judge or hearsay statements contained in a document filed in state court proceedings let me ask you this mr flaxman there is this document filed in the state court and indeed it comes before county circuit abuse corpus hearing where judge nice repeats yeah i still think there's probable cause here so we don't just have a document we have something on which the state court relied and i just wonder if it's your position that any time anyone would like to challenge their detention in a let's say a state court that it's impossible to use rule twelve six because all they have to do is allege you know i was detained without probable cause and that we would have to accept that is true and that we couldn't rely on the state court's order so finding that would be troublesome to me if that's fourth amendment requires an oath or affirmation this document before you that state probable cause statement has a box where lose a notary to sign some strike and sworn to before me that's not done in this are not entitled to place any weight at all on the fact that the state court not once but twice found probable cause to finds it in the haiti is hearing where there is testimony finds pm you just did what the district judge did so well it's in the statement which ever in the complaint we must reject or so find have had to have it two pm it's four fifteen pm on on the friday that the state judge which correct ok but what we have in the we had the district judge saying well whatever the judge thinks the officer broke in the probable unsworn probable cause statement trunk whatever is alleged in the complaint that's not the way this court has traditionally done counsel i i would phrase my colleagues question just a little different let's suppose the state judge made a mistake either procedurally or substantively your theory seems to be that when a state judge makes a mistake the officers have to pay damages the state judge doesn't have to pay damages because they are traditional community but the officers have to pay are no spacy in thinking that there was probable cause there is immunity you know we have a state judge who found there was probable cause at least twice i appreciate your argument that the state  carrying on if you want address my question in the way as well your question assumes you back and you can answer questions that you wish i had asked but i wish you'd answer the question that i took to the problem your honor is asking a  instead of the question you did i am thrilled to this is over thank you i think that if the court is going to say based on papers prepared two days after to show a judge at this probable cause two days before a rule twelve p six motion we're really changing rule twelve b six and we should not be doing that we should be following the established an ordinary little  documents that are not attached to the complaint which contradict the express allegations of the complaint i think that if this case went to trial the jury would believe that the officers arrested miss you'll back on until like an hour and a half if you got to the police station she said i don't want to talk to they then waited another two days forty more than forty eight hours before they asked the judge to say to probable cause what's significant about the record that we have is there's no minimalist there's no happiest there's no water from the judge saying hold this woman in custody there's just  what if she what if it's the police officers fault what did the police officer pay just the judge took fifteen minutes longer but he should have taken to review the documents the facts of this case about the officers didn't fill out the document until more than forty until fifty hours after they had arrested miss you'll and it's their fault not the judge's fault that there wasn't any kind of the terminations within forty eight hours we also believe that in any criminal wrongdoing one paragraph says she was with her sister on friday november first when they bought new shower curtains another paragraph says on sunday november third miss you will and her stuffed on after machine will had been arrested at the time they did the search warrant they did know that mr hanssen was dead they didn't know how he died they really did not have probable cause assuming that everything is in this is correct th this there was probable cause to hold the she will but even if there was probable cause to hold their why is the court willing to say it's ok to hold somebody without charge while you try to build a case against her good morning me please the court renzi batar for detective ledger and will what the plaintiff's are doing here should be troublesome to this court they acknowledged before the district court page twenty two of the district court's decision this is not a misconduct or fabrication type case this is soley a was there a probable cause of false arrest type case and also their forty eight hour claim so this case has nothing to do with alleged fabrication or alleged misconduct and all those kinds of cases that may be cited or talked about should be thrown out the window and what they're doing here is troublesome because the complaint is an outright fabrication itself when they filed this federal civil rights lawsuit the probable cause affidavit was sealed so they walked into federal court knowing that she could be charged with with a serious serious crime and made very conclusory allegations that there is no probable cause despite the district court despite the trial of the criminal trial judge judge and us twice finding that there was probable cause and this court takes a very expansive view of what can be introduced on a motion to dismiss in certain circumstances in the interests of economy the seventh circuit did it in a case called williamson several years a fourth amendment false arrest case where the court affirmed dismissal on a motion to dismiss finding that it was appropriate under the the facts and pursuit procedural background of the case to take into consideration doesn't have to be taken is true and whatever plausibility means of action have been able to figure out that you know it just needs to be plausible so you have allegations here defendant ledgers paragraph twenty four intentionally excluded from his probable cause statement of fact known to him that defendant tony would not file a criminal complaint against plaintiffs without additional information what do you say about that what we looked at the