thank you your honor in beginning as a factual matter this case is not not too complex it boils down to whether or not the district court in this case in a ruling  defendant's motion for summary judgment you serve the role left for the fact finder or the jury and determining in this false arrest false imprisonment case whether probable cause  evidence existed but that the a reasonable officer would not have relied on the word of this purported victim alone and i will go through the list list of facts that were listed to support that position specifically i think most importantly the victim despite being asked i would say the purported victim despite being asked to do so refused to surrender her complaint to writing and sign verifying that her statement was accurate and the officers and the of the defendants deposed specifically noted that that was unusual and they noted a number of bizarre instances in this case that tended to indicate that this witness was not credible st the complaining witness and what would be a rape investigation did not dial nine hundred and eleven did not go to the police she called her complaint into the parole officer of the appellant which was extremely unusual and the the pro officers have noted that this tends to happen in cases where where somebody is just trying to get somebody in trouble or jam them up when they're on parole they go to the park it was a five are you suggesting that this really goes to the reliability of the unconstitutional obviously aid the laws that exist is that the word of the complaining victim is generally sufficient to establish probable cause but this is one of the one of the case that doesn't fall under that general rule and specifically as the case law indicates there is not probable cause based on the word of a purported victim if there was evidence that that victim was unreliable or if there were evidence or if the officers did not believe that witness's statement and there's evidence of both and the unreliability comes in the bizarre nature of what happened here at the complaining called of the p rather than the police the five day wait to report the reluctance of the witness to speak to officers the fact that officers on probation noted that the witness was evasive that she would not tell them the whole story in their words that she refused to write it down and sign to verify its truthfulness that their interview only lasted a half an hour that she gave conflicting stories that there was no physical evidence that she had six prior criminal falsie convictions all of the facts exist let me add this question if you've got paro officers and they obviously some of these things happen with with respect to them but they turn it over to haley they turned over to the to the officers that would be in charge of this investigat and with as soon as haley gets it within a matter of days he says you know the other red flags he checked into it further she saw the convictions for false statements in the past they saw the video et c and hailey by within one week says there's nothing there i'm not going for i'm not going forward on this and what what more could the parole officers have done  think they could have they could have and should have waited to to detain until the officer would have at least made it a probable cause determination and what the pro officers indicated in this case sir mr shafer is that he he goes and talks  to mr headley on the day that this is all happening on the th and says to him i'm not at the expert in that in interviews and stuff you are you know what should we do here and he says well i'm not comfortable making an arrest so that indicates from both parties that there's there's some least that this woman is not telling the truth and needs to be investigated further and the confluence of all those facts i think in totality is really something for the jury to determine one whether the officers knew that this one is unreliable and whether they didn't believe or because of some no then there was a not probable cause the question is this is there it's thinking to be made between what a pool officer to lodge detain her and a police officer needs basis for the detainer and the allegation on that container was that he sexually assaulted this complaining witness so there was no other there was no other allegation or they were moving forward on any other allegation of attack all indicate that this witness is not not credible and if and if you're weighing you know i think i provided the court with least ten facts to indicate that she was her reliability was in doubt if you're weighing those sorts of issues and that many facts certainly are in the realm where this is a factual determination to be determined by a jury and then if you move forward and you look into what happens afterwards you get circumstantial evidence into the state of mind of these prole officers because his attorney mr davison's attorney immediately goes to them and i believe the testimony was on the very day and then he is exposed to tory pictures and text messages that tend to prove his client's innocence negate probable cause and the officers mr taylor says to him i'm not interested in that he won't even look at it that's evidence of his men's rights but what is most important and the testimony is that this occurred at the latest on march st of two thousand and fifteen is that on that day they were provided with the video lodged they have to go to the court the court could release the individual correct they can't release and the court has to listen they can go to the judge and say hey we want you to withdraw and to detain her but they can't but i think perhaps but i think the issue in this case too is an end and one of the one of the things you look at in the other cases that were cited by a pelleas is when you're talking about the delay in a release it's generally talking about cases where you have somebody and in fact that was what the agent agent schieffer had said as well it was until afterwards week afterwards was there any kind of information that came forth that might have caused detective hailey to think that there may have been some issue again this is a probation violation yes your arms are hailing it was not willing to arrest he was not willing to arrest based on her statement alone wrecked that that is correct your honor and he expressed he expressed some reservations about her credibility reliability correct for a probation violation again we may not have known mrs kennedy at that time but we didn't know mr davis and mr davis and was on probation for an exact aggravated assault and for  that was a court order from the judge that he be admitted detained on the kind of probation violation so we were in essence find out a court order as long as we had probable cause one causal argued that the standard really should be reasonable suspicion probation violation for a search for a search for probation violation is it is reasonable suspicion but any event i think that the court's noted that we had probable cause and there really wasn't anything to doubt that a much higher standard i think would he was saying as far as