whether there should be a damages room in the supreme court's decision this february madness against mr firmly reinforced the idea that considerations of separation of powers almost always favor leaving at the congress to decide whether it damages remi should know with twenty one cases the only one is a slightly different position that person doesn't get the attention from the briefing and the record that the other ones do and so in that case there was no trial transcript from this criminal proceeding here  focus was entirely on the twenty and it's entirely that's a slight overstatement the focus of the focus was definitely on the people involved in sex trafficking investigation so you don't have the same record in that case we also have to say we you know when we had six plaintiffs in the court of appeals or even focused on the five of them who were involved in sex trafficking cases and maybe in looking back on that maybe we should spend more time on dealing with the unseen but i think that that explains why that and one of the things they did when they moved to dismiss they attached the plaintiffs testimony before the legislative committee to indicate that the point of knew about the claim at an earlier date because it outside the limitations period inside the court away from these events did we don't dispute this but she did as she caused him to do the further investigation but she did not cause him to make in the rest he didn't independent investigation after she gave him this information he determined that and with along with the sergeant that there was probable cause to respond that was their decision to make not bikers so there's a big difference if the court has no questions at this point i'd like to reserve the balance of my time appeals before the court those differences are what make all the difference in deciding this case what are cites court went to pains to say whatever we said about these five individuals these men who were allegedly part of this century does not apply to it is not it is disingenuous for the appellants to argue that now the provisions of the opinion that did not do with kerosene should be applied s similar they are identical they were all three arrested by the same officer on the same day at the same place for the same alleged crime and they were all three transported to the same ticket together in the same car they were all three eventuality charged with a federal crime and the only doubt it is that they had engaged in any activity that would constitute material issue as to whether or not whatever was the causative reason for the probable cause determination now keep in mind on yet seems case reach this court it was exactly the same as the posture before the court today with respect to the claims of our clients mahmood i met as well as the allegations and the complaint it's the allegations in the complaints are and all untrue or specs identical now it is true that we had the benefit of looking at test and it is true that we pointed out various aspects of the trial testimony that officer beaks related the ms waiters counsel wanted to take the record and make it into a review of everything that happened prior to the civil action let's open the door and every person let every statement and every proceeding be fair around fair game for the district court to consider testimony and you read the way it's characterized miss white his counsel you will see there are they're taking some liberty in reaching the conclusions they reached about what he said for example they say the tennessee u s attorney's office in conjunction with the f b i and those investigations white her play a role she was for the purposes of those investigations now let's be clear her deadbeat ization doesn't necessarily mean that whatever she does during that timeframe falls under the auspices of her she could easily do things even if she was the ties that don't means that don't necessarily follow it under her authorization there and those circumstances when she's acting understand there are different people involved right in each of these cases i understand that but the but the basis for these are rats were statements made by the same police officer i find it hard to distinguish in the opinion we talked about differences between the you know between this case that didn't davis that summit is there some factor that we talked about in that case specifically talked about that is not present here not this is very different when an officer picks up the photo without him and inducted any investigation without any manipulated witnesses without without in doubt anything and makes a single phone call to another conjunction with a u s attorney are potentially directing the investigation or the f b i directing the investigation that mechanism met mechanism of injury is different because you have to factor and the beat and said those are the girls that i've got documentation and information i have and they've been harassing witnesses and they've been trying to beat up witnesses in this case one of them  them has a history of attacking this particular witness if she were right next to him would we even be talking about whether this was direct or moods i don't think so and the fact that it happened over the phone doesn't change the fact that the judge to issue an arrest warrant or to be aware of the complaint that issue what we're challenging is something that happened instantaneously without any forty five dollars without any investigation without either way or even know pallies were and in this case because of those differences that kind of proof required is very different this is on all fours with man will be gentle yet all we need to show argument that we need to make a quick decision and official resist cision unqualified immunity doesn't apply in this case were three years ago and now the other cases are before the district c counselor suggests that whether or not she was a federal agent is sort of clear cut in understanding your position that you believe that something that the district court still needs to determine and i cracked on that absolutely s it your view on is there a chance that the bill that is issue is a non issue in this case yes i think there's a very strong chance i don't want to get into extraneous material but if you look wants courts to look at qualified immunity specifically in terms of a particular complaint you have to do it separately can't just say well we decided that for somebody else who is in the same boat you have to say these