case number sixteen there's two seven five two james edward makes versus city of detroit michigan oral argument not to exceed fifteen minutes per side blood for the appellate you may proceed may please the court's t diligence in changing the trajectory of mr meeks life when they had all the answers right there in front of them they were more than making a mistake they were totally indifferent to the rights and constitutional rights of the defendants in this case what's clear in this case yars is that and we're not going to dispute there was a probable cause for mr meeks to be arrested there was an allegation and he had a misdemeanor warrants out for his arrest and there was an allegation that he was identified in a carjacking case however that carjacking case that he was identified and never went anywhere it was never charge d and to this date has never been charged what happened ultimately was mr meeks when the police officer in this particular case put in mr meeks name it came up with obviously a different person by error or whatever lapse it also didn't have he didn't have the same birthdate didn't have the same description things of that sort lineup together he passes that photo lineup to his other colleagues which he talks about in his deposition briefly saying we rely on teamwork we it's a huge part of his auto theft unit in doing so he passes out bad information to the officers in doing arresting going to the complainants in this case and when he passes out the wrong information it's so palpable it's the wrong person so the complainants identified the wrong person not mr meeks but they use mr meeks is name mr meeks gets arrested the following day after these carjackings these two carjackings which i will rely upon in my my papers filed with the court and when he gets arrested the following day his house is searched nothing in that house there is no evidence in that home of the carjackings the two carjackings for which he was charged no money no clothing when the car found near his house near was about a mile away which in detroit in the city blocks  is take would take you some time to diverse it to get to where it was at but yeah it was on the same street as the durango and that was his father's from what i can see the court records show his father's home when we look at this the pictures are all that a six pack on one of these are actually seven and there's an argument that next picture is the upper left in the upper right it doesn't look like the upper right one could have been and could  because it's an it's a sub going to rest so after this one but the point is he has braids in one of these pictures that your papers show and he doesn't have parades in the other picture so to say that one time somebody had braids there for a police officer must know that this is not the picture of the of the true perpetrator because the person in the picture doesn't have parades seems to be to be in entirely eliminated by virtue of these two pictures that we know or makes one as brits and so the laughable part about it or the part about that is mr meeks is arrested the next day in custody so he stays in custody for fifteen sixteen days and that's where i came in the day before and looking at the identification he is dismissed at the district court in thirty six district court because it wouldn't the right person but to answer your question i think you're missing the point you made the point about this is this they should have known because the get makes little in the photograph who is identified by the complaint the photographs of meeks that we know were in the lineup which is the upper left in the photograph of meeks little which is the third one over on the top except for the for the lighting differences seem they don't seem to be materially distinguishable to me if you're looking at  pass away that you got the wrong guy in the photograph he picks out a different person alleged to be mr meeks but it's really makes little if you have mr meeks in custody the following day and you can see him with his braids you can when he made the photo array using what information he received he says he has the date of birth well obviously or it may have the date of birth obviously the date of birth was wrong because mr meeks was a year off on the date of birth and you don't even have the same name and the same middle initial so when he put that together making a mistake i can is maybe a math error of you know two plus two you're young you make it to five but if you deliberately or you have this reckless indifference you know there's no question a bit deliberately did this you don't have any proof of that i'm not no judge i'm not you're not i'm not saying this is a reckless quote correct correct and i think about it from the standpoint if you have someone that you're putting in it you're responsible for the protection of the citizens in what you're doing as an officer he's saying i don't have enough time i'm overworked and jammed up on time it's kind of gives it that tone is deposition but yet you're so serious in changing one's liberty you would take the time at least to confirm and make sure you have the right person at least by date of birth and the right name he that's the reckless indifference it's not a mistake but let's assume that you're right about that this is an immunity case do you have any cases that say that that you are the you're not entitled qualified immunity because you didn't do this the things that you just told us  their case judge it was another one that was a misidentification many gives analysis to this six circuit as it relates to qualified immunity and where the seals decision that you're referring us to according to page fifty  brief says it's was january third two thousand and seventeen and when did all this take place this judge which is a couple of years june eighth and priors him so seals even if you look towards a unreported district court decision which we don't even if we did it's after these events however he does rely upon precedents you're right chad she does said we have any that you want us to look at that