factors that need to be weighed under four o three as you would expect a party offering evidence against a challenge under four of three which explains why it's really important we actually minimized it and put it into context and we don't even think the jury needed to or did use it to determine the probable cause existed so the defendants themselves he'll have made the argument that this had limited prove it of value for their own states i think that's the best evidence that you can have that it had limited food if they're the ones offering but even if it were a high for this anonymous was extremely prejudicial and the city's argument here i think is legally wrong unsupported by any think they say and it's also troubling the textbook type of evidence that might cause the jury to lack sympathy potentially in fact the federals evidence have specific rules that limit when you can and can't use past for more convictions i think we all realize that if someone is accused of being a criminal you might you don't differently you might judge them in a different way and i think that here there is a strong possibility that the jury concluded that mr brewer was script searched and she deserved it because she was a drug dealer that's the wrong result that's not the question they were supposed to be answering but that's exactly why the statement was prejudicial and the arguments that the city makes are not the country again the actual question of guilt case i think that's problematic in all range of civil cases but certainly civil rights cases where you would now be opening the door d for the defendants and similarly situated parties to figure out ways to get accusations of criminal conduct into the record and there would be under this u s prejudice no credit because the criminal conduct is not the issue that is presented to the he left the car and again the defendant concluded based on their observations that he sold my products but i don't think they actually serve and she had driven away and that was in july and then you know october products in july on the corner near his home she had anything to do with it she had driven away in july and in october there's nothing at all that but i also want to d if i may touch briefly on the question of hearsay because again it is possible that there is a no and here's a purpose for this and that on hearsay for those is the totality of circumstances considering whether probable cause potentially not innocent interactions among different people and long they fought specialized equipment that was used for methamphetamine and they went back and forth from a home and i said that the officers it was the type of place where you would make   with the importance of the the argument and i'd apologize i didn't articulate as properly but i'm i'm confident i did we never argue that it wasn't important or wasn't because they want to narrow their possible exposure so if they're getting in and out which made it well that and the observation that when someone is regularly selling drugs out of a car the person who's regularly with them generally knows about it but it was the getting in and out of the car that was the last never been explained at any time but for the selling of drugs mr jones mother lives near there but that's no explanation whether continually parked at this intersection because it be one thing if he was driving back and forth but for some reason he's repeatedly park this intersection that in order to establish probable cause in a criminal context the officers are allowed to or eye on a certain body of evidence to show probable but then according to counsel if there are challenges or civil rights proceedings some of that evidence gets taken away some of th maybe the jury finds that that they are wrong on it but that's how the jury decides whether there was probable cause the jury would make the decision of what the offers it was reasonable know what the officers did what they had what they considered otherwise somehow the officers are being handicapped in defending themselves in a way that just isn't there now with regard to the prejudice i mean that's the previous argument is just odd to me because councils apparently arguing that this tip is so credible that anyone hearing th issue before the journey is whether or not there was probable cause all of the evidence that the officers offered observing the drug sale having eight thousand and eighty dollars plus one dollar bills all crumpled up in the car and you know it again in a manner that was never explained but is very consistent with a series of small drug sales all that evidence indicates that that jeweler in jones were involved in selling drugs and other plaintiffs there i guess is all prejudicial because it goes to show that they might be engaged in drug dealing and that would make you look bad that's the point of a probable cause in houses is to look at the evidence that shows that they might be guilty or at least there's some reason to believe basis for a rest and a surge that's the point of all the evidence the officers o the officers had probable cause they made the arrest they didn't do it well according to the jury they did the search in a civil case they're entitle to defend themselves by showing what they considered in deciding those probable cause and probable cause analysis there are some other cases where these things are excluded for other reasons for example there was a there was a firearms case where an allegation of drug use or dealing in drugs was excluded because it was a relevant to the firearms charge there was another one with a with in this case it's a very straightforward probable cause analysis which the officers are entitled to find themselves by showing what they rely on i think otherwise the terms of the individual cases are they all generally fall a civil rights trial challenging probable cause and i don't think that's right and i think there is a very clear and well understood difference between what is presented to a judge whether it be probable