in this case issued two sweeping class wide permanent injunction on behalf of the single name plaintiffs lack standing to seek such relief and had no colorable th amendment claim to speak of based on evidence that the not support the injunctions enter that relief causes severe and error parable harm to the government's ability to enforce the immigration laws and should be reversed the cross appeal to district court correctly held that the plaintiffs lack any entitlement to review of the executive branch is probable cause determination sol name plaintiffs and mr gonzalez lacked article freestanding and the sole name plaintiffs mr gonzalez had no plausible th amendment claim starting st with article three standing and i didn't i didn't see a response to th but st and foremost mr gonzalez conceded below paragraph sixty five and sixty seven of the operative rd amended complaint that he made the conscious decision to remain in los angeles county custody because he believed that if he posted bond with the aid of a bail bondsman he would have then passed through ice custody and at this court him india in two thousand and fourteen held that when you take the take that make the decision to be able to walk away from here in two thousand and fourteen the district judge the st judge after four bites of the apple four different versions of the complaint said the plaintiffs enough i'll give you one last chance give me some facts or give me a new pla filing on the record they do not intend to amend the complaint they wish to proceed so i don't know from the government's perspective six years later for this to be resurrected in the way that a district court resurrected these plans for injunctive relief to both injunction well not quite your honor we suggested in our briefing that it was law of the case at a bare minimum under this court's precedents on in on that area dealing with issues like standing or jurisdiction the court had to have acknowledged the prior decision actually it looks like based on the fact that i got a trial or summary judgment or something in the six years that there's a basis for me to revisit this issue that never happened there's nothing in the record there's nothing in the findings of fact and there's nothing in the judgment about that at all and even without that a last point on standing and then this i think is an important point that the plaintiffs don't respond to even if mr gonzales did have standing which for the reasons we say he doesn't there's a nd part of it there is an underlying the needs to be a showing for an impediment to an injunction and equity that means regardless of standing and the discord is that in other cases these these two inquiries sort of blend together but if there's no showing as to a likelihood of future harm that this is going to happen to this name plaintiffs again that is that they're going to commit another crime and up in local custody come to isis attention and then end up with another  conceding that he chose not to post bond and had there the assistance of a bail bondsman the sister had been speaking with was willing to postpone the other holding and the was if you choose to stay in custody when you're free to go or your actions can make you free to go that there's no injury for that so there are two different holdings there and i don't think the bail bondsman fact attains here on the th amendment threshold issue this is the nd just thresholds law and everything that happened after twenty four june in this case no matter what operative complaint you look at d d the dollars was never see because of a nice detail and that's the test you have to actually show that bob you were saved because of and prospective relief and she said no prospective she didn't address them and be a point i think the case had just come out at the time she was issuing the decision but are going to make now your honor on the merits just because mr gonzalez had painted that with issues with his name on it the los angeles county at the time he joined the suit doesn't mean he was ever see because of it and the two reasons for that again one the choice not to post bond means if that was a seizure it's not because of life and nd the detainer was lifted by almost immediately a lot of time of the briefs on it i think it's pretty clear both under the supreme court's decision in virginia the more and this court's decision and dina in two thousand and eleven state law does not matter what for purposes of whether a th amendment violation has occurred so even if the issuance of a painting without more which we contend is not a feature can be a feature whether it violates state law is irrelevant and what the district court said was essentially if there's no state law having pointed to any of that in from the start or from the supreme court saying why actually state law changes the calculus so you could have a different type of seizure in washington state or oregon state or california and how that works so that that was just wrong on its face and the database injunction i think we have a legal argument and a factual argument as we lay out in our papers the legal argument is essentially that  believe it was two thousand and sixteen which you certify the class when the court certify the class let's assume that categorically unreliable and as such we can then assume that every feature that occurs based on the pain or relying on those databases is unreasonable and so there's no need the manager's prudence that an arrest has to be determined based on its back in the particular circumstances and i think even if we assume that i stated bases categorically unreliable which they aren't we'll get to that a minute that doesn't is and they have to raise their claims there and last the point that i don't think the district court addressed the dollars but acknowledged in the companion case roy about half the states in the th circuit alone have statutes at this point which explicitly bar local law enforcement from ever seizing someone on a knife's the states don't have any laws or only three states that i'm aware of that actually have affirmative you must cooperate with the pain of statute so you have a patchwork of different state laws that control whether someone will ever be  us but the court just apply the wrong legal test to the wrong set of facts the court needed to find that was seen or widespread mistakes that were made and wrongful arrest the work during and the say it's point five percent and again that's the four databases that were subject lawsuit challenging initially that i was actually working with in two thousand and fifteen as we point out in our brave starting twenty eight dollars team that went up to thirty databases so the court enjoined with such a low error rate a set of databases that were not really even the subject of data that shows a point five percent less than point five percent error rate just real quickly as on the cross  claims at issue in this appeal is isis practice of conducting dragnet around computer terminals in an orange county office building based on nothing but out of base checks these agents conduct no other investigation they consult no weather source of so let me let me ask you this as a general principle i understand exactly what you're saying but for example the police regulate when they stop you in your car they they check your license they five let's just say that the that the databases for police is that much wrong with that mean that we should not allow the police to consult data hundred percent of the time they are wrong about most categories all the categories of foreign born u s citizen the only category of foreign born us citizen that are in the database that i or those of natural out of two thousand and five  two percent of the time but you layer the incomplete nature of the database of with the other layers of error of the court found and you're left with a system that is wholly unreliable because you don't know whether the information that you're looking at thirty six or so databases and crosschecks information some multiple sources did the district court here come up with an error rate based on that system of looking at multiple databases rather evidence about eighteen databases and every single one of those databases is described in the board's opinion but what is important and what we wait there's a difference between being described and being described as