sandy police department have had a policy of not intervening when if all that had not been disability that policy that discriminatory policy that is kind of the crunch o ok i'm getting a tremendous amount of echo i hope you're not can i ask you in terms of the services that you say we're not provided your client on the january do you contend that those services also include the them ok that's what i'm wondering about so the statute says the statute is triggered it says when a peace officer responds to an incident of domestic disturbance did that occur on  domestic disturbance was reported and the other part of it is not only that domestic abuse occurred in someone was in fear imminent harm to their to their selves are yes no no i understand that i'm emotive as a reason not to enforce the statutes and it would be the same in the army had a policy not to protect victims of domestic violence because they were black or other minorit think you might be right with respect to the failure to a rush to on the january date but not as to the failure to assist in retrieving the gun because as i understand it from your allegations that the officer didn't  not show up that night out of some discriminatory it was rather that he was tied up on some other call and just could not get free in time to to make it to the house is am i wrong in my understanding of what you of two thousand and fifteen and then again in january of two thousand and sixteen and frankly i think the november allegations are not relevant to the points that we're talking about because whatever hole there would have been or arrests and take the rest requires you to be present so i think by virtue of ellen stating in the statute responding and thereby responding by arrests it entails necessarily that he be there in person do you have any legal authority to to support that intuition on your part i don't have anything in front of me on that point but i think that's one incidental thing to look at i think further  aside the constitutional claim and focus on the eighty eight claim if we can prevent it ok because because there if you can respond to mr post argument look what the statute requires is intentional discrimination doesn't require deliberate indifference delivered a difference of just one kind of watered down version of what would amount to intentional intentional discrimination that can be used to satisfy that statutory requirement here he has alleged that the city actually had a policy that on its face was discriminatory so it seems to me he's right that that you know of itself constitutes intentional discrimination there's no ambiguity in terms of what the motive was according to the allegation her complain that the city had a policy of not physically intervening and here i would focus on the arrest part of that you know we're not going to get involved when somebody has a disability it seems to me that's just facially discriminatory and so there's of the sanford police department not to get involved when dealing with mentally ill individuals there's nothing conclusory about that it's stated as a direct conversation that she had with the officer and has explained to her what the policy of the city supreme court case it gives an individual citizen a right to have another private citizen arrested under certain circumstances and i think that's her strongest claim here is that that state law  personal right to have officer hodges take her husband into custody when she made that nine hundred and eleven call and it's understood that he did not do that and he didn't do that according to his own statement cording to the allegation complaint he didn't do that because the city had a policy that was discriminatory on the same so i focus on that point forget about the failure to the gun i grant you that that's a little bit more ambiguous but the focus of the failure to arrest in response to her nine hundred and eleven call begging the officer to not interpret the circumstances here interpreted the application to in connection with a violation of a restraining order which is a different circumstance and it further didn't address yeah yeah but that case that case that you're the officer has probable cause but i don't think on the allegations of the complaint there could be any dispute that officer hodges must definitely have probable cause because she told him that he threatened to kill me that's exactly the circumstance that the statute says like state law does not in determine entitlement under either the due process clause or under federal statutory right well you know supreme court the u s supreme court does not get to tell oregon question and that is going to be dependent upon a service that state law gave the plaintiff a right to to obtain and i just don't see any way around the use that in oregon at least she had the right to have her husband arrested provided that there was probable cause that you know a certain type of threat was made and she's alleged that that that information was communicated to the officer the castle rock caves specifically says that regardless of what the state statute not only on the word probable cause but under the factors in the subsection c i think it is in the statute that permits the discretion and therefore is not a mandatory matter and it falls within the ca rs are entitled to discretion with regard to whether to arrest and that was accepted and observed by the supreme court in the castle rock case so i guess it's ok we can agree to disagree on that point and i will move on  standard and it requires more than negligence or cars or culpable mental state recognize an unreasonable risk and actually intending to expose the point of to the risk without regard to the consequences here while in the st instance in november  there's some mention of risk to mr dunlap in the january there is virtually no indication that it was ever communicated to the officer that mr dunlap was at risk for suicide recall that's the so these all these statutes are related to domestic violence but mrs dunlap is relying on and it's for the protection of the family members in this case the problem or and so we also think based on the allegations of the complaint which is what we're looking at here that there is not a deliberate they did not allege how the city was deliberately and different because he did not know that mr was at risk for suicide again the allegations are related to hurting other people not related to hurting him doesn't allege anywhere as just require pointed out what percentage or all right she was trying to get she talks about her substantive claim but is labeled a procedural due process claim and she did not adequately allege they came back and were unable to allege any more than the selection here so we think they don't have any of the claims alleged here if they do we are all certainly ask that you affirm on the claims that you are not established on the face of the complaint and