please the court your honors my me ms mike richards i represent the city of ames iowa and its a lease officers are in appeal from the southern district of viola on the denial of a motion for summary judgment on probable cause for an arrest and qualified immunity and or qualified immunity for an arrest the case involves in assault that occurred and battery of mr ray it's subsequent to the arrest based on the expulsion tory evidence that was provided by my client of the city of ames police department to the prosecutor reconsider erred in a variety of ways in the opinions and i'd think that those errors are adequately addressed in the brief for the most part in particular the court failed to evaluate the facts from the perspective of the arresting officers failed to look at the totality of the circumstances as opposed to individual facts and then finally failed completely to do the  nd step of the required analysis for qualified immunity evaluations and that the court utterly failed to evaluate whether there was arguable probable cause for the  arrest but what i'd like to do today your honour's is focus on some facts that the court did find to be uncontested because i believe that instead of having to remain in this case for the court to correctly do the qualified immunity analysis there are undisputed facts cited by the district court judge that this court can find probable cause or arguable probable cause sufficient to  find in the favor of ames and its police officers the following facts are uncontested mr grace called the police called nine hundred and eleven and said he was assaulted by two or three african american males and two african american females he was hit over the head in his apartment complex with a bottle in them and they stole so his property and police department responded to the scene on their way shia as she was arriving at the apartment complex and she saw going to be shia with the point of john garang so officer macpherson goes into the lobby of the apartment complex starts questioning mr b she at about about this this crime that occurred mr garang while she's questioned in mr b she comes back to the lobby he picks his head around through a door in a in a stairwell and is very interested in the interaction that the police had with mr b s yet the identified the central suspect so officer macpherson after those in the eyes of officer macpherson that was crime number one that evening because his name was not john garang he provided false information to a uniformed police officer false identification she starts to run his name in the dispatch and she says to mr garang stay here you did not stay there he attempted to leave the attempted to go up the stairwell and leave the location where she asked him to stay from those those points that these things that you say were were crimes and although the failure to give the is correct nobody does it make a difference if the name that was given is the name that this person normally used commonly used nickname in other words that's a good question judge sheppard and the plaintiff that mr garang argue that i think the answer is no because in a probable cause analysis in for a coffee and unity analysis you're looking at it from the perspective of the officer you're not looking at it from from from the plaintiff's perspective so all the officer knows at that time is that is that he gave a false name and to suggest that the that the plaintiff suggest mr garang suggests that they should have known that that that was the nickname but you know that that's that's that's like saying that the officer should have assumed that he couldn't have had a westernised name like john so again from the officers perspective i don't think that matters ok now and then nd question i don't understand the to the officer and that leads me to ask this question does all of the us these things that given that given a false name no return on the two i think the answer to that question is both i think that it does because this court has indicated in so many different opinions that it's the totality of the circumstances that you have to look at in the situation is that because the sum total of the parts is much greater than the individual identifiers so the fact that he gave a false name and then tried to flee and then she had to order him back and you give her real name yes he did eventually give his real name to her but it doesn't change the fact that he initially gave them a false name and attempted to leave and then the final fact your honour's that i think needs to be considered and is important is that they're after mr graves came down to the lobby the individual that was assaulted and heat he spoke to the police and you can see on the video this is uncontested he points to all three individuals that are now being questioned points to mr k before we get done we're going to have to figure out you know what does that video actually show but you had you would describe the video fairly use showing him pointing to the three individuals because the those sort of the  briefing characteristics are that they're not really identified by name and that you know there's some question of whether one conversation took place or two conversations took place and then like i said not having had the ability to see the video i'm just trying to figure out does the video you say it shows him pointing directly at all three of you identify the two yes and i well you know if in these circumstances when you have a positive someone to come and it's a quick identification but he did do it now you did mention a prior time that he was in the lobby grapes and that is accurate he actually came down to the lobby once prior to that to when garang was not in the obstructing justice that doesn't matter in the probable cause analysis or in the qualified immunity analysis because an arrest is lawful if an officer had probable cause to arrest for any offense not just the offense cited  time of the arrest or book in which cited the case law in our briefs that talks about of giving a false name right there it's just obstructing justice trying to get away that is sufficient from a probable cause standpoint so i believe even if the court finds that the final fact is not conclusively established that that you can still find in our favor i would suggest however that i do believe if you look at the testimony closely it is conclusively established i agree that mr graves testified that he didn't remember identifying that we cite but it was six hundred days later when his deposition was taken and he had been hit over the head with a bottle so it wasn't that night specifically states that that the garang kangen vichy act were identified by the by mr graves so i think the totality of the circumstances support our position and well mr garang was questioned about it in his deposition he said i couldn't hear him ultimately when he was trying to resist the motion for summary judgment he produced a self serving affidavit that said they didn't identify me but it directly conflicted with his unambiguous deposition testimony and i think the court under the case law that we saw that we cited can disregard that i see that i've got a minute thirty left in  that at any time that there was notice given to police that there was one to two white people that may have been involved in the assault and that wasn't fact the purpose for the inclusion of the throughout all of the discovery at no time in any of the officers make any effort to question one white person or in the lobby or otherwise just didn't do it excuses given to me  deposition include they didn't have enough manpower and so forth so next uncontested fact is the person that gave this tip that goni was a suspect didn't exactly say that they said they heard something in an elevator and in the elevator at the time was somebody recognizes there was no other information other than the fact that  only individual was in a elevator with some people that were saying some incriminating things not that he was with them not that he said anything that's the extent of it next the  claim that goni was with gray when the police arrived is not true he was outside in the ranks on him went to the front door pushed it open because that's one of the doors that has to be open inside at this place called our great a college apartment complex so it's busy the lobbies in and out in and out and how kids and you'll see on the video dozens of kids coming and going through that lobby relevant time only three