information includes a person's address telephone number driver's license number and highly protected information with the full security number in this case a district court granted summary judgment and framed the place burn this way a chief of police to search for any information on a sitting city council person orders out a political rival i cannot find a case about particularities and doesn't that mean that we should have the district court because it's your burden to find clearly established law from either the tenth circuit or the supreme court that supports your position i think that's a valid argument but i also think it's one of those upset because about the d p p a the statute that we're discussing i mean this isn't this isn't a big broad statute like say section one hundred eighty three right this is where we really talk about good faith and what it means to violate constitutional rights  if you have a statute clear in this case not only do you not need a case that says exactly what the statute but it's highly unlikely that there would be to such a society because people would follow  whether it's in connection with any civil criminal administrative or arbiter of proceedings in federal state or local order agency before any self regulating body including service process and then to gauge an anticipation of litigation blah blah blah i mean it isn't that you can say oh yeah this is here that's pretty vague and you know they're they're arguing that they have a legitimate investigative purpose here to broad the supreme court says we can't determine we can't deny qualified immunity based on vague or broad principles we have to narrow down i think what the let the the course of said about this is the unity is that we have we must give a definite good faith community when the law does not clearly establish or put them on notice that conduct is lawful or unlawful so in this case you point me to any case that you cited that from the tenth circuit or crme court that would have put them on notice that accessing the driver's license information in order to determine whether mr had quick listen district or district for which he was serving on the council one inappropriate use that information i cannot make into a case whether or not he committed a crime or committed or fell within that administrative exception so it seems to me that the question that i'm struggling with is what if you have  political office by determining his residence is that work if you look at the transcript of the phone call between mr patterson and chief walsh he says i've got everything from past and present house plans versus associations all that kind of stuff so this wasn't just a as a read the determination in fact walsh found the address he needed to use in simpler tatter stillman system the police department uses for dispatching those types of things a few or is there any statute or in the ordinance upon which you understand the police were investing themselves or injecting themselves into this and so if there is a circuit split and we haven't weighed in then under the clearly established prop if there was a dual purpose he would get qualified immunity if we find that a fact finder could find that he had solely an improper political purpose that wouldn't not fall within one of those two exceptions that the defy then you would say the fact finder could conclude that he had a solely improper political purpose and that he would have been ordered by the face of the statute that that would be permissible into it because what i think we're talking about very good space in the summary judgment standard is that we're dealing with a probably a mix question of law in fact in questions of the face immunity where the part of the greedy as to what happened and then we can find in the p purpose absolutely and i think the record supports that but even if you did even if that were the case and there isn't evidence from which the jury could have found that it was a legitimate purpose lobby you know we don't have a tenth circuit case at all on this issue and you you have not presented any cases from anywhere that support your position the closest case we have seems to be the contrary i'm not the pictures of the good people who were members of the motorcycle club and they used it to titian against an open carry is still at the state legislature and the members of the club were very upset that their personal driver's license information was used for this political purpose without their permission and then go off and show pictures of them openly car courts is to prevent stock or any of these criminals from accessing an individual private information from the d m v and in so far as law enforcement is concerned what is its purpose it was never meant to so they can look at tax records a good look at the revenue record all kinds of ways right yet not in this case you have an officer who if we believe good b one permissible purposes for law enforcement agency for government in carrying out its function and also b s one for which states litigation exception as as one of them yes and i can explain why a judge because cash for city code zero two zero three zero four provides that a council member must be generally a political question right sorta like the because the presidential debates that are going on right now that are political in nature they are shown on the driver's license i suppose he'd take your know what kind of information could you possibly find in the driver's record records and that bore on the question which would enhance the knowledge he already i think what is different is that the man might have provided him with one address the t l o search is important because it has more address where stone i might just give you one address and political dirt on a political rival right i think this similar issue was raised in the case and in my brief comment was first the city of miami and in that case an officer pulls over an individual unended up pulling her  on this individual and after this happened it was sensationalized family values to an officer started looking up private information this after report about and they said well we're just doing it for officer safety reasons and similar to this case and this is what i said no there could be any number of reasons why you searched my information it could be romantic interest it could be curiosity and we should let a jury decide and the eleventh circuit most recently twenty team said no because she has not explicitly alleged much less carries her burden to show that the defendants obtain the information for a purpose clearly not permitted and in this case mr walsh has consistently said repeatedly the only reason why a search a simple nation was to determine his presidency and that is improper purpose under the d p p it would seem to me if it was the exclusive way to prove you might have a good argument but if as we had with you concede it before it's not exclusive and he already had the can you if you already have the information from this film or can you have a proper purpose for seeking the same information from the driver's license records i know there's all kinds of dispute here i mean you we could i guess by your theory of the case one hundred percent and reject the order of aspects of the cable hundred percent but if we find that there is a dispute they always said the way we were going to live rid of them with to check and see really lived in his war that somehow there that's a proper purpose and therefore there's no dispute i don't believe she rowing on two exceptions that are predicated up as you just put it for the purpose of a criminal investigation or for administrative purpose  me what is in that person's mind their intent so i'm not sure how so and i'm not trying to argue with you i just didn't literally didn't understand it well i think possibly the court in the from your service greece is for the judge johnson granted qualified immunity as i read it's taken to the city of casper he said the defended get qualified immunity well we all know municipalities never now this is not the ski mask wearing burglar in the bushes trying to find him and address this giraffe that wears a suit in the tie but it doesn't mean it's any different and it doesn't mean it's not the purpose of the act to deal with i think the most important thing that i want to emphasize is that the court incorrectly accepted the one factual scenario one scenario that was clearly undermined by the record in fact i would argue the weight of the record goes against what the formulated standard  or one of the photographs which i think are also protected under the act and they are may not be distinguishable that's obviously a challenging case for us to deal with but the personal nature of this in addition to the political state is up to bring about a political an but this is really a personal smear campaign as indicated by this over them for they would like for you to ignore the scope of the search and ignore the number of searches of the frequency of searches that were number of people that did them the personal relationship between the parties which are