important for the court to get the batter out of this case in terms of the law that was listed by the court visually that led to the problem under which we complain and that's a rule at least in the plaintiff's opinion damages flowed from the search of the residence that was denied that that there were any damages flowing from the search of the residence however it was  the the use of excessive force but the district court never ruled that they were relevant on the excessive force what the district court ruled is that you could show you couldn't attack the about a swat team coming to a prior individual's home was sufficient foundation in and of itself to show that there was excessive force being use of that right it was presented to the judge that all of these but you were prevented from showing that a swat team came and how did you make the time that evidences of the war came about  was going to be relevant excessive force the foundation you have to lay you have to show that there was something about how one team into existence that was relevant to the issue that was on trial which was the issue of excessive force i think that yesterday i sure are there were many instances where that came up during the trial but probably the most prominent instance is when on direct examination defense counsel asked the lead detective about what he did in order to get to the point of having a swat team at the residence and he talks about using this me tri lot it was very brief but at that point it completely open the door to the idea that there was some sort of analysis that really was objective and not subjective that was used in order for the swat here because the defended in the criminal case was director bill i was not a felon so that there was no probable cause to show that he was a prohibited person in possession of weapons secondly that and what happened at the scene so that the whole story was that i told only part of the story was told and the jury was that to guess about what happened before or not you know so that prejudice the rights of the plaintiff and the court if i had about why a swat team was there which needed to be answered in their mind in order to not prejudice the rights of the plaintiff but how does that be around the question when the jury that apparently found that there was no for the blow to the state filing not simply that a swat team was used it was disproportion to use a swat team but that then at the scene force was used against your client that's fair ok so if that's right it's not good enough for you to show prejudice to demonstrate that it was reckless to use a swat team you've got to show that other evidence would have tipped the jury into believing contrary to the government's contention that force was used at the scene that's correct so is the i did it if they didn't do how disproportionate they were acting from the beginning they were just disbelieving officers contention they didn't use force at the same absolutely they were completely contradictory stories about what happened at the trial in terms of what type of force was used and how this officer who was the officer who completed all the steps individually was the person who used that for and excluding evidence of the circumstances surrounding the particular end of a warrant when the issue at crondall was whether the defendant used excessive force  one should have been an issue in itself the trial was resolved well before the trial that was not an order it was in the green and in and in any event whenever it was finally a motion filed on that issue in the motion was denied that has not  plaintiff and if you look through the trial transcript you'll see that from the very beginning even though that was an issue plutus counsel repeatedly said that this person who use the force was the proponent for this war and it was an overreaction he talked about the evidence was that this officer to not have the discretion to assemble a swat team he simply provided factual information and then another witness really didn't go and testified that it was he together with the chief deputy of the sheriff's department who assembled the so called swat team actually the emergency services unit that is an independent decision that was made so naturally the evidence crept into the case and there  to find probable cause to issue the warrant because that players on the question of whether there was excessive force at trial the issue of obsessive force was whether my testimony about what happened and then they would say it was corroborated by the inference one could draw from the manner in which the search was conducted with what's so hard to remember they would have had to have said in disbelief the officers