is that the officers essentially attacked him and then at one point in time they had him down they had me in his back i want to answer he had a choke hold on him and at that point in time he began to gasp and cry for help and it was the voice the doctor t intensive and the district court even acknowledged that in fact there are disputes of fact as to what it actually taken place the district court did go off on this consent issue that if in fact these officers had  that there was consent to enter the hotel room with the money carlo that indeed they had the right to prevent the doctor from entering his own room i would submit to the court that that it's not what happened it's not the testimony and its knowledge why the down to the credibility issue when the court was looking at this i would point out i don't think it's without a proper foundation the officer that's involved in this was convicted of armed robbery or robberies in the casinos down in las vegas jack the convicted felon he was turned he was deposed and then of out of prison system he is the officer who wrote the report and what's important in looking at the police report is what were they looking for they weren't looking for any type of explosives they were looking for what they called an archivist materials so you have a situation here where the where the concern were about ideas not about explosives not about dangers to the community other than perhaps having dangerous ideas that were not to mainstream the least from the stevens groups and ideas about the treatment of animals and all pamela because can you help me with the interplay between  an excessive force claims i understood the district court to be saying that consent was relevant in looking at the subjective understanding or belief of the officers posted outside the door as to whether or not they reasonably believed that can stand had been given and that they'd been ordered by their supervisor to prevent anybody from entering the room until the search could be conducted is there any dispute that is the basis and that's what that's his predicate argument is going is that what happened judge that's what i understand the district court to have been focusing upon what urgent said to the two men who were posted outside the door but if you  lying or they were told that in their superiors were lying prick if she's telling the truth if she's telling the truth and that's what's important in terms of summary judgment let's look at the credibility of the individuals and we don't we focused at this point on what the two officers outside the door believe in other words is there any dispute that sergeant shall boob or however you pronounce his name this cardinal told them consent had been given we're coming up don't let anybody because she said that she never said that to him but how would the two men at the door know that if what they had been told by their superior was we have consented we're don't let anybody in we're coming up to search the room because jerry blast constitutional right here has to be an unlawful entry into the room now now because there's no entry into the room there is no internet there were at that point but that is the it's an excessive force case judge and it's whether they have a right to not or we ha have a reasonable belief do you know mr potter that the consent had been given and that no one was to just serve the integrity of the room and tell the search was conducted and anybody who attempted to interfere with you what what are what is reasonable what is the facts specific situation here and you have us from going to standpoint of the two officers at the door correct ok but you can't you can't just and that's what the district court that he forgot  if someone walked in and said hey this is my room and they were shot dead on the spot that unarmed i mean i guess i'm not sure why the fact of consent if that is correct precludes a claim  in the first place the supreme court decisions extremely recent that just came out so clearly established law at the time would have been what the answers were which is that one spouse could in fact consent and hold that over someone else but more importantly the factual record was could get up and can perform their search how long were they standing there i believe the record of the case they had been there just a few minutes before he started coming up to the door they were going to perform search and they would secure the room until the office was right and they were going to come up with mrs alas they didn't mention then because with the individual going to the room they would come up as a group and was there any indication that they ever brought her up yes at what time do they bring her  week's testimony both are consistent with the fact that one he was told before he made the move to the door that he was not not allowed to go in to that he said it's my room i'm going and then he pushed past the obvious to put his dork in the door the but we have testimony that at that time we believe his evidence they have not identified themselves as police officers that is to say if that's true that they've not identified themselves as police officers they're supposed to judge his reaction based upon well some private whatever it is hotel security person or some other person some man police officer has told them you know it may well be a lawful order from a policeman but he doesn't know that and they're supposed to i've got to take it his way what he says is he didn't hear them identify themselves police officers he doesn't say they never identified themselves and they also had to listen to take the premises that i think we have to take that he does not know that they are police officers dr glass admits he resisted it mystery and he kept trying to get away from these people to try and get to the door and from their standpoint then i trying to get in the door and all the testimony goes that he put his key card in the door and at that point that's when i get  is they were trying to be involved with undercover work they had been involved outside of the hotel with totally unrelated people but also it's important as dr lastic testified he thought these were thoughtless and dr greek justified that he in fact went in the room to call the police and one of the concerns he has is the operators would let him go out of the hotel and went directly back to security they didn't go out to the police and i would just make those actual representations thanks we appreciate the arguments