williamson case before we filed this motion to dismiss in that case strongly suggested that the way they played this complaint with so many conclusory assured assertions that it would be appropriate to introduce the probable cause statement showing that it was a completely be did not contain sufficient facts to warrant a reasonable belief that plaintiff it committed offense that's the kind of incorporation of the probable cause statement that allows a court to look at it at twelve thirty six under the circumstances of this case because they do not determination or any particular facts that that should have been included or that were fabricated again this isn't that type of case they're really squabbling with whether she was wrongfully held over two extra hours and that's not the case but even if it's even if it was she's not alleged any type of harms you still had a prompt judicial determination of probable cause once the probable cause determined determination was made the matter then goes into the judicial process so why wouldn't that support maybe nominal damages for the two hours and fifteen minutes of detention before the finding of probable cause if you look at the hey b s transcript at page twenty two and twenty six it is very clear that the detectives were ready to go had the probable cause statement and the judge judge not specifically asked them to come back later in the afternoon and he does a very thorough job of explaining that none of this should be laid at the feet of the detective that it was him in his court and i'm not blaming him but he does a great job of explaining why he was so busy handling intake for three weeks this is a complicated case we have a missing person we've got two sisters with a lot of credible evidence pointing towards them including statements that they're falsifying information to the officers and the judges couldn't get to it so i don't think that there's any violation whatsoever of the in riverside rules and when we look at christine in riverside and we look at cases like portis and bridewell in the circuit that interpret those those cases they all take a very complex you will nuanced approach to the issue none of these courts is seen as a threshold matter that someone did a that a police officer should be entrenched in financial liability under civil rights claim because they're allegedly fifteen minutes later allegedly two hours late but we don't need to get there because we we have a judge not just explained it wasn't the detectives fault he asked them to come back later in the afternoon and again that's they just twenty two and twenty six of the heebie as transcripts that the attached to the supplemental index i believe i have about eight minutes well here you have sound then yes you you have eight minutes and i guess i wasn't sure which white this was i'm sorry the right on your side it probably doesn't mean too much but the yellow line i mean you  and then the other component of their claims is they believe there was some type of conspiracy between the district attorney and the detectives to hold her over for these additional days beyond the initial forty eight hours but for that type of claim it shouldn't be flowing to the detectives in any event because judge knows had found the probable cause of death made it probably cause determination at forty eight hour mark or were to over the forty eight hour mark and at that at that point in time there's a lot of that court explains in the circuit the the judicial process took over and the detective should not have been involved in that type of claim i see that of my time is off thank you all right thank you very much mr johnson carp involves officers fabrication of evidence and the issue there is i think whether that fabrication gives rise to a continuing seizure claim against those officers here in this you separate from the issue and managed well as to as to mr tony all the allegations in this case relate to his decision about whether or when to charge miss you all but there's  allegation that he was actually involved before the probable cause determination of the allegations as to miss mr tony relate to the period following probable cause after the court made the probable cause determination and held miss you will pending the bond hearing and this court and the supreme court's cases make clear that that is no longer a viable fourth amendment claim and that that would be a due process violation here because some allegations that aren't there that that he somehow died in the investigation before hand or at least the decision to detain her even though there are allegations that he's not planning on moving ahead unless he gets more evidence your honor miss you will has effectively disavowed any any allegation that mr tony as before the district court docket entry fifty three page nineteen a miss you all said tony's involvement in the conspiracy does not involve the decision to arrest plaintiffs or the decision to seek a judicial determination of probable cause and she's reaffirmed that position that the forty eight hour violation really doesn't pertain to mr tony so once we have that probable cause determination then you think mr tony dropped out community during that period and he's evaluating whether to bring charges he's waiting on additional evidentiary support to support possible homicide charges or  as she was arrested for concealing a corpse which was in fact what she was ultimately convicted of her sentencing is next week that's correct your honor u there's an issue of damages if she receives sentence credit that would relate to damages potentially but obviously damages are somewhere further down the road that we would like to avoid going there's no order to the sheriff saying all this woman until further order of court which is what we usually have when there's a court order machine well because she'd been arrested in the office she's brought it to the to the sheriff's now she's being charged with some offenses but she was never charged she was held without the fourth amendment ending in this  if we look carefully at the transcript of the hay vs hearing we won't find the finding but refunding of probable cause there's the judge saying we don't have to hear that again and i'm not going to tell you on what i base the paragraph nine is a admission by mr tony that the prosecutor is waiting for more evidence to come in from police and department of education the state department of justice to