are before this incident that says you have a duty to do all of these specific things about this photo lineup which i mean they make logical sense i'm not saying that you're wrong that they make sense but i'm just trying to figure out if if there's a case that ever said a police officer has to do that or should know they have to do that well as opposed to relying upon the machine that the police department provides where you put in a name and you get a you get a photo array right   fail on just be based on several things but most importantly your honor this ystem a pattern and conduct of one the lack of training or training on the job in leave it to the younger people to do that to do the training and the lack of diligence that was used in this particular case but the lack of diligence really comes down to these four officer  last detective as well certainly as to russell and smelter for the their failure really to closely review the photo array before they prepared and submitted these  reports for the warrant requests basically comes down to that that one your honor then upon the arrest he sits there for a period of time and they have all of the information available to them to ferret out that they have the wrong man in that material that they have it's their job their oath that they take to make sure that they have the right and you see all the information available to them when you talk about the composition report are you talking about the  investigate argument that you say exists beyond an arrest based on probable cause and you're not speeding probable cause for the arrest but the probable cause goes way well to plea quick because it was a misdemeanor that was bondable in effect know i'm not making that as the solid are the arguments all argument that this is a duty to investigate i'm making the argument that they had the information in this reckless and differences that relates to putting a person behind bars when they had all of the right birthdate of makes little they had and makes they had the correct names of both individuals and they for whatever reason you can see clearly that they don't use the diligence and turn a blind eye to the person that's in custody how do you connect their conduct i guess especially rick had and crossed nelson to the actual decision by the prosecutor to go forward with the prosecution but you need to do that in some fashion in the bed so the prosecutor sitting back and behind the wayne county prosecutor's office filling out a machine himself or herself to punch up a warrant for a particular person has to rely upon the officers due diligence for which they are swearing to that is right that's correct no prosecutor sits behind a desk and looks at the materials the elements met by a probable cause standard presses a button a warrant is issued that's all relied upon by the officers work an ability to swear to in front of a judge to say what i did i am swearing that the  is accurate which in fact was not accurate in my right that all of the cases that address that address the question of whether there was a knowingly false statement made to the prosecutor yes it hasn't whereas the knowingly false statement here under stand your reckless argument i get that right so do we have any cases that say if the officer was reckless but believed the accuracy of what he sent to the prosecutor that there's still a militia's prosecution claim that's available  at the knowingly part the mens rea or basically the thought process that he had this i think goes to he total total disregard he knew one thing he could check right he knew he could check the name he knew he could check the birth date of the right person when he pulled up the sheet you can't say that's a mistake so when it when he says and he says also other people other officers that i give this photo lineup are going to rely upon what i do what is that or stand it you don't even contend that the prosecutor relied on the photo arrays the photo here the prosecution of relies upon this statements given the war right the statements given in the war and as far as we know there's no knowing falsity in the war except must prove before is that there was a substantial showing that the officers knowingly or recklessly brought this case  in the valid converses shostak circuit cases in this particular case what do we have in this case and and when you look at this case you got a look at the totality of the circumstances here what would a reasonable conduct was in isolation  yes this was a this was a a mistake and crossing else instead it stayed right off the back where you say i got information you have to remember here what what what happened in this case this was a serious a june emphasize on this fast track and so they get this information regarding him they so they must take pick up this information make them persons of interest they take it to what was his name terry cross nelson he looks at the picture what he said they are look the saying that you can see the difference because you know time changes you have one with a with a beard or one without a big without the dress and it in and he so what he did is he  and he tells he says he didn't know was he did not have a middle initial and he thought and so when he sees that he didn't he even admits in his deposition and this is why and that's what qualified immunity does make room for reasonable mistake and guess what he's playing just like i'm cross nason some people come across some people coming nelson but i'm the same person he figured this was one and the same purpose and he did and that's what he did he he made a opposing counsel thanks that rises to the level of reckless disregard when he noticed it was a different last name and didn't verify on the composition report which would have sh we got to look at what he's thinking from his experience and his training in here so what he does he takes the information and he gives the name to them that this is james murray james and yes it matter to you that he then attended the lineup and then on the same day on june eighth what you have here is that they take