the qualified it and district of columbia versus resume in which this was decided just this past january the supreme court held that a body of relevant cases is usually necessary to clearly establish an officer's lack of probable cause prosecutors are themselves clearly established even though the supreme court has repeatedly time and time again told the courts not to define constitutional rights at such a high level of generality good information there into these defendants they officers to reach a problem because determination based on the statement of a single victim and that's exactly what we have here but the complaint is really is plastered with thirty paragraphs thirty plus  quotes from this victim and attempt to show that she was somehow inconsistent throughout her three different plaintiff's calls and versions of her statement but what the actual interview transcript shows is that you have it read and it's like a deposition in the sense that it starts off with a really broad question time what happened oh by the way i never met you before so we're just getting acquainted and then the officer goes back and draws down and something tells and then she feeds the room comes back and brings in sexual assault dawson can took issue with that because at the end of the day it is these officers who are the defendants in this case they're the ones whose knowledge is being put into issue and they have to be able to go on the statements of the fun of themselves but the judge knew it's really it's actually  that's what they were relying on when they made th by its own language talks about a case where force is alleged extrinsic the act of penetration in a district court read that opinion me precisely the way i intended  it and i pointed that out any state seems to take issue with it but what we have here is if you can just fall into the state's argument not understanding why you make this argument very clear what but that gets to the argument i was just about to raise your honor with respect to the state's argument that they could theoretically have charged my client with any potential crime under the sun even though he wasn't charged a a false impression was given of him to other law enforcement officers because he supposedly was accused of holding his children in a hostage situation what's interesting if you read a little bit further in that case are the police actually had probable cause to arrest him and of interest them on an aggravated assault charge because he supposedly perp brandished a weapon in the in response to police actions so clearly in that situation there's probable cause to arrest them on a by the qualified immunity and now see if it can be shown that there was probable cause for one of the offenses that the plaintiff was actually charged with here we have a most unusual situation i suppose that you have somebody respectfully with the state's characterization of the interview but that's not really for her here or there but if we're looking at it from a commonsense approach and there was probable cause based on all the things about where she made him and where that with that knowledge that i suppose those details we don't need to have all those details in there but as we've seen from some of the other cases that have been discussed and you have a much more detail the legal what would you do i would take a little bit more time than just running to a superior court judge the same day that's what i would have done i would have investigated a little bit there's no suggestion that there was any investigation time how long was the from there was basically as far as we can tell when for purposes of this motion there was no one outside investigation except maybe talking to the father and the boyfriend on the third of a three way call i wanted to address something  mentioned about what judge isabella had before and what he didn't have before him judge vasquez at the district court level he was very troubled by that and for it was said here i believe a few moments ago that he wasn't quite  wasn't quite clear what he had before the state conceded for purposes of this motion that judge isabella had nothing before him except for this arrest warrant did not have the video did not have any testimony nothing so the only thing for purposes of this motion it's been conceded that all judges umbrella had was this rubber stamp arrest warrant which is materially false and there's no resemblance to what on what the you can't misrepresent facts to a judge everybody with a thinking brain want to know that and it's even when placed right in my complaint so that an enterprising attorney like mr singh would not file a motion suggesting that i wasn't clear about what the clear was that was right is i was very clear about what that is and anybody should should be able to tell that as a law enforcement officer as your megabyte the fact that the officer did put a net and his penis which pace a portrait of a much more sinister type of offense and one of the reasons that we do something like that if you want to force an officer knowing that a judge is going to read it it is the make it work going ok this is pretty serious case i better put a taking the victim's statement at face value there's a holding down of someone's pants or her pants but it's not it's not concurrent with the act of penetration what you see in detective sort of jack basically argued that you know we need to get him to take into detective search x head in order to figure out what he was thinking when he made this complaint you might have entertained doubts about her statement is completely irrelevant the fourth amendment is a literally the analysis