to thank you we are here on an appeal of a decision from judge pala on summary judgment both parties move had cross motions for summary judgment plaintiff's motion was denied defendant's motion was granted this is a fourth amendment false arrest claim under section one thousand nine hundred three and also fourteenth amendment claim for lack of due process with respect to the  corporate interest in the property the question that the court has to answer here is how can a property owner trust pass against its own property the timber deed in this case granted  premier forest products interest in the real estate on that on that point you know used or you would not i wonder timber deed but you did not discuss the rights provided by that document so is it your contention that it gives the right to occupy the property similar to a lease as opposed to a limited right of access such as an easement for the purpose of collecting the timber that was sold to to them if it's only a right of access can't the owner ok and in particular i have the i think the same questions judge rover has but on the critical question here you cite only a couple of north carolina cases which it seems to me it's pretty tough to charge an illinois sheriff with knowledge of those why and we've got a document that actually doesn't it well east point us to the language that actually conveys an interest in critical document you need a copy i've got it ok and this is page twenty two and twenty three of the separately found  i was looking for and didn't see dida like language of conve i see a guarantee of access in paragraph eleven that sounds like a contractual promise of a license that in a property owner can revoke at will even if the winds of breaching contract well what am i missing why i think that under the license even under license law you would have to go into court your honor and ask for a temporary restraining order you don't have the right can you point us to illinois law on the subject  had taken more timber them was allowed under the agreement which would have been right there and did his right access well that's a factual dispute on the record that mr zimmerman said i didn't and put the officers on notice that that fact wasn't necessarily conclusive and the the officers here were told we have a written contract we have right of access and and that this deed has been up held previously by another court in terms of allowing him access so they were on notice of those facts going into the decision they were dressed they were given conflicting claims right there right ok so then under the law you're supposed to sit back and look and see whether or not there is problem paris and july in that case that was the least situation where a property owner bought the building and found a person basically has a hold over residential tenant residential tax rate this is that in officers at the scene should not have to understand a contract and property law in order to german whether a person is trespassing i don't i didn't just like my brother hamilton i didn't see any legal authority as to the relative rights of the owner of a property in the possessor of a timber deed and and he informed the police that zimmerman was improperly accessing his property in violation of the agreement and those officers didn't need to determine whether the timber contract included those trees in order to determine whether there was probable cause to arrest zimmerman and it's for the courts to decide that contract issue so we do have a to get off my property he was misrepresented to the the officers in this case that there was an order in a court that prevented my client from being on the property didn't they check with the facts that indicate that the state's attorney wasn't aware of the written contract which provided the legal access to the proper and sure that you know this is this you are mr property and it makes him pretty vulnerable his contract he was someone who's basically taking someone else to treat but he doesn't have any factual proof of that he makes a phone call to somebody to tell well you know sometimes when you don't have proof and trees are getting cut down and somebody said you know that won't treat was mine not yours that's not so i that's what he was worried about but now that that's what raised all of this in the first place and brought the police into i understand that this was a civil dispute between contractual parties that he's using the police force to enforce what he believes is the terms of the contract what he should have been doing was going into court and getting a temporary injunction to prevent my client from farther activity i understand that's your position and legally the issue tends to be thought of in terms of the difference between a right to property and a license or a contract right correct and so let's go back to the question about what in this document distinguishes between those two such that a police officer or the deputy prosecutor prosecuting attorney should have figured out why you are right while i believe that the property when you directed them to the language or a legal authority in the third paragraph the seller agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the purchaser meeting premier for us from the seller's failure if you would like to address the supreme court's decision in hyun against north carolina with respect to giving police officers in these sorts of situations the benefit of the doubt when there's a reasonable mistake of law i haven't convinced me that there was a mistake of lawyer yet i understand your honor but when we provide exculpatory facts that show you should be on notice that is what constitutes grounds for lack of qualified immunity in that situation and it becomes a question of fact for the jury and not to be decided as a matter of law and i see my time is up at this point good morning good morning i'm melissa schoen pine and i represent the apple lisa in this case this case is about what we expect from our law enforcement officers we don't expect them to be legal technicians with the ability to interpret a contract or deed on the scene the deputies in this case had probable cause to arrest him mr zimmerman for criminal trespass because when we examine what the officers knew at entry onto the property was lawful the property owner has the ability to ask a person to leave second we know that mr zimmerman did not comply with the landowners request to leave the property they contacted degree that if they were talking about residential leases this would be considerably different yes i do agree ok so when officers are expected to know a little bit about travel right yes ok could you address the shown find chief deputy sandys deposition testimony which i will paraphrase is why did you arrest decide to arrest plaintiff because he had threatened to sue us yes do not matter because it's the objective beliefs of the officers that matter in a case of probable cause we did address the retaliation argument in our brief i believe that the argument of retaliation is waived because the appellant neglected to bring that up at the district court level  to the second argument the appellant substantive due process claim fails because the officers had probable cause for his arrest but even without probable cause a substantive due process claim fail nevertheless because the officers conduct in this case certainly was not conscious shocking the appellant's argue that the deputies conduct was done recklessly or an utter ignorance but i respectfully disagree with that and i think that the officers made an informed decision because they found out what was going on they contacted the state's attorney they contacted their superior they talked to mr s even if the officers did not have probable cause qualified immunity protects them because reasonable officer would have believed in the situation that there was prob show you have a bit of time left mr five mike or thank your honor judge um in answer to your last question regarding the retaliatory actions of chief deputy sandy the question of page forty seven of his deposition was presented who made the decision your arrest mr zimmerman i did it why did you and why did you make that decision he had threatened to sue us there were three of us  earlier that's it's an objective rather than a subjective standard and the objective standard here your honor as that my client asserted to them before the arrest was made that he had a legal interest in this property that he had exercises legal rights before in a court of law and had had this contract up for access that there was no inju preventing him from going forward that mr shashank had misrepresented to the the officers that there was a cease and desist order and mr zimmerman and formed these officers before they made the decision to arrest there was no sleep cease and desist order in fact i checked both carroll county and all county court houses to find out if any action had been taken to for that's the facts that the officers are operating under when they're making the decision to arrest and you have to take into consideration the motivation of chief oppress them because of the fact that he threatened to sue us that transfer to the lack of proper cause in a situation and i have lot all right