the record and some of them were actually included in the affidavit i start first with the exoneration of mr williams mr mr williams attorney says that the city council determined that quote his honesty was beyond question and in his counsel publicly decided that williams was not being dishonest and that no theft had occurred all the court quoted that language are much close to that language saying that the city council quote determine that he committed no wrongdoing and that he needed only repay the the record does not reflect that the record says happened is that the mayor the mayor's testimony was that brad mr mr williams gave his explanation the city council the order of the money to rebuke be repaid and quote it was just a done deal and we moved on there's no pronouncement of honesty there's no pronouncement that no crime had occurred it was simply the council saying all right you pay the money let's just move on as for the repayment of the money admittedly mr williams repay the money however when he was first confronted about the call theft he denied it and said he wanted paperwork to prove that he had done it it wasn't until after he was confronted by the city council and ordered to repay it that he finally repaid the money so that effect too is not exactly she says your written statement to me indicated quote i honestly didn't know i had even last check number nine hundred seventy seven so the excuses in the affidavit yet the district court said that those facts were emitted and thus negate a probable cause as far as the does represent the city it was the citizens of alexander's money that was stolen and the chief of police just like the city council is a member of the city so if the city council is the victim which i attest legally the state is an actuality i would proffer that the citizens are if the city council is the victim as well so as the chief of police he's the one obligated to enforce the laws so when his money was stolen he filed charges the fact that the argument that a mayor can dictate who is and who will not be charged violates i think what we can all agree is a pretty fundamental aspect of this government is the separation of powers if you allow mayors to dictate to chiefs of police who can and cannot be charged you eliminate this separation of powers ray nagin for instance is going to have he went to prison check in the balance in this situation is not the mayor dictating to work to achieve what he can do the check and balance in under state law is that the mayor can fire and hire the chief at his discretion best to check the check under state laws not the mayor taking over police powers from the chief of police that's not statutorily accurate he can't do that but so the point is the entire case is based on mr williams and the mayor being close friends so you agree with the district court witness who had the same facts the chief had the same facts of the judge had they decided a crime being committed wasn't committed the chief decided otherwise the judge decided otherwise so this is not as if the city council was there watching him take the money and said oh wait that's a mistake they made an opinion they made a judgment call just like the police officer just like chief walters is allowed to do now no inverses status is fairly informative on this and no one vs state the prosecutor had agreed with  defendant that if you repaid the money and i think return the fridge rater one of things he stole it returned the fridge rater in the victim decided not to press charges then they would drop the case the judge however the criminal judge says no we're going to go to trial mr nolan was convicted and on appeal the state of the state of the state court of appeal said it's still a crime he was convicted rightfully so the fact that there was an exoneration or not willing to press charges is irrelevant to the question of probable cause the repayment of the later forty seconds later there's not to negate the fact that i stole your wallet is the same that's true here as for the excuse it was in the affidavit out rhonda i remind you that the cops make judgement calls a judgement call and there's no requirement that the excuse is that a criminal gives to the police officer but the police officer has to say well yeah you're probably right just going about your business now i found a case actually two days mr williams who by the way the check when i had a date every year previously and since he get he gets paid every two weeks the fact that he cashed the check means that he had a cash two checks in two weeks that's obviously a mistake or obviously that he should have known that this check was the one that he lost a year ago and then the when the when the employees informed mr connor that he had been overpaid he too like mr williams responded defensively based on that the ninth circuit now you're missing the point is whether he could have a he was not a criminal or at least there would should be more evidence probable cause to believe the crime because it is quite possible to forget may very well be that you got a second object that you would have you had that you got a second check because this one had been lost and you cash that check i mean i guess that's the essence of this and the city council agree with you me the prob you know the fact once he cashes a second check it's theft period and i'm saying no not not if not if it's an honest mistake and the one year time gap could have with more evidence of malice by mr agave probable cause is the repayment to negate probable cause on the one of the things that is the thing i'm arguing yes i mean i agree or there's several other elements most of the second prong you said is where the to deal with the except officer williams thought this was criminal but on the record that nobody thought it was criminal that's when i made my mission away all right and i have one i have one final question what case gives us jurisdiction and a qualified immunity interlocutory appeal to take up the state law claims which you claim fail we're requiring you're entitled to some a judgment for a myriad of rea to i guess my thinking was that since there were so intertwined that the whole thing goes up that's what i was thinking i can't point to any other multiple there are multiple state offenses and they're not all intertwined with the one i think probable cause that goes to each of their please the court my client mr williams with in front of the people who represent the city of alexander and he was exonerated they did feel that he had done nothing wrong and the mayor wrote him a letter that's in the