at a minimum to a new trial he was held liable on a continued detention th amendment theory on the probable cause existed to hold him he was arraigned within forty eight hours that was not obligated to credit his claim protest cations innocence and mistaken identity at the two hour and fifteen minute time period at the beginning he listened title to rely on the information he was provided from sergeant aid at the time of the arrest and entitled to rely on the booking officers to verify the identity of the criminal suspect as they did the fingerprinting and other there was a stipulation to dismiss in the record doesn't show and i'm not certain whether there were as i'm assuming that was in relation to the element but it may have been a hunter a dismissal and the city not really pursue a lot of discovery to identify and never name to those other potential defendants whoever they might have been so what ended up use as the record shows the case for a sitting and was not is not properly held responsible for whatever acts or omissions other officers in the city locked up or for what the county did or didn't do w was holding the plaintiff in the wayne county jail so so far as the record shows still says not that any recovery unless it's a settlement that we with the county i guess it would be the was to fill out the information in this report consequently he was filling out part of the paperwork but as the testimony at trial shows he was also giving it to other officers as they did their parts of the process to add information that st of all if somebody says hey you got to run guy at that early stage of the proceeding there are not obligated to do an independent search in fact the baker court the u s supreme court made that very clear the of innocence and if you think about that rule it makes sense because it's very obvious there was obligated to do over again every step of the proceeding and couldn't rely on information provided to seems to me shows that he did his job but we don't know what else happened in this case there isn't evidence in this testimony about what the other booking officer his or her you're good therefore oh i don't think so because the law is very clear very clear that you cannot hold one person responsible for what another were i would think you'd warm well i guess i would say two things st of all let me have the trial strategy of trial tensile was one hundred percent best and only strategy that could have been sake of argument you're right on several due process what about the michigan law not so so why couldn't you say he was the proximate cause of of the whole thing because he is the one who arrested him he was with him for almost three hours will sober i'm now shifting to the state law side of it why wouldn't it be the proximate cause of well a couple of things a detroit the michigan supreme court has held that the language quote the proximate cause has meaning beyond simply meaning you have to show that the person you have to show and the robinson court said there's the person if the solo excuse me the one most efficient direct cause and in this case that would be potentially the booking officers or potentially somebody in connection with the arraignment or potentially someone after that at the county but it wouldn't  is on the one hand are proud parent decision would seem to help you select the case proceeds of work is just very hard for me to get my arms around is the fact that the prior panel said as a matter of law it was a pro it was fair to arrest this man and the officer the only one you sued only spent two hours and fifty minutes with him so that he seems all bound up in the th amendment decision and it just seems like the wrong defendant i quote it and those sympathetically idea of the fifteen days of being the wrong person in jail is the kind of thing that ought to go to a jury and you ought to respect the jury's finding but i'm really struggling with why the person who did less than three hours with the case and was vindicated by our prior decision in terms of that were is somehow on the hook and why isn't the that would be inconsistent with the court's previous wench that  a michigan case where the courts have said that all the rest was fine but you can still bring a wrongful detention as to the same officer says that case out there in other words so it's just like our case where you say as a matter of floor our it was ok to arrest him but then charge the same person for ransom detention is that majesty of that's that's this case would be really helpful pre then the question was whether or not the officer the officer the did the arrest as you know that what i'm talking about is holding the person who does the arrest liable for the detention when the court decides to the arrest was ok that's that's this case some just that's a funny to me i'm just trying to see if it's happened before well  know if you're representing the defendant why won't you quit that stuff up i don't understand what that says something if it's if all the evidence is about the st two hours and fifteen minutes and the arrest or other people were there it doesn't he still had a critical roll up his testimony at trial was the captain of the share ok thanks very much i'm sorry appreciate your argument fine your rebuttal yes a couple of points st with respect to the photo and i say that this in my brief if you look at the record when the photo was discussed there was a photo flashed around the court room but there was never ever testimony to show that it's bearcat saw the photo or had access to it he did it was in the prosecutor's final it was not something that he it would have found other information and the answer to that or a human is is really three people st bearcat did what he was supposed to do which was to fill out parts of the paper work passed it on to the booking officers and sergeants face to fill out other parts they were responsible for doing the photos doing the fingerprinting doing all those verification of identity pieces of the process consequently he can't be held liable and then i think that brings us to the point that judge their hybrid was questioning and that is how long does the arrest i think the amendment test driving on the prior sort of malicious prosecution like cases that have been brought under the th amendment and sometimes under due process and notion about unreasonable detention that continues long after someone tell them so what manual said it is you can have that continued detention claim which is what we're talking about here in two circumstances somewhat mystery to me why the magistrate didn't say when the warrant was for sign r and he announced himself a seal you know some other question but nevertheless it was a very short video arraignment but he was clearly brought before the magistrate and that was the next one the other time that somebody who was an arresting officer might be held liable poster arrangement would be and traditional malicious prosecution type circumstance where the probable cause finding is based on the officer having lived or suppressed