but you know based on common sense i would think that that's only a couple of minutes that it would take for him to be putting no information on that or on i you know i really don't believe that the exact lack of time is in the record is there any record reasonable suspicion at the time they encountered him more than first picked up and his mother's house what's the evidence not they were aware of the amount of information because because this isn't a qualified immunity the situation here we're talking about whether there was in fact probable cause and so be a reasonable belief as to whether there was probable cause doesn't really matter here it's what the police knew in general and second of all your honor i don't think that there were a lot of officers kind of involved in putting together what apple is contend is probable cause here and the invest matter asserted and we say that for a couple of reasons first of all all of those decisions involved in moving background evidence to show the reasons for police actions and the reason for the police action here the reason for detective crown starr in his investigation just doesn't really matter to to give the jury context here he could have just said i was acting on information received from another police officer and i arrived at the hospital to investigate the background testimony wasn't in order to show probable cause because again it's not about whether the police had reasonable had a reasonable belief that there was probable cause the reasonable suspicion it's about whether there in fact was probable cause  behaving erratically at the hospital better behavior i was told multiple stories all that was was no two police before tourists was picked up at his mother's cells was it not that's officers house i mean at his mother's house with the officers which you described to us as very short as a matter of common sense and he wouldn't interrogate as far as we know just put in the car fleeting moment and what the court really meant example my understanding is not that produce so testified because in fact she would have bruises on her who are in fact she was mother said irrespective of whether they were true it was the quantum of information that prone had at his disposal at the time torres was picked up but again your honor that doesn't go to whether there was probable the police officers told that a guy wearing a blue hat and a run t shirt and black blue jeans and broad boots just rubbed the back ok and just for bad luck some poor said my theory is that when he was picked up when he was initially sees and when he was initially imprisoned there was no probable cause the court says i'm not going to charge the jury on top of because i'm going to charge them on reasonable suspicion and  your honor you can't detain someone for that period of time that's reasonable suspicion is to carry stuff i think he means just to stop or someone on the street under terry crack and that's at most fifteen minutes and you know don't he doesn't say you have to charge probable cause but i would point you to united states versus rasul where there was a similar sort of colloquy between the defense i believe it was the government and defense counsel about whether to give a particular charge and there was no kind of conclusion where the district court said you know i'm going to charge i mess and the council then said no your honor that's not act instead they kind of left it open and that's what is where there's a scuffle between the police and a suspect or an inmate and guards and everybody agrees that some physical force was used it's just whether you know that too much force was used and the situation here is just totally different from that the the dispute isn't over whether the force that was used was reasonable the dispute is whether force was used at all and apple e's have never said you know he pointed his finger a  he pointed and yes the jury is across the ones who are ultimately to make this decision but the third district court itself recognized that under these circumstances the type of force that mr tori alleged would not have been reasonable and then in the face of an objection he kind of rock and his instruction on that and instead of saying you know if you believe that mr torres if you believe that force was used against m case is that it appears that the illegal seizure slash terry stop claim these are all rules properly given because we do that or we need reasonable suspicion for that but what now he just never should have preferred what we will see or claim he should have said on july tenth where they grabbed my client at mom's house that was a false arrest that required probable cause judge and i don't want to hear any instructions of his jury about wanted the cause of action this is one of three bites of the apple even though he wanted probable cause across the board because they're not was for that purpose only one event and he wanted to divide it up into three state law at the time she was charged and so that to me is one distinct claim that's that's it's own false arrest she also wanted a false imprisonment charge which you know there are reasons for that and then he wanted before the unlawful seizure to cover the time from when he was picked up on july tenth through when he was charged to cover that period back unlawful seizure there and i don't think that just because he was requesting you know multiple constitutional violations for radically and i mean again i think that there's had a problem on the false arrest claim for july thirteenth but of course we're not arguing that here that he would it was valid for him to request these three seizures what clarify which applies here and requires a cause and then you have a false arrest claim from when he was subsequently charged on july thirteenth that again we're not contesting here but that's the two separate but that's also about you know know the supreme court's decision in dunaway is pretty clear that i just applied it to a section nine hundred eighty three claim which of course you know the fourth amendment just couldn't is always has always come into section nine hundred eighty three claims and the amendment seizure instruction and whenever we've played there because there was no objection at the jury charge conference after the charge was given i realized i wasn't done the way of controlling whether or not dunaway is controlling i think earlier is that if that had not occurred until the next day after jenkins and peds encountered him and kept him there with that had been enough record that was presented and we have you know we've we've kind of first the officer as a portion of the ten through the thirteenth portion that's where we're at with that particular portion of his appeal review decisions that were made by the courts allow and there was no decision that was made that if he was a part we do we have an obligation to determine whether his decision to go ruling to yeah and i think that you know he got there on the morning of july tenth and so i think miss bennett's testimony is out we don't know when that testimony was given to the officers all we know is that it was given some time prior to when she signed the statement at nine thirty five pm right so i don't think that we can say that that gave them probable cause to pick him up and have him at the station beginning at that point and again i would go back to all of that information