record asserting such and this chief of police maliciously and we are arguing that this was a malicious act maliciously went to a magistrate and left that point out of his argument of his of his affidavit left the point out ok i didn't know the chief of police upon finding out that all this has happened i think we can presume that the magistrate did that it would have mattered to the magistrate that this this information that the chief left out of his affidavit this had occurred months earlier but the chief not only was there a year in between cashing the checks the chief knew about this months before he went to the magistrate for a warrant and the cit information because the chief in both the issue on the checks and the issue on the blue light maliciously let the information out the the defendants argued that the chief decided otherwise and the judge decided otherwise the judge didn't cite anything except that based on the information that was before him he thought there was probable cause to to move forward but there wasn't enough information before what part of arkansas is just south of little rock right there in central arkansas it's very very shortly down the alexander from l it and to broaden the the argument out a little bit by by the diff in this argument i mean in a hypothetical in a real war whop that this is what their site i could begin to date the ex wife of a police officer and that police officer could tell me and could feel the district court judge i'm going to stop you every day and i'm going to mess with you until you stop dating my ex wife and he can follow me around town every day until i made some infraction which i'm nobody can drive perfectly nobody can do everything perfect and by this standard that they want this sport to follow that officer could come in to the district court and say yes sir yes ma'am i don't like that he's  ex wife and i followed him all out around and i waited till he made an infraction and i stopped him every day till he stopped dating her and as long as i wouldn't say well yeah i did have a practical or i did roll through a stop sign that officer has immunity by their argument does on the twenty seventh floor here in this building within in real life that's fairly breaches and that's what we're up against down in this case and in other cases that's setting a very low bar for our police officers a very low standard indeed this chief knew what he was doing he admits that he was upset with the officer williams because of what for political reasons and he maliciously went months after officer williams resigned his employment with the input it with the the city and had another job a federal job protecting a federal courthouse went and to the magistrate judge and presented less than all the facts significantly less than all the facts got a warrant because mr ways to be arrested spend the night in jail and it was a malicious act there's there is evidence to support it and a jury can should get to decide i mean we're not asking for judgement today we're just asking to take this through the jury a jury should decide these facts and decide whether this officer was acting maliciously just based on what was in front of the the magistrate if the magistrate had known the whole story the magistrate would have thought like the prosecutor and wouldn't have not pursued these these charges that's what i believe that's what a jury's going to believe the other any argument in the district court about whether they're qualified immunity the fourth amendment claim supplemental jurisdiction should be surrendered i didn't hear anything like your honor i assumed we were to the nine while it's not the granting qualified immunity gives him a free ride it just takes that it takes federal law to take the u s constitution out of a very local  so you're saying that we would still have a row the in state court well not well no you'd still have a supplemental jurisdiction assuming judge baker who has now spent some time on claims carried on and well in either case you have viable state plans to try if you affirm the qualified immunity based on there not being you probable cause then i think we'd be dead in the water with me why on the other case because they all turn on well i was in state law i don't know if i assume arguable probably cause also if it is it will will be there are all of these cases turn on whether it i mean i you know unfortunately i think i have to agree that if an impartial magistrate was aware of all the facts and looked at all the facts and decided that there was probable cause i'm probably done right but that's then that's going to be the same argument for the your the federal claims is for the state claims we're saying that didn't happen that way this chief went in front of an impartial magistrate who's a very good judge and why by omission listened to the representatives of alexander say there is no wrongdoing here we represent the victims and there is no wrongdoing and then the mayor documented that in a letter to mr williams that's part of the record it can that officer reasonably conclude well a crime has has been committed here and we can take this in and win it in a criminal court they would not he's this is a malicious action but also in the you know we did it appeal the city get now understand the municipal liability side of it but this officer needs to be tried in front of a jury and mr williams be allowed to take his claims in front of a jury to decide these facts because if the facts are as the jury could believe they are then this officer this police chief went and lived by omission to this magistrate and caused this my client to be arrested and calls him home and we rest on the district court's opinion and we hope that your firm it's clearly established you can't be arrest without probable cause no doubt about it but that's not the issue here the question is where officer know that not including williams is repayment and the city's councils the city council's consideration it was a done deal an af davit vali clearly established right there's no there's no no pace on this as an excuse needs to be relied upon north or case law that says the excuse me is to be included yet it was there's no case law that says the repayment of the money needs to be included in that david and there's coaxing hypothetical or running around town being told by police officer i'm going to get every chance i get the subjective intent of the police officer is irrelevant that's well established the only question is objectivity so considering that there is no all the cases submitted we will take it under consideration