james makes point photo everybody believes follow and is no duty judge nikki as you were asking for them to double check on investors no constitutional immunity here when you look at the totality of the circumstances as as a supreme court of illinois illness illinois versus gate state here so then he goes and the person says that's yes that's him they believe they got those two carjackings they made a mistake but put in far as they're concerned the problem causes what was the facts that they have the reason officer believe that he had it at the time of the arrest they thought that was james me double check it might have been good they had no reason to consider it double check maybe that would have happened but it's not a constitutional standard we're talking about you might say negligence or they could get in there but the point is you have to put you did to he didn't want to turn in a warrant as he talks to the victim again and who was the victim flowing and floyd they couldn't find him while he has three outstanding wars so that's probably why and that and so he had his own wants and he couldn't give them something that's the only rather not you can say that he intent that the officers any of them intentionally were in a substantial showing is going to be a substantial showing according to the to and to the record here in this were to place in further value can't say that they initiated two people they weren't there arresting officers they said two other officers that's the other but curiosity of the case and i'm glad you asked the question because that's the mystery when they went to actually arrest him there it was my cross here with him there was not there they said they talk again information someone had been just looking around the area and once they got the information it that the two victims had id them they said two other police officers to go and arrest him they did not  after arrest right and that's not in the record anywhere they said it so it was always clear and they're saying that it was on the day of the preliminary examination and that isn't show the victims it was a mix and so the current business so when they saw what they reasonably believed that they had a nice little this isn't the case where they found out the answer no they didn't find out the errors and you can say oh that's really poor work on they have they didn't find the answer that this was makes little and mix were two different persons to them makes little name that even mean anything to him and then you have sagger supreme court in that particular case acknowledge where there was incarceration for forty one days and in that particular case a police officer actually had a  picture photo license and id and so forth but the victim picked the plaintiff out of the photo all right so based on the fact that he was pointed out by the victim the photo array the court they believe they have the right person here so that's what you have to look at the totality of the of the circumstances in this particular case and yes because of course what you will know that he wasn't charged on the armed robbery and that he who was later found put it that is not dismissed the existence of probable cause under the taliban in the circumstances but you can say that they initiated impress india the basically they took the next step they took the next step maybe that or they didn't press a push oh we got to find him they took the steps that they needed to take and what basically what what plato was saying they didn't do enough they could they did more  was poor work on their that's really what the essence however you want to say that they disliked the were they were was poor poor judgement on their behalf that is not a constitutional violation and then you have to a chance by the fact that they were calling theirselves being reasonable until they talked to the victim again and not filing the charges that they very well could have and they can still do against him for that armed robbery i don't think he doesn't deserve a windfall under the facts of this case for when they made a reasonable mistake and in their minds they had james that was after he had been held for sixteen days no i'm asking you if anyone saw him before to that judge your honor i have not seen that placed within the record for the transcripts and data that i have seen  would have to rely upon the other preference and what's been posted your arm to the last point i'll try to be brief counsel as stated that windfall should not come to mr meeks because he's a the remember he gets put in custody he denies denies denies that he had nothing to do with those two cases had nothing to do you're a bad man if you don't do this and you can see from the record about what that interrogation was like so he listen i to prove the body of the wrong so here how do you you just label him a bad person therefore he should come into a windfall but we should war the police officers in a case where they just come off of a consent decree where they're supposed to be trained here you have them multiple times the feds there was a judgment against the police officers to enforce them to do proper things and  sooner than that dissipates they go back to obviously to their old ways and just making that blood there's nothing in the record that says this sort of problem was the basis of the consent decree that there was a lack of training in this area that led to the consent decree or that people reverted to their old ways hyperboles nice but where is that record it was raised below in the or argument by miss carter in front of the district court judge where she had mentioned that almost the entire argument in your law firm's yes here is premised on what somebody said to the judge in oral argument that your brief is replete with that but i have i have to say i've never seen that before that's not authority that somebody made an argument facts within the go back and look at your brief again you'll see that it's cites to to her argument as fact i did see that your own around so i appreciate that i also saw the the record made with regards to