having significant errors i only found i think  think each of the databases what if the system of the information presented by the entire system your parody of the baby and does it for that provide reliable information that you need to make that probable cause assessment whereas if i could trouble you with citizenship and really what it comes down to is a says essentially for citizenship writ out of a says i ask that of a as i am three in the claims or databases the rest of the databases are irrelevant to that question and then when you move to immigration status you add the aid of data base which added ads to be so overstay those are the core databases that you need to make that assessment about citizenship and immigration status the rest are either wholly irrelevant to the class because they contain information about people with removal orders or an ongoing proceedings which are moving good from the top of that are so limited that they don't they don't help compensate for the errors that are in of course databases s citizens who are just completely excluded from this database system and it will appear when i realize on them to be removable forty four percent of the foreign born population the united states are natural i citizens all of them appear movable before two thousand and five so this this is exactly the sort of situation that the supreme court and numerous other courts have talked about that it doesn't run unreasonable for officers to rely on a database that is so materially incomplete that the reliance on those that absence of information can give you reliable information and i think that i was going to say to finish your point that out of all question please i think the important cases here in the supreme court  if the database wheels are really good and even if the database mirrors are really good and even if the database sunroof is really good if the database engine is bad if that database doesn't work you can't simply strip out the and that's why when i think it's our looking only at the database that no other corroborating information we predict trial that it was impossible for them to know whether the injuries they're being was complete or accurate because there's nothing to compare it would make calls they would literally call the facility and say can you please hold a person i don't remember being this center in orange county sending out these emails or when they do it when was the switch made well the program that automated their and we know that because the los angeles sheriff's department policy at that time was to honor every single detain or but no you don't i don't think that it matters for the purpose which is against i pressing the question that is essential if the th amendment is to provide meaningful protection against unfounded interference with liberty so that's interesting but the court has said the same thing again and again and both criminal and civil cases the district no matter how directly involved in the day to day of investigations and enforcement can review and arrest and i want to be clear what the plaintiffs are asking this court to do on this claim or asking that this court reverse that holding that any ice agent can provide a constitutionally sufficient probable cause determination and to remain for further proceedings about what the appropriate remedy should be what ice is asking here is to be exempt from this basic requirement that applies to all kinds of arrests again and it's provided no reason it sidestepped the issue it focuses on whether an executive officer can make a neutral determination of probable cause in the immigration context but that's not in dispute we agree an executive officer can but that person has to be neutral and the evidence here showed that it is literally the ice officer sitting in the cubicle next to you whose job again and again is essential that you have someone who is detached from law enforcement review and are asked ice is on the response other than sidestepping issues to say that immigration is just different but they point to not one single case and in fact the supreme court and venue only ponse says the th amendment cannot apply differently in the immigration context because it protects us citizens and non citizens alike so congress has power over immigration the i used to work in or an ice agent would read you the file call it the prison call you know some prison in donovan down here in san diego and say they had to ramirez is there i want you to hold him for forty eight hours and they hold him for forty eight hours not not more than forty and mostly forty eight hours or less under what you're asking the court to do would they have to have a judge review that decision to hold less than forty eight hours i think that the district court didn't get there your honor because they  decided that any rights of a start any time and so the undisputed facts here are that a person can be detained for weeks without seeing an immigration judge no i understand it will be that that's my nd question but for the st question forty eight hours or less under are you asking us to hold that a judge must it must basically review the phone call that the officer makes to the prison we think that the forty eight hours is the sensible place to draw the line and that's in this context as well and so it would be after forty eight hours that a neutral review of probable cause would be required to keep the person detained so let me ask you this under scenario number two if i might donovan prison i received a phone call from the ice age old hard to remember is or forty eight hours if i don't receive something from i saw one of the judges signed off on this after forty eight hours i would have to cut them loose that is correct john ok no i just want to i just want to make sure i understand what what the line is so it's we would still we would use the forty eight hour rule but the obligation would be on the federal government at the forty hour mark you got to show us something and if you don't show or something needed some sort of independent determination then the hold is effectively over and the president would need to discharge em that's right and i pod as i should be be clear that i don't i think that the district court didn't make a determination about what's reasonable time period before probable cause and so i think that if the court agree is that it's not ok for ice officer to decide probable cause on day five or six or seven or eight the proper thing is to remain and just say no you need a neutral review and the district court could consider in the st and sense of the questions about how that would work or what the remedy would look like because it might my concern with your position i mean i think your position in some respects makes a lot of sense the least the way i just portrayed it but my concern is that the executive branch does all kinds of things the i r s issues levies they do all kinds of things that don't they don't go to a court to have find that there's probable cause to levy to counter so i'm just trying to make sure i understand how far reaching you're asking us to go on this it's one thing to say you can hold for forty eight hours and if there's no fine after forty that's one thing it's another thing to say i gave you version one that they couldn't even make the and that is a single ice officer and then on of the regulation the district director can make a problem terminations and there's no requirement for judicial or other review at all and i and this record plaintiffs were talking about judicial review i think on appeal they said they want either a judge or an immigration judge i'm not saying it has to be an article three judge but able it's pretty clear that was a single district director with no review at all who issued that probable cause determination so it  let's assume the i softly shows up at hour forty eight picks them up take them in the ice custody that's when the staff toy regulatory framework kicks and under the statute and regulations they must now within forty eight hours review the basis for the arrest and either cut them loose or put them in removal proceedings and then once that happens they get an immigration judge and they go to the board of immigration appeals if they don't like what the immigration judge determined and i think so the operative cases here are not seeing the not coolidge the not these cases that apply in