr adams that if you want to save a little rebuttal time your parents that post using all of your times the other brady evidence is the curious information and we've got four different stories from stan faith over time as to whether or not he did run it didn't run it long before the camp prosecution and its mission the last brady issue is that spalding who was one of the blood spatter analysts that actually had a scientific background that was hired by the prosecution never testified in the first trial because prior to getting there he reversed his prior opinion and said that he could not rule out transfer that was something that faith never provided that information to m support david camm's fourth amendment claims are foreclosed by the simple fact that there was spar more than probable cause to believe he murdered his wife and two children the conclusions of the fact finders in his criminal proceedings are instructive but you know why are they instructive if they are built on a on a foundation of sand so to speak then i don't know the daughter's body the wet mop in the cleaning and the fact that he had had affairs with other women and i don't see anything that points to any individual about those middle to about the interests of the daughter's body it could be anyone and there's nothing there's no d n a that says you know i just find it completely inconclusive the wet mop gets kind of contribute to the probable cause for the arrest when anglicans never looked at the shirt oh i definitely your honor yes because me because engler listens to the description of what the blood looks like and he renders an opinion as to over the though she doesn't you're absolutely correct that we consider whether probable cause existed at the time the affidavit was filed but i do think that it is instructive to see that there were other experts who saw the same death seven or seven thirty so another one that it's not a neighbor heard the sound he would have had to have gotten back from the basketball game awfully quickly and committed the deed and had and called the police all within the space about three minutes i think it's the time i don't really check  out well and the split away from the basketball theory basketball game theory is even stranger because that involves getting home committing your three murders perhaps changing it's close enough no one says he goes back to the basketball game with blood on him self i don't know i mean your honor i asked worker i don't think it i don't think it's at all plausible to say that the escape from the basketball game theory is so ridiculous that it destroys probable cause when two juries unanimously bought that theory beyond your case that were tainted by the evidence that the indiana court of appeals said never should have been there for  assessment on the jury's part that's what they're told to do and if they are influenced by things that the indiana court of appeals thinks are serious enough haps to require a new trial indiana follows harmless error rules made were not harmless but it is i think worthwhile to note however that the indiana supreme court rejected a sufficiency of the evidence and it explicitly held that there was sufficient evidence not merely for probable cause i  it and i think that's actually quite pertinent to the timeliness of this because if he's in custody the whole time we may conclude then he has never received until round three he of the trial sort of all together as one or whether he has reached brady claims or brady claim related to the first trial related to the second trial related to the third trial and i think the answer to both of those questions and in this court's recent opinion johnson versus winstead but you know johnson didn't pass for it the kind of claim that you are raising the first trial in johnson was a trial  on a different type of ground and you know we made clear there that the heck rules did apply in that case to the last trial but it depends on the theory being advanced claim within two years of nov sixteenth two thousand and four for his first trial but of course by that time he's in the midst of he's already been convicted now in the second trial if he really has a break in detention i think that's a different matter if he's actually out and then he gets reinvited on some other theory i would see this quite differently but but one of the concerns about hackers not a different procedural morass your honor those concerns equally apply to the decision and johnson versus once did their work because there were two there were two miranda claim some some random file a fourth amendment lawful detention claim which just keeps on going until you're not on lawfully detained and here i think it's worthwhile that it's possible to understand there to be separate claims because where the police are interrogating somebody in violation of their miranda rights is a closed event it happens on one day one afternoon and then it's done which is why it makes sense to say and now you need to raise your client which we did in johnson this convo awful detention situation strikes me as different with two things your honor first of all i think there is a very strong connection between a miranda claim and a brady claim both relates to the validity of the conviction and both require the nine hundred eighty three plaintiffs to show that absent a constitutional violation that they were prejudiced but both require federal jury federal civil jury in a ninety three case to conclude that the first probable cause affidavit did not establish probable cause and that is not inconsistent with a state criminal jury in the second criminal trial looking at different evidence to conclude and actually that is correct and actually that would that would be correct in the standard for expertise and in the end as relatively well does he get out of it's really low because actually i don't know if you look at the national academy of sciences report two thousand and nine on the use of scientific evidence in courts but what's better evidence is not highly regarded by that rather distinguished and disinterested group but it is still accepted in indiana i understand city the way that blood cells function or respond to various stresses to see you know anything about that at the time well your honor i think you're pointing out the proper remedy for all of this that there were issues with mr si conversation earlier about a potential pretrial deposition can you let us know whether there was a great trial deposition of mr starts before the first murder trial i do not know your honor so you don't know states and this is a criminal case so it may not be following the usual pattern that we see in civil litigation but if there had been it would be quite interesting to know whether he's asked about his credentials whether he honest about those true credentials in that deposition or whether he follows the pattern that he took at the trial if there's no deposition at all then we have a different situation don't we yes your honor but as judge bear pointed out the answer was we don't know or you know that he testified under oath that he did not know about the qualifications for the trial and we don't have any information about there was any pretrial preparation that would have revealed know what we do know is a deposition was there and he lied as he says i'm getting a graduate degree from portland state university and i've done this kind of work for years and mr camp's counsel says well you know i to to announce your if if you are unable to be careful start i mean something where you're going with this and it sounds like a pretty outrageous position that you're about to take one myself in the position i'm going to take your honors that a witness is not required to go out and say oh here all the reasons why you shouldn't believe me there is no law that he's acting as an agent  being concealed by your client and by the prosecutor and by the investigators in your honor there's no evidence that the that mr camp's counsel believed mr sides and in fact  today as to what mr engler has done to violate mr came fourth amendment or sixth amendment rights there is no evidence in this case the fourth amendment right that i understand to have been asserted by mr pm has been one of understand this court's decisions from the fields case which discusses what constitutes fabricated or for all false testimony is testimony that is both actually false and known to be false and there hasn't been any personally inspect all of the evidence and then render going to opinion based on his own review of all the evidence that occurred both in january and august of two thousand and one so there is no evidence that mr eng intentionally fabricated or provided any of the false testimony from a brady perspective there's also no evidence that my clients failed to disclose they were intentionally filtered disclose any form of  giving other people more time i will give you four m academic records they knew he wasn't professor they knew portman's they did not have those degrees in the hadn't taken any courses the only science course he ever took he actually got it a failing grade on and do we know whether his boss  s aware of the claims that he was making about his cough occasions at the first and second trial he did not admit to that in his deposition but this is a and individual who roberts dykes father was  best friend they had known each other for years they had known each other as family that's why mr sikes went to work for mr england during that entire period of time there working together he would have known whether or not he was taking courses max implying eroni asli implying that they did run the tests and there was no match instead of just frankly saying we didn't get around to running it is that what happened that's what happened that's what the evidence mr mcdaniel the original defense attorney right there might be maybe that that was a lie or a fabrication and you know the district court said well the prosecution didn't have either nobody had this evidence which i think is going to get into this point what did you want them to disclose they they did have the d n a profile  and the prosecution was the only entity that had the coda system available to them they should have had that's one state monopoly so to speak it was not something defense counsel could go off and do on his own that is correct he had to rely on the state they gave the cellmark d n a profile over to the prosecutor's office and said there is an unknown man an unknown female d n a on this please run this ran it knew it was bonnie and didn't disclose it and i thought your complaint was they didn't run it didn't bother about it and then lied and said they had there were no match we don't know what they did we only know what they told us we know that when charles boney was arrested he but he testified that he wasn't aware that he could run the nickname through the database at that time and once again mr mcdaniel the original defense attorney said no you don't like prison issue could you run that nickname to the database