y judgment when there were multiple disputed material facts especially when construed in light most favorable to the plaintiff as to all of the claims including the state law false imprisonment claim argument that this orcas was seize when the officers refused to allow her to approach her daughter that that that appears to be what was asserted below right you wouldn't let me approach  daughter but is that the only thing that was argued below as the seizure below the issue before the court was whether mrs fargus and her daughter ms consolidates were seized at all now on appeal the city has conceded that there's been a seizure well let me i'm sorry i'm not being very clear on the tribes can i understand your briefing before us to include an argument that when they block that when they drove up in the doesn't really indicate that that was argued to be a seizure when you're in front of judge a meal i write about that i don't believe that it was explicitly argued it was certainly in the complaint in all of those facts were before the court the fact that the police cruiser brought in the coffee sure but recognizing that we have to deal with with arguments here that were made below if you never argued that the blocking below a was in fact the seizure is it fair for us to take that up and consider that or should we be focusing strictly on the assertion that it was a seizure when they told this harvest stay away from her daughter and had a seizure when city so i don't believe that that issue is even in the morning before the court well as the question of just whether there was a seizure or the question whether it was an unreasonable that is this is the question before the court now that the city's conceded that there's a seizure is whether it was a reasonable seizure and whether it was a reasonable c or turns on june and you're going to argue that both were unreasonable seizures both the blockage of the car and the refusal to let this artist who are daughter of both of those were reasonable seizures or just the blocking a bit of both were in reasonable seizures there are two types of seizures from the fourth amendment that physical force and a show of activity before it had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that there was they see a minor child i'm conscious just falling out of a car or lying on the sidewalk the records not clear him or the police when they when they when they drive up they see that when the a light in the krypton and ask the right they're told by multiple people over and over again that this is a medical emergency to put all these doctors together it's very clear that it becomes an reasonable instantaneously it's fun tamia sleep really seriously there's absolutely no time gap at all well instantaneously not in a minute or mechanics type of argument but within seconds it becomes clear to the officers because time matters right i mean you even seem to try to gain seconds when you say well the according to when they hit the button in their car to show they were on the scene maybe they didn't really hit it right away because maybe they were going to tax first it looks like you're trying to gain every second you can to like that at the time so timing does matter a timing does not or but it becomes abundantly clear as they acknowledge themselves reasonable because any reasonable person much less a reasonably trained officer knows that a human being not breathing will die in a relatively short period of time and officers are in it and with any reasonable human being conclude that an ambulance within earshot is a worse bet for saving somebodies life then people untrained as drivers of emergency vehicles trying to get to the hospital on their own because that's the choice they've got right the choice they're presented with is i let these people drive for to the hospital or i have these people wait because i hear an ambulance right now with an e m t on the way so there was the back of the crews to answer that question it's not their choice to make when when the police show up when they decide that we're not going to render aid and we're going to sta there they certainly can't then use their judgment to impose upon medical decision making rights of others something you have a community here taking function hasn't the recognized community care taking function where the police are allowed even mistakenly exercise some judgment about what's going to be in the best interest and safety of an individual whose stress yes but the minute that they appear and face the side that they're not going to render aid the community care taking functions they're not going to render a how was the conclusion that they're not going to render aid is is it not a reasonable conclusion from the record that they thought they were rendering aid by saying this is coming it's going to be better that's a we're going to wait for this rescue to occur that's not rendering a it's no affirmative act i mean to stay back passively and say that's rendering aid i've not been able but that you're not staying back passively less in fact your argument your assertion is they didn't state that passively they they prevented us from doing what we wanted to do they stood in our way and they they weren't passive so you can't really have it sure they were actively involved in doing something you didn't want that is making a judgment that you think they should have made more i mean it's got to be they were doing it because if i threw all right where they were doing it and they should have but not they weren't doing it how do you know they weren't doing anything if they were passive with regard to rendering aid themselves they then step back and say we're not going to render do mouth to mouth or whatever i mean they didn't prevent they just said hey wait for the ambulance and the broader question to ask you on this very notion is what you're asking us to do that to come up with a doctrine where if there's some equivocation as to what can be done between a parent's view and a police officers that if the police officer prevails we won't we will essentially have to judge well that was under reasonable for them to exercise this community caretaking question in this instance because it disagreed with the as the officer leaves the precinct he or she is making decisions throughout the day that affect the well being of the community so every time there is a conflict you've go wondering where this is going watching two things a believe it that there's issues beyond the mono claims for you to train as well but to answer your question directly your honor i'm asking the court not to create a doctrine but to allow these facts to be submitted to a fact finder not for this court to conclude that their behavior was unreasonable but that a reasonable jury under these facts could could conclude that  that's got to be the view of the jury reasonable decision under the multitude of facts of this case yes it's not wait for an insurance because you have with russian a car accident right if he did arrive the testimony from at least one of the officers was they could hear the ambulance coming on that got away under the circumstances of of somebody a child not breathing minutes matter so that's that's a very good course or not so your question is you you you you want us to determine that a jury would think it's more reasonable or and what laypeople ride to a hospital or other medical facility and it is to wait until the end whelan's woods which is in your shot arrives on the scene under these facts a reasonable jury could conclude that what's the exact i think i have in my mind what the was correct with the facts that were with the argument that was made