whether or not to arrest somebody but that doesn't mean that the agents here didn't have probable cause do it was receipts a detailed statement was a very detailed verbal statement it said that she mr davis had groped her at a state park a week prior to all that information was there as well now we did have a written statement and that written statement although it didn't have all of the information that was in the verbal statement that is part of the affidavit of probable cause that detective haley had which is in the record but the fact of the matter is is is that the the written statement  said that she was sexually sold and most importantly that she was in fear for life because mr davidson had threatened her and her children which is another reason why there had to be some immediacy on behalf of the probation  officer that he would not bring charges against davis and haley ultimately in fact charged kennedy with making false reports of law enforcement authorities and she pled guilty to show what was why the the six to had to tell agent taylor agent taylor would also how to get authority from the district director robert jones to withdraw and there also had to be and which was noted in the record that the lackawanna county probation had to make the final decision because what happens now though we don't have the testament of asian taylor because of his passing what happens in the procedure when this is part of our procedure which is part of the record i think  detain around there for thirteen days and then they have to in fact you know make a decision whether want to put the wants to put their own detainer on there for the gag not hearing in all honesty saw behavior could be something even more such then just a physical assault they could be reasonable happy or henchmen of any kind of physical assault it could be threats and the written statement does have threat at least verbal threats and there were by saying that he was going to kill her and her children that's what the that's what the agents relied on and that was the statement that was given day he comes and he says there is no there there with respect to her in fact it's so bad i'm going to arrest her there so in effect you don't know if there is anything st of all against him i'm having trouble hearing you your honor i polishers the one thing you don't get me for sure is that there's no rape charge against him and then  cause as a condition for significant pretrial restraint and here there's been a fairly reliable determination by haley of no probable cause and so i can't get over is the next six actually probably about six and a half days that they kept him and you're sound it sounds like what you're saying is well there's things they had to go through the hoops they had to go through to let him go but that base to do that i will i will say that attorney cory told asian taylor no agent here is not here to to say whether that happened or did not happen but again there's no duty to investigate that information according to this court ed a week afterwards and this court still said that there's still no duty to investigate and i think that you know this court as well as in the wilson v russo case noted you know he said they had did if we were to do that and not wait for that gag not hearing again which again on here is typically you know within that fourteen day period or you know pursuant to our procedure we did would have dropped or detained her and let the court put their detainer on within fourteen days kennedy which is a very detailed statement extremely detailed and we also as you know there was some things about her having a criminal falsie record again that was something that twenty the issue is is there a is there a saying you win or you loose is there a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it was reasonable to take almost a week to release davis after the parole officers knew that there were going to be no charges brought against him and i think that i still don't know the answer to so it seems to me that that's an issue that a jury should decide i would say this your honor probation is of a supreme court's case and days case to whether probation as you know it even effective so they would have to determine you know whether or not you know missed the exculpatory evidence they would have to determine you know whether or what we knew what we know at that time is that agent detective haley told agent shaffer that he wasn't going to file criminal charges ok i don't know what the pool existed with respect to notify correct what what we what we know is what agent shaffer said what typically happens we don't know the specifics of that typically happens different than what happened in this case we do not know what happened  correct no we do not know what happened but i know but the fact of the matter is is that we we would still have to make that independent determination as to whether or not there was the the there was enough for a to detain mr davis and for probation violation  as evidenced by our procedure that says that we would lift the warrant after fourteen days and again i don't i think this other courts have said that six days not unreasonable afterwards that determination was made in the end in the determination whether or not to lodge the wars made by the district director and that determination again would have to to release would have to be made by him as well there was a team of parents for three days after became clear that they had not committed child neglect and the court held that that constituted detention without probable cause and violation of the th amendment here we have six  shouldn't again a jury decide you know you're in a as to whether the reasons for keeping him the additional six days are a detention without probable cause in violation of the th amendment but i think the behavior case had to do with more that the police officer in that case again this is a police officer on probable cause didn't check to see why the children there and had diaper rash is or why the children were sunburn and just based on that said we're finding some kind of child abuse which i think that the air had to do with this case the guy that's going to he's that head investigator of the police and he sayin it ain't going to happen i am not doing anything with respect to him ok and he's making a determination as to whether or not he's going to charge mr davidson with rape and again we're not making it term ation as to whether or not there's assaultive behavior we're also making a determination you know those verbal threats could could in fact have been part of  that assault of behavior as well because it's more than just the the the issue of the of a sexual assault so i think it's a broader issue as well and that had to really  the claim was that you know and i can understand why pro officers post march th would let haley do the investigating and he does it and he comes back within a week and so you could say ok i don't have to necessarily do any investigating and then but when he tells you there isn't anything there all of a sudden you think mouthers a duty of them to do investigating