factual issues that he's been granted immunity by the respective drop works in this particular case we know that he is shrimp legally we want to make up evidence and why he's made up a significant amount of facts that obvious just starting with the alcohol influence reports that officer out there least five misrepresentation on that one document alone he continues on with the probable cause affidavit that he filled out in relation to misuse their base as part of his probable cause to make it rest he knew that she was alone and he knew that she had authenticity of that correct authenticity is that you don't know your honor well look from that video that he does not ask for are you alone he does not ask her are you with the other gentleman that is in the lobby not substantial evidence showing that she was operating d a vehicle and we also know that that just was not part of his analysis whenever he was making his problem because and we know that because we asked him and his deposition sir what was your probable cause to make the arrest and he outlined that for us very clearly and he only with four things he lists the refusal of the p v t the admission of drinking and if you just look at the probable cause affidavit that he that he drafted later he didn't say anything about holding is that he we don't know how she got all he knew he went out to the lobby prior to meeting her  the test is not whether or not a person has consumed down all the cases whole but the test is whether or not the person is from that consumption of alcohol is legal to drink a beer and get in a vehicle and drive i will but that doesn't mean i drove there and he's not allowed to speculate that that's what he's doing think the record makes it evidence he has an intense fear arising when they have to lie about all the other things that he did which i think is problematic too but what's more all of those non driving cases that come down in the state of missouri they all have a substantial amount of additional evidence contained within them that show there was an officers officer does not need to see a person driving to arrest for driving while intoxicated circumstantial evidence can apply the elements of driving while driving is not observed in the engine is not running in cases such as the instant one where the officer wood she could live down the street from benson and walked over to pick him up from the collective she could have gotten a ride there from a friend and hopped out of that car while her friends d days in the vehicle she could have rode with the other gentleman that was in the lobby were getting to the wro least arguable probable cause and because the law was not clearly established dead is rest of her with her rights under the th amendment contrary to what mr lewis said and is no probable cause of the system if the facts and circumstances are sufficient for reasonable officer to believe that an individual has committed a crime that officer gets substantial intoxicated then as i understand missouri law there is no requirement of evidence of impairment what was the evidence of impairment provided  be evidence of intoxication right that is true drug rep f b i evidence of intoxication and driving or operating a bit right those are the two problems that is correct and there was evidence of a boat that was obvious in this particular fine and she smells of outlaw she is bloody blood shot glasses watery eyes and he tells her she's under arrest and as he's arresting already joseph her you drove here you to arrest her d for driving while intoxicated and true if he didn't it probable cause all it takes for qualified immunity is arguable probable cause are you but a probable cause what that means  look at the facts and circumstances d of games there are cases of talk about very few that talk about operating a vehicle when they're not least close to a video and in fact i don't think the read like this case at including smell of alcohol that he claims he smelled and the observation of bloodshot eyes if the jury hears that this guy can't answer questions and has take this and then that they're probably not likely to believe he actually made those observations so if you take those away then you have a refusal of the p v t and you have the admission to having a couple of drinks but we don't know if those drinks were five pm denner or right before she walked in and at that point there's really he's saying that she there are they agreeing that she had keys to her carter ham counsel also wanted to harp on the fact that we can't consider anything that happened after the arrest and all of that interaction concerning the keys was clearly at the rest of the court cannot just absolutely not the case in that case the officers of the person being combative them cooperate of sleepy almost not coherent slurred speech there was many many factors in that case and it was not simply just smell him providing input to us to help us resolve the issues in this case