to it and we did our cation of the car blocking argument which is now friend center on appeal which wasn't really made to the district court it was got out to investigate that it's not unreasonable to detain briefly a car full of individuals who were sitting out in front of an address where and i won one call was made from a person screaming if that's an indeterminate type of emergency it's ok for the seizure because if you block somebody's definition you're not letting a male relate the car to the car or the car blocking is something physical however again that's something that wasn't really present front and center to the district court but in order for the court not to have to resolve this medicare taking doctor and as i understand it is an exception all right to allow the seizure of evidence of criminal activity after officers pursue set up a rule that that would lead to real difficulty in circumstances where maybe not because of consciousness but mental disability or competency of some sort would yield you have results issue pete is erroneous we've decided it can't be the case that an unconscious person subjectively is the measure you've got to take it objective we from a reasonable person i'm just asking you to to a time pressure decision and chaotic circumstances and they're balancing two really important cern's of trying to determine when trying to balance the mother's rights to determine her daughter's medical needs with what they think is best for the daughter is they hear t problem there is that clean isn't even connected to a seizure there has to be a causal link and i don't see how it how it failure to properly train these officers on that would lead them to seize her doesn't want to clean makes sense and then there's also the claim that there's there's not a proper policy on training officers how to on how to balance the medical rights of parents and again there's no evidence that we there are officers never ever had a problem with that which should be do when they get to the scene similar to us and has the city adequately prepared them even though there have been prior claims as the city adequately prepared officers in the city's biggest city of mine and she's not and she's panicking and she then you know it's difficult to decide whether she's entirely prepared to make a decision herself or you might have a situation where a parent has been resistant from the very beginning but you're questioning whether you know whether her child really needs have but you're going sixty five miles an hour you know what's the police officer supposed to do there it is or a need for this kind of training is there such a general likelihood of incident that the city has some responsibility we felt that there was a responsibility deliberate indifference to the statutory standard whether it's cities responsible for an underlying constitution if i could come back for a moment as i really haven't had a chance to discuss reasonableness if that's all right i just wanted to make planes this is this or he said she can be precise in minutes mr franklin there witness said he felt that the officers were on the scene in total for one to two minutes before the ambulance arrived the cab records show that from the time the officers arrived to and fire rescue and the ambulance showed up which was basically instantaneous it was about a minute and four seconds so about over a minute in which the officers had to ascertain what the nature of the emergency was and then hear the ambulance coming down the street so it was basically this is the timing basically is consistent with their testimony that once they figured out what was going on they heard an ambulance coming down the street there for a reasonable honest perspective it's not a situation where they said let's wait for the ambulance help is on the way and then there was along the way they knew there was named aunts on the way and the second factor that we want to stress is this isn't a set to a situation where they stepped in to take over and make a decision for gordon my position would be here where we're talking about reasonableness obviously for the man we're talking about a reasonable in the standard if we're talking about the fourteenth amendment claims with respect to the individual officers all of those claims would be ultimate question of summary judgment standard that you want us to reverse right where we're to find that reasonable jury could find with regard to the constitutional claim the other two claims that  him that it was a reasonable for the officers after assessing the situation to say wait for the correct right ok and so likewise with regard to the fourteenth amendment claim that i'm understanding that claim correctly that there was even you agree with your adversary's notion that more evidence more material fact that they recognized how serious this situation was they said we tried to get her in the car but she was too fat to fit so there is another fact that they recognized how important this was and i want to address the community because community care taking the classic example is there's a red light out an intersection and a cop shows up and says you stop that's that's a seizure for fourth and then the purposes stop your car is my show of authority that's a reasonable under the community care taking to prevent accidents at an intersection that's the classic example in the cases she cites jump out ski winter these are these are situations where it's a car accident where it's a situation where it's a person who is there some appears to be some drug or alcohol or some mental health issue with the person who could be digital himself or to others that is not the situation here we know the situation here and i think this is undisputed is there is a call for assistance and from the police perspective the character of the problem is under home they arrived on the scene all the testimony that i son i read quite a bit of it everybody is  so there's there's a high degree of emotion there skitz up you know she's sure unconscious and not breathing people are in a panic state and there's and there's yes only and frankly at least one of the police officers they understand there's a medical emergency that's going on how is it that the notion that you used a good example a cop in the streets stop this prevent a further accident  happening how was how is this different or not analogous to a police officer saying the people on the scene the panicked people on the scene stop there's an ambulance i can hear  let the professionals take care of this because the police officers have then and this would be a sweeping expansion of officers rights in user community caretaking doctrine to substitute any medical emergency situation their judgment for the judgment of the perp and or the person's parent or guardian because the cops could have said we think there's pediatric pediatricians the chop the treat asthma so we don't even want you to go to temple ambulance we're going to call another you know this is going to come straight from chop that opens up a whole officers to exercise that judgment car engine of a parrot in the that's where you think the economy lies and that's where you want to rule i'm concerned so am i misunderstanding you or is that your point that when that dichotomy exists we should not be essentially protecting the exercise of discretion by office in this situation that's correct your honor there's there's this is not a criminal situation this is not a free felon this is not a car chase this is a medical emergency or somebody's child having an asthma attack the parental right to control what treatment she does receive it where she goes to get it is her