honor and may it please the court this case calls for the straightforward application of consistent precedents from this quarter and from the supreme court on the clearly established prodding of the qualified immunity and kori that president of course requires either controlling authority or a robust consensus of persuasive authority particularized to the facts of the case demonstrating that the allegations constitute a constitutional violation the district court here did not cite any substantive authority in its opinion much less authority particularize to this case nor have happily use it or either in this court or in the district court and the absence of that authority is indicative of how appropriate qualified immunity is in this case the doctrine provides state actors here police officers the ability to effectively respond and react to unique circumstances that arise in the line of duty here to specific circumstances remove this case from anything remotely particularized to relevant case law st there is no allegation that either officer ever interacted with either absolutely yet it is asserted that the officers individually improperly seized seized them and violated their rights nd appleby's were high school students under the supervision of high school personnel attending a football camp at the university at the time of this incident the relevant albeit d factually dissimilar case law that does exist supports the officers actions here not only does that fact demonstrate that the violation alleged cannot be clearly established and also shows that if this court elects to analyze the other problems of the qualified immunity analysis the allegations do not plead a constitutional violation the part me your st point didn't the officers didn't interact as i understand the allegations of the complaint and appellants position is that the high school coach was acting under the direction and control of the officers and he was an essence their agent into the to the to the point and he they were even consulting with he the coach was consulting with the officers during the interrogation does it make that much difference if they didn't have to face to face contact if they were directed into coaching how to do it what to do when to do it and so on so i thought i'd appreciate the question malloy and i i think we start from the premise that whether there is any case discussing that sort of circumstance where where whether or not someone can be seized and agent that is directed by other officers and i don't think there's any case law establishing that circumstance of course we have to take all of the allegations in the complaint is true and we certainly do so but i don't think that i think it does say that they were that they directed them to question the individuals i think that some of the allegations that are used that they were under their quote unquote control order on legal conclusions as opposed to factual allegations so i think that's another factor that this court has to consider when well making that are you sure there's even an allegation of control i believe  that the phrasing that is used in the complaint is consistent with the instructions so that's another question i have maybe from is winning and a lot of things can be consistent with without compelling but even if we accepted it were instructed by the police is there a plausible allegation that they were the coach was you know do i don't believe that that that allegation is in the complaint your honor and i also think this is probably an appropriate time to raise as well that the role of them as high school students being questioned by a high school supervisor is significant in this respect as well of course the supreme court recognized and t l o that there is a different constitutional standard that applies when that is the circumstance and certainly here appleby's do contest that this is a different circumstance again because of the instructions that were given but in that circumstance the supreme court declined to announce what the push appropriate constitutional standard would be and in fact this court just last year in k w p analyzed this issue and similarly declined to weigh in on circuits that that's correct your honor and i just i grabbed because i want to make sure i clear i correctly articulate the task t l o is that you consider whether the action was justified that its inception and whether the search was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances and so so yes that at it bare minimum that's the test that would apply and here if you look at these circumstances you had a report d from a female cheerleading coach that was staying in an adjacent dormitory that she saw individuals her while she was changing clothes she said that she saw a phone that may have been used to take pictures when confronted with that set of facts it's simply it's simply impossible that the constitutional standard is that the officer should have evaluated that and done nothing here they instructed a football coach to enquire as to what happened and whether a picture was taken and i don't think under any constitutional standard be it the one that was announced and t l o or the heightened standard of objective reasonable ness from graham versus conner which would be the other alternative that that can constitute an reasonable action given the given the nature of the allegations that were reported to the police officers and their ability to react within the bounds of the law to those allegations but the allegation is a detention for a number of adult workers carex so it's not just simply following up as you've  allegation is that these young people were detained not permitted to leave until i don't know somebody admitted to doing something and they were forced to at least show what was on their their phone so that's more than just following up isn't when we knew they were not quote pre to leave and were quote detained i believe that those are legal determination and this court has articulated the framework as to whether someone is seized or not in united states versus flores and of all and in other cases discussing that that is an object of test and that and articulating the factors that that are to be used to determine whether a seizure has occurred