i mean if you don't want to do that that could have been something that was still assaultive behavior that would have been determined by the sentencing court as to whether or not at that gagner on one hearing i think that's what i'm saying a lot of wanted to do that before  of being brought up well i i would respond that we put that our firm defenses on the original claim complaint on our amended complaint we raised a qualified immunity they were well i think it could be but i don't think that's really an issue here when you look at the wilson case wilson he russo if you have something is completely out of line when you say to an assessor seven feet tall but the police officer knows the individual five feet tall that's obviously not going to be reliable and that that determination but here you know there was nothing there to to say that she was not reliable m and whether or not there were probable cause that that incident occurred this parsing of words we're going to call assaultive behavior after the fact is it really loses sight of the focus of this matter and that's whether mr can the statement gave rise to probable cause now attorney manning indicated that it might maybe should be reasonable suspicion it is in the th circuit and the rd circuit the case law is clear that it's probable cause and the janitor li terminate is based let me ask you your question isn't isn't it a fact that someone can be guilty of assault but not guilty of rape that that is that is that that's a factor i know but that was not to let let me follow up let me ask a follow up then if detective haley concluded that he was not going to bring charges against him for rape that doesn't answer the question whether hailey or here shaffer might have later determined that although davison was don't charge with rape he still might to control people with assault of behavior correct hypothetically that that's a possibility but in this case that's not what they did they didn't do that investigation and they didn't continue to was still trying to get to the bottom of things in other words the factual picture was not yet completely clear as is april th and mr davis was already released from custody before that right and i don't believe that's accurate i believe the picture was clear on the st in that there is and mr haley testified to it and the other witnesses that indicated that their depositions the video that was produced was as of the st picture is clear to be extent that we know that haley has step becomes ok the guy didn't commit a rape but we got to get to the bottom of what really happened because we know that kennedy was not truthful to us when she made her initial complaint now we've got to find out what the truth is and the truth could be somewhere and anywhere from davis in doing absolutely nothing to kennedy and perhaps davis to committing assault to behavior that's  in play as of april one isn't i don't think he can make that out on this this this purported victim's word at that point because what the information they have at that point is that this woman made an allegation of rape and it was absolutely definitively a lie so you can't make out and you should continue to hold a person on the word of somebody that's proven to be a liar you know you should do in the beginning when you have somebody that's unreliable a woman who is s guilty or small well i think i think that at that time if that if that is all the they have to go on when you have definitive evidence of her lying i don't think her word alone is probable cause now if they had bruises and other things obviously you may have a different story but if you're talking on the word of this person alone and when you go back to the th there was evidence that this went this was on reliable and as the court noted were liability is that it's clear from the case law where liability is a factor in determining probable cause and probable cause is generally a question that should be left up to a jury so we have presented evidence that this witness was unreliable at the time she made the statements and that the officers knew it that at that point that becomes a question for the jury to weigh whether or not they did believe her and whether or not they felt  reliable is a jury question and i would like to know just two other things briefly the six day delay when attorney manning discusses these cases that say a six day delay is justifiable they're completely different than the case that's before the court today those are cases where you have somebody that's on parole has been and has been found to be guilty of april violation and are being reaper old and they use your parole order and it takes a couple days to be released they are not cases where you completely lack probable cause and where you have an innocent man sitting behind bars they're just completely different scenarios and i think the case out of the th circuit the court cited is really more on point to that issue and they really want to have it both ways they say we don't we get to make an independent determination of probable cause what mr manning said and yet at the same time they say you know we have no duty to investigate we're not going to do anything we can ignore exculpatory evidence now he indicated that there's a question as to what the law is on that i don't know how the law could be if somebody puts down on your desk clearly exonerating evidence how you could constitutionally ignore it which is which is what was done in this case was the thing that and they put in the record as to what the parole officers did post for papers one to investigate for parole violations or so i think i think your honor there is evidence to wh jury can infer that they did not ask the court to release him because they turned over as a part of discovery i'm saying was that what just what evidence was there any evidence put in by the pro officers of the actual work that they did post april one to investigate the result of behavior or parole violations no what they did turn over was then as attorney manning himself noted in his argument they turned over paperwork transmitted to the court on march th that indicated that they had detained this guy so the transmittal they make to the court in the correspondence are part of the final but none of that exists posting st right so they in provide any evidence that they went to the court and and i think the final thing the final thing that i would note is you know these attorney manning made a lot of reference to this court order at the gag naan that used to be detained and that there will be c tolerance and that he was incarcerated on agast although police officer what the underlying offense was in that court order really are relevant to the issue here the court order was there is going to be zero tolerance for parole violations but that's assuming you have probable cause that a probation violation existed that's the initial hurdle you have to get over and you don't get over that hurdle here to even get to a judge where he says decision ok thank you very much thank you to both counsel for well presented arguments and will take the matter under advisement