assistance medically with what in this record establishes that their sole obligation was simply to load up and take her to location saying that was their sole responsibility and if there the question but i just got on the pleadings of judgment on the pleadings in order to satisfy the supreme court's command that qualified immunity be done st can include lots more in the complaint  district court asked about the bot the video camera or the evidence that was apparently available and you who are someone on behalf of the plaintiff said it was not necessary that you see that what i would like to do st is address this issue of the video so st of all i started with the county after this case has already been argued the person who argued this case and made decisions about it is retired from the county  i would love i wish that this video was a part of the record but to the court's question about whether or not the court asked for and what was said at the hearing all i would refer the court to have you counties appendix page eighty nine dollars this is a part of the transcript during oral argument of the rule twelve motion down at the bottom i'm just going to read this the court asked just quickly mr light of the videotape that prefer the complaint is that something that is a well st of all in your view without being embraced in the pleadings and if so where is it mr lighton and responded it is a break your honor and i have it and i shared a copy with the county months ago they asked for it so everyone has that the court respond do you think the court should have it or not mr leiderman responded your honor i don't believe it's necessary for the court to have the video if your honor would like it unhappy to provide the court responded will proceed without  supposedly that video shows with respect to these claims by ms but fully that she was not physically resisting she was not trying to head butt people she was not trying to buy people as set forth in the ambulance run report to court i believe rightfully concluded that those claims are not well pled under the ball case for other reasons that she was blew a point for her blood alcohol blood alcohol content when she got to the hospital was found to be a point thirty dollars or which is close to four times the legal limit for driving in minnesota because ms buckley was extremely toxic it was depressed was arguably suicidal or his at least made such claims to her friend and her mother i believe the court rightly concluded that those recollections miss buckley having thought her encounter with paramedics and police were not well plu thank you for that allow me three that immediately just look and you would also ask the question about in response to counsel's claim right off the top that this was not a medical emergency and you  question you son of a skeptical skeptical and i'd like to answer that question your honor i think there's no doubt but that this was a medical emergency it wasn't a medical emergency place created by the minneapolis police department it wasn't a medical emergency created by the head of the paramedics who responded instead one of them is buckley friends call nine hundred and eleven and wanted someone to do a welfare check on her because they're concerned about her safety and what told people that she was depressed about the death of her father two years previous she had told her mother and her friend that she was suicidal under these circumstances i don't believe the minneapolis police department are happening at any alt which place or under a rule two hundred and fifty three b hold for her safety take her to the hospital for medical care for her safety and that's what they did the problem wasn't business buckley didn't want to go voluntarily despite given several opportunities to go voluntarily as she is noted in the complaint she was had several verbal outbursts refused to go and so she was taken against her well into the ambulance it was at that time that yes she was given an injection of capital which is a legal sedative it's not an experimental drug it's a legal sedative that she was given and if we just go by what the complaint says it was given because of these verbal out that's a good question your honor an initially she was given this rating of a plus two on this and mass scale which i think refers to someone who's having outbursts is is acting somewhat erratic with the plane of claims that the that that that that number that plus two that and last number spontaneously dropped to minus two as i noted a footnote in our brief i'm not necessarily sure that the order in which the paramedics place the information into their report necessarily means that's when it all happened i think it's certainly possible that she did that she went through a plus two to a minus two only after she was given  a regarding her behavior i think it was reasonable force because there was no guarantee given her previous behavior given her condition that she was going to stay in liason to that she was not going to continue verbal outbursts or as the paramedic said continued fighting against these physical restraints but if we just assume what's quiet i don't think there is any guarantee that she was going to stay at minus two and so that decision was made to give her the well you're out i would imagine that of course this hasn't been litigated her herb this point but i would imagine that the paramedics take these things into consideration exercise medical judgment and know whether or not a sedative like ketamine can be given to someone in this intoxicated state i would assume that given the fact the give that injection that there must be some kind of a big concern a side effect that they're concerned about that  that they did it very her they did continue to provide here to her and she was taken to the hospital ultimately discharged the next day in this case wasn't their judgment taken away from them and that's that's my concern let me you know the doctors who ran this experiment once and if you believe what the complaint says discovered there's a ten times better chance of intubation using ketamine than alcohol doesn't get close to the level of deliberate indifference to on that same exam again in a more or less treating her as a as a guinea it takes away the judgment the ambulance drivers maybe this is a situation where hell though it would have been the better one but because they're in the midst of this experiment they're forced to use ketamine your i would take issue with some of that just a little bit while i would i'd call this the study and that might be semantics but i don't use the word experiment because i know there are some cases cited by the appellant in the deliberate or deliberate and different section they do talk about experimental radiation  higher incidence of some of these side effects including the need for patients to be intimated extra salivation sort of some other side effects but i think what that goes to your honor is medical discretion medical decision making and i also note that ketamine wasn't the only sedative that these paramedics were permitted to use during this part of the study as we noted there's this ketamine was the st law not the only law and as the court i think rightly showed or observed in judge eriksson's order that previous study that the appellant's also referred to notes that five percent of patients who were otherwise supposed to get lab during the study so st line not necessarily and i don't believe it was the only law and so there was medical discretion there is medical decision making that was allowed to be taken but in the st line they're going to get  right that is correct your honor for that period of time no judgment the judgment of the use of another during that six month period maybe another after ten but not in about whether now it's appropriate to use it and i think that's important ok well that brings me back to another question you've said that the district court was correct to say the her pleadings about not resisting were not well yes but what do you rely on for that i understand she was drunk but yes you know we generally we have to accept the pleadings the way they are and we can't make judgments at this point about whether they're credible or not i to consent to medical treatment i know of no law i know of no cases so i can't cite you any that would say that someone with a point three hundred and four or the alcohol content who might also be argued who might also be arguably suicidal or  least told people that there's a cop a person who has the right to consent or decline medical treatment so she's that happening to do that if she can't sign a contract if she can't do a codicil on her will of those verbal outbursts given the fact that she wouldn't leave her apartment and go to the hospital under what everybody agrees was a perfectly appropriate and legal medical transportation hole she had to be taken i don't think anybody disputes that and also that time now you're i guess what we've been talking about here too is the difference between a th amendment claim under ninety three dollars and a medical malpractise if it's really going to come down to medical judgment did they exercised correct judgment that's a medical malpracti and was buckley has a problem with that kind of sedative that was given or the circumstances under which that sedative was given to me that's a medical malpractise claim that's medical judgment it's not excessive forth they exceed the excessive force under the th amen i've got about thirty five seconds i haven't addressed a lot of the other things that are in their briefs unless there are other questions all rely in that region at that time and again ask that this court or respectfully affirm the district court you mr layton and take you also mr france and court appreciates your presence be force this morning in providing argument to us in relation to the she's in this case in we thank you also for the briefing which you submitted to we'll take your case