blacks by the way were in the lobby at any time those were the three that were arrested one that turned out to be guilty the other two released from custody with respect to john rank he denies that he was ever told to stay there and he was never advised why there was any investigation going on and when he was standing in the doorway you simply stepped outside go back to his apartment and at that point in time the officer said stay here and he cooperated fully so we have a dispute about that alleged crime and the officer herself in the deposition cannot say for sure that when she told her rank to stay there let's respect the false information  john graham has used john garang since he can remember that's his name and he gave his correct birth date when asked about the problem with the computer coming back he immediately said oh oh maybe it's under my name that was given to me in lebanon where i was born and and offered up that name without any problem at all my point is he to give a false name to someone you have to have intent to mislead and and to give a false name and interesting leak or throughout their process including the deposition there was probable cause or arsenal probable cause and the fact that the officer later learned that this was an alias d or eight how does it just initial probable cause determination the officer made on well i don't think it has anything to do with it i think that they were holding him because it was three black people involved in a assault and they had three black people and they were wondering what to do and and this went on for quite a long time until the sergeant arrived and went up stairs brought the victim down again and then the arrests were made but i don't think that anything with the name arrested for giving an officer and rob carver i would have a problem with that i call him michael richards mike all the time that's what he goes by that's what he writes me emails says mike richards it's not his name saying saying john in the rain when that's the name that he goes by is not an intentional act on his part to try to mislead the officers with a false name just  and never been introduced to him talk to him as anything other than john garang i just don't think that rises to the level of an intentional or interference with a police act occasion a so person as a perpetrator in the presence of investigating law enforcement officers ok if it was a normal identification and it was face to face if you as you've said that is just not true every case looks at claxon detail and in this case one of the holds his finger out and points to a person and red that's probably twenty three feet from him that turns up saying points to the person and white across the range as across the lobby at that time with macpherson at no time to see point to him and he is not identified simply didn't happen that's why when the sergeant not there  and had a short conversation with one of the officers he went up and got the victim and brought him back down and that's the id that they're talking about and it is not on camera and it's and you don't see him winning it all at the at the rain across the room if he pointed it's not on video because he was kept over by the elevators some distance from the officers i said that that wasn't that enough officer macpherson who was with him testified that she could not identify the victim by a picture because the victim was over by the area where we're talking about was too far away for her to have any possibility to recognize facial features so macpherson or so said the distance is too far that she couldn't identify him deposition a photograph of the victim so the distance is too far but more importantly we know that while it grazed the victim at one ice flow and almost completely closed been knocked in the head to the floor with the bottle was recommended by the officers that he go to the hospital was intoxicated has been drinking all night had been smoking marijuana and was simply not able to make any sort of decision or identification nor did he even know who it was that beat him up other than a black eye and red and black eye and white so i think that credibility of one eye witness that's all there is here misconstrued what happened there including stating that rang had property with him stolen property he had nothing that he was in the vicinity of the crime no he was in the lobby of the place where he lived he was having a birthday party and as you stated in his affidavit he was in the lobby to let some party go to come in through the locked door and he had blood on the shirt that wasn't true so there's a just a number of things that happened that are contrary to what is alleged so the only thing they're relying on that they could rely upon is the fact that this victim way across the room was unreliable can't remember doing anything said yeah th guys did it so i think this is a question of fact for the jury to determine moreover on the th two days afterwards the apartment manager calls and says i have the video that shows the hallway of where were for where this attack took place i know these people i'm the manager and i can tell you john garang was not in that apartment he was never in there it couldn't have done it so it's the same as an alibi garang is on the other side of the state when this happens and yet they continue to hold him in jail for another sixteen days while they serve a search warrant on his apartment eventually then letting him that he met with the detective on a regular basis and relied upon the detectives information and recommendations with a celebrity who made the decision well decisions are always made of course by the prosecuting lawyers the cops can't decide whether or not they're going to go forward with criminal cases but the case law doesn't say that the cops are off the hook the  of testimony used to get the trial information that says it's summer feature this earth and manager will testify that john garang assaulted wyatt graves that's just not true well she said just the opposite just the opposite she gave them a video that says and rang wasn't even in the apartment and yet that's proved and it's faults in the case law says one that when you use false information in these reports case craft case where the videotape shows that the defendant is not involved and yet those cases same thing they just help them and in this case hip and continues to say that he knows that somehow brain is involved well the only involvement was he was seen in the hallway and back and forth with the people that were the bad actors so don't by association it was used to hold him in jail and then no evidence was found and he was released that's what happened to mr grey i can also thank you very much for your argument mr richards you have a little bit of time left me personally your honors i want to address a few of the comments that were made with respect to what happened after he was arrested that has nothing to do with whether or not there was probable cause for the arrest or arguable probable cause for the arrest i do want to clarify the record though we were the yes we did receive the video evidence two days afterwards immediately provided it to the prosecutor in the e mail that mr garver includes in the appendix it says he's not in the room when the assault occurred we provided that information as soon as we as soon as we have it with but but it doesn't matter all of that stuff in all of the argument that the plaintiff has continued to make mr grant has continued to make in this case is monday morning quarterbacking looking back and that's not the standard when you're making an arrest because a police officer can't be required to try a mini case on the sea they have to look at the information that's before him and they have to make a determination if there's probable cause if there is probable cause the arrest  fine if there isn't probable cause it's still fine if there is arguable probable cause and the totality of the facts in this case clearly establish your honour's that there is at least arguable probable cause and one final comment that there was a discreet about some of the facts that that that i said were undisputed but if you look at the court's summary judgment order in the court's motion to reconsider order the facts that i cite are contained in those mr garber may take issue with them but that's what the court found so i preach it your time your honors today and unless you have any other questions i see that my time has expired