that if there is a stipulation or a waiver entered into that to be voluntary if there be some proper prosecutorial purpose and that further the interests of the public in this case the world i sense you are stuck on the issue evidence presented that none of the elements of the first prong of voluntariness for math first of all or for carmona sixteen years old when he was placed in jail at the time of his  of otto who was designated the spokes person for the irvine police department had indicated in a number of different areas first he was quoted in a newspaper article after the arrest and conviction later  confirmed in a deposition that two years later when i depose him the following he said that the the method in practice of this type of herbicide shela was standard procedure that they had engaged in such referring to the newspaper article quote we do these types of lineups routinely and it's perfectly acceptable is that what you said in answer yes question what were you referring to when you said those types of lineups the answer i was talking about think carefully about the questions he was asked before he answered in his answer was yes what was unconstitutional about now well a one on one show or without the use of crime scene clothing that a one on one show up is automatically suggested it becomes unduly suggestive when there is in this case a distinctive item of clothing used in the commission of a crime a lakers baseball cap with the distinct have other nine hundred eighty three actions you have other cases that were dismissed other prisoners released on on hideous corpus as mr carmona was that would tend to show that this has been going on for a long time that the police department very much aware that it was behaving badly and in which they had done exactly the same thing but he said as a spokesperson for the department not only is it routine and we use clothing in hats in other situations but we will do it again in the future but our case that's different is that you just told me that vine police department when you were talking to these reporters in august of two thousand about the identification of arthur carmona his field lineup and you were telling of sensory that placing the cap on arthur come on his head in a field line up to identify him was appropriate police procedure true answer no question what were you telling him the answer is that acceptable and then he goes on without belaboring the record i ask in other ways is in this case there was anything that would prevent them from doing in then i will step down establish liability against both of them in this case there was no effort in the moving papers at all in the opening brief to establish a policy practice or custom of the city of khost to mesa i would submit that the allies weighed in the contention little too little evidence it's not fair to of responding party to have to wait until oral argument to respond argue to me for the first time but nevertheless i will address the feel issues that are raised with regard to  the in the second robbers car the getaway car to the scene of the show and actually place the cap on his or carmine his head assuming for the sake of argument which i'm not willing to concede that that could be a constitutional violation there's no evidence whatsoever that that is a college practice or customs of the city of mesa it's just one person saying that in this case one in a civil officer brought a piece of evidence from one location and put it on somebody you can't just put an expert on the stand and say ok based on everything i've read here's what happened mr carmona was pulled out was was pulled over he was brought over to this side cap was put on his head and all of these officers did all these various things and they all made all these various admissions you have to bring the officers into saying what happened you have to bring this to carmona said come in and say what happened the expert can testify perhaps draw legal conclusions about what the effect of those actions are statements of individual officers who are not policymakers and who are not qualified to establish policy on sudan on the part of the city because maybe mr harmon opposed absolutely no evidence in the record other than those two granted on the half of the city with regard to irvine the evidence that mr herman appoints to the admonition feel card which i think shows a policy that is that clearly  constitutional standards the field admonition card advises witnesses that they are under no obligation to make an identification in fact it says that twice it twice tells tells people coming out to tells them that it's a detainee happens to be in handcuffs they shouldn't draw any adverse conclusions from that tells them that they shouldn't talk to anybody on the scene those those criteria all need definitive constitutional standards and there's nothing unconstitutional about that policy with regard to tenet albinos testimony i think number one that a lot of the promised a lot of the testimony that mr carmona relies on is taken out of context and i think it's important to volume three of the rector's page six forty seven beginning at line seven and based upon your understanding of the circumstances involved in the field line up with parker per mona do you believe that it was appropriate to place the cap on his head answer yes question and this is important and why do you believe that that's appropriate cancer my understanding that there had already been some identification of the suspect and there had already been somewhat of an identification by  identified twice without a hat before confirming his identification with that i think that under those circumstances it would it would be very difficult to conclude that the identification to look at the procedures that led to the the witnesses to the guineas robbery they picked mr connor out of the photo lineup and there's no challenge to the validity of the photo lineup so there was substantial other evidence in the record other witnesses were identified in other ways that i number till his deposition testimony i think makes it pretty clear hearing that he was not talking about he'll show us specifically but talking about lineups more generally including lineups conducted in the jail beginning at with regard to the actual use of clothing in lineups more generally when they were talking about the newspaper articles which are inadmissible hearsay t testified question parts to that beginning on page six fifty eight my nine prior to arthur come on this case in february of ninety eight when he was arrested were you aware of any other instances involving the irvine police department ninety eight answer and steel lineups no question so when you said that that was an acceptable practice to have people put on jackets and hats in different items of clothing what were you referring to answer in lineups question barney which indicates that the independence decision by a prosecutor to pursue criminal charges cut off the chain of causation between three prosecution events and post prosecution of the decision to prosecute things that sought damages have now been decided before the complaint was filed and certainly no reason to conclude that the court would have found that the independent decision of the prosecutor to pursue criminal charges doesn't mean this is a liability as there is substantial evidence that the stipulation was voluntary mr carmona was represented by counsel he admitted on the record that his attorney always always explains everything to him that never he can understand  his attorney think of explain it to him so he would understand it there's no evidence of subjective involuntary mr come on his own declaration establishes that he willingly sign stipulation because he wanted to get out of jail there's nothing no constitutional mandate or prohibition on jail inmates giving up constitutional rights in fact i would submit that everyday jail constitutional inmates ways very important constitutional rights stipulation is not invalid or otherwise involuntary because it was drafted by the district attorney it was no good the evidence establishes that the stipulation was stipulation there was no threat of increased jail time there were no time constraints put on mr carmona by the district attorney obviously there were time constraints imposed by the by the ending hearing for the petition to retain his workers but the district attorney didn't do anything a crime and was already serving time i guess i would would would conclude by saying that in in considering the validity of the stipulation waiving the right to eight six forty eight and six forty nine of the record the question is so is the spokesperson for the police department when you were talking to these reporters in august two thousand about the identification of arthur carmona in a field line