reason she wasn't in contempt of court the the court this morning was the i could understand an argument that there is a problem under state law but of course you're making a claim under forty two u s c nine hundred eighty three under federal law your lead argument is that by making an error of state law the defendant made an error of federal law do you have any authority for that proposition or the particular contention that by making the rest without state law already the defendant violated the fourth amendment is an argument that has been considered by the supreme court in virginia against poor and rejected your brief doesn't even mention virginia against its binding on os and what i have a lot of difficulty understanding there is there is your honor in in our case  process in motion she participated in that process your honor and so i'm making the arrest but not by making any decision about when your client would be released on bail well respectfully your honor she did she that would be a claim you could make against her you would then have to deal with a decision of this court portis against chicago which holds as a matter of federal constitutional law the two hours is not unreasonably lon i just find it profoundly troubling when you have claims other federal law that are being made without researching the governing by making the arrest by holding this ridiculous for an hour and twenty minutes that there is liability under those circumstances i didn't find one and i'm not aware of or argue that your honor remains as we've raised it so the order to keep in custody comes first and then the length of time is determined by that nine days i mean if you pay sooner than you think let go sooner but it certainly doesn't present them in the alternative moreover didn't have that obligation because he's not the inspector so didn't even have the authority but he said the question of whether she had authority to make the arrest i mean that's that's not fair cost so i'm not sure that i read the order or the idea is those circumstances i don't think that that their case controls so you know our position remains what what we say more about that so i'm not sure there is anything in the appeal turns on it and i just ask you a brief question on state law for a minute is it clear to you that the arresting officer lacked authority under state law to make this arrest all reason i ask you that is because there appears to be a provision in wisconsin law three zero one twenty nine three zero one point two nine that authorizes correctional officers to make arrest think that was not i'm not familiar with her so starting out with officer porter the first claim is that officer porter violated  because the arrest taking her into detention was based on probable cause which is the frankland warnings and again there is no dispute that it's valid that it was directed to rodriguez rodriguez does not make any claim that she had already paid the judgment prior to the act so because of that are built our position is that there's no fourth amendment violation and i know in the rodriguez essentially argues that when she presented herself at the jail to pay the bail her son it gave her two options once the warrant was discovered she had the option of paying that amount or precinct the process is the punishment you know we think two hours in jail is just the right time for this crime so we're going to hold you we could let you out right now but we ain't going but you might really have a constitutional claim there i didn't see an argument along those lines bart mr clawson do you think the record here would support an argument along those lines no i wouldn't there is no evidence in the rocker that there was any but i would respond to that i think the evidence that it was a reasonable procedure and she was taken also it's just taken into custody pursuant to a valid lawrence which allowed her to be incarcerated for up to nine days at some point during her detention and she did make a request herself bail that started the release procedure and the rest several steps to that which included verification of her identity that information came at approximately three am after that came that information came back the packet was prepared and a jail officer and two supervisors had to review the packet and approve it and in this case rodriguez  released two hours after that which i think was very reasonable and i go back also to the issue of the thirteen hour detention that the claim is made against officer porter and office support did have some role in taking her into the time and brought her into the facility and she did do some type of pat down search so she she was involved in the early stages of her detention after that she had no one of all men she was not working and was not working in the jail facility at that time so under the law in order for there to be an one thousand three claim they're asked to be personal responsibility that officer must have had some involvement in the decisions made and in this case there is no evidence and rodriguez does not even dispute that that she had no role in for what happened in the jail after that those early incarceration because she would not immediately except that payment and i think that the issue is you know decided in that decision of joe versus a two piece colony and that case is very similar to our case where the judge issued a warrant for ross the plaintiff in that case presented herself into county and she was taken into custody even though she made a request for immediate payment and the court in comes into custody for example if they're stopped the road there's no requirement that the police officer deputy accept any payment if there is a warrant discovered you know during that search and that's what to and she could be taken into custody there's no constitutional right that officer porter or milwaukee county or anyone else except a medium payment and lou of taking her in last issue is the money now claims and in that claim rodriguez is alleging that policies and practices in the county were unconstitutional and violated her right different because a you know what happened in this case may be consistent with the policy and practice at the county does not mean that there is a constitutional violation further more as a stale blushed and pointed out by the district court it is unclear as to what specific policy in practice rodriguez even claims is unconstitutional was it the fact that the county didn't rob her to make immediate a payment was her the fact that they ran a warrant search on her was that the issue of taking her into custody we don't know because that was never is that there's no underlying constitutional violation so even if you go one step further i don't believe the thirteen hour detention is a constitutional request self bail and that was complied with and steps were taken to release are now the fact that plaintiff claims that it should have been done in a lot less time you know that does not rise to a constitutional