one hundred percent certain but i think the major points were that were raised in the council's argument first of all the reference was made to the police report and that the argument was made that nor could there be any evidence in the record to establish that this was any sort of fabrication and today steps that insinuation is directed at me i in this report there is no reference to a breach of peace ok it says paperwork this period between vehicle owner and repose repo produce prepossessed order paperwork one twenty seven which was the officer number if i feel all alone or civil matter no reference whatsoever to preach or peace so this was not a fabricated first reply sort of situation and he said no how many of you had four would you describe how those were resolved and in resolving those not do so you could you could have fifteen repossessions and i don't think it was necessarily by the pub level of policy because they could be under the exact the only evidence is regarding this particular repossession and most importantly even though there are some differences and i'm going to point out to you that those differences are immaterial between the company to facilitate this repossession this took place at one in the morning the report man showed up at this residence at one in the morning to take that car things first of all to charge this police officer with knowledge of the uniform commercial code and constitutional law above you know the most basics i think is is too much to expect of a village police officer and the standard under qualified immunity which we're relying upon is whether the  was violating clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable per person would know it well if your honor leaves a village police officer should have that knowledge of the showed up to tear that mobile home off of its foundation and told it to another lock and the particular holding in that case and that was a very difficult opinion to read even for you know an attorney this practice for a number of years basically the u s to work in down so that was a seizure under the fourth amendment even though the owners privacy was not involved in that case the police officers actually a company in the mobile home owners mobile home lot owners to the get  that he was there to prevent interference with the picture much different case much different facts here we were called later to the scene to basically avoided these people shooting each other or getting into physical violence to avoid a preacher peace which is exactly what what he did so i don't think that case and this is one of the morning in april and you can imagine him coming to that situation in that residence in a suburb of springfield and the good officer and officer of the stablish police force not a village police officer maybe debility chatty but his standard would be the same as if he was pete patrol officer in peoria or or  the best thing that anybody could do for the quality of life in the community but that isn't the standard the question is if you go one step too far in trying to be a good ke for what he did in good faith as a reasonable police officer here but he's chatting mr pacman it seems to me that you're saying he acted reasonably and that's how you look at it to me that's  really quite where we are look at to me it would be interesting to see how officers are trained when they go through the policing with respect to reports that some other words during the training it based on the are violating their constitutional rights if taken as true and really what we have here and you can see by the given take it seems to me there's a disputed fact about what actually happened at the scene and