or not it but it isn't it is there not a factual allegation i mean independent of sort of an official seizure not free to leave under some sort of forty and the law enforcement but do you not think that there is an allegation have just s factually they were told they couldn't go didn't they had to stay there and i think the allegation says that they were not free to leave that's the phrasing that is used and so i guess we question asked to be whether or not factually they were free to leave that's whatever the circumstances are that are alleged does that ultimately constitute a th amendment violation i guess is the point that i was trying to evade and if the allegations all taken as true freedom leave or not do not rise to the level of the th amendment violation then qualified immunity is most certainly appropriate  u were ordered to show you things from their phone or was it just that they were required rubio information about the allegation is that they were required they were requested to reveal information about what was on their cell phones i don't believe there is ever an allegation that any sort of a search of the phones themselves occurred so i believe that the only th amendment violation that is at issue is whether there was a seizure or not and and certainly our position that would be would be that unclear nature of the case law and what the constitutional standard is in the  place applying in this circumstance not to mention the fact that it was supposed to be done through and without any case law demonstrating that as even awesome all for purposes of a th amendment seizure makes this case fall into the category of those that are entitled to qualified immunity by virtue at least of the fact they're not clearly a stout i want to very briefly to the other two used in the statute and also the title of the statute makes clear that it applies only in circumstances where juveniles are arrested and taken into custody and the case l focuses solely on another comparison of the federal juvenile delinquency out and not on the constitution that if that is the case as well it's the same analysis that you would ask for the notification claim that you haven't a case that you think is in the neighborhood that says that a police officer is liable for instructing a school official to question and detaining some students either to yellow was referring to an investigation that was actually conducted by officers initiated in conducted by officers and other words the officers search or see it purely the officers initiating the investigation and using the school to conduct the investigation i was going to ask you about shade and to me it almost works the opposite the shade is a case where there was joint involvement of the school officials and law enforcement and admittedly the school  is unconstitutional seizure of the person is he correct as i read your complaint you don't seem to be alleging that there was a seizure their cell phones you're not alleging that is that phrased paragraph fifty eight of your complaint you say they revealed information so i'm i'm taking that to mean that they volunteered their phones and said look at my phone i don't have a picture so or something  going back to the she case so meaning from the sake of a question the t l o standard doesn't apply here would you concede that a reasonable official could have believed that the standard at least w initiated by law enforcement assuming that the t l o standard of clients would you agree that a reasonable official could have believed that there was sufficient grounds to conduct the investigation and i d good guess is what i'm trying to say officials investigating juveniles in missouri for a violation of missouri statute why does a federal statute apply even though it's a state official and the state asked yes and you have a case that says that you have to develop law enforcement officer would be on notice that they are subject to this you talk about two different federal statutes wonder says the attorney general of the united states has to be notified every time a juvenile is arrested anywhere in the united states as i understand your argument and i just cried just so you're saying any juvenile mister ralph we'll hear from you revile i think your honor i think the colloquy with both counsel today illustrates that it is a unique circumstance that we're dealing with and it is unclear what constitutional standard would apply and you know the law is not clearly established based on t l o alone it's the supreme court specifically said it was not addressing the question th this court just last year and kay w p said that there's a circuit split on what the appropriate constitutional standard is and declined to get itself involved in that circuit split at this point so the law is simply not clearly established but yes i believe that t l o would be the appropriate standard ok could you address whether reasonable officer could have believed that the actions here complying with the two yellow standard yes i believe they do and i think if you look at the sentence following the supreme court's announcement of what the two part test as the court said was that a under ordinary circumstances a search of a student by a teacher or other school official so again assuming that this would apply in a law enforcement context as well will be justified it is inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school and so i think if you look at the context that was applying there it's very apparent that based on the allegations that the police received in this circumstance that they reacted reasonably to that and the contention that the fact that this lasted for several hours is somehow in and of itself a constitutional violation i think is rebutted by the case law that we cited in our brief that show numerous examples of questioning by school officials for periods of hours that are held to not violate the constitution simply put there is no case law here to establish that it's clear that it was a clearly established violation and that should be the end of the matter all right your time is expired thank you for your argument thank you ms winning him we appreciate both counsel presenting their case is the case assume it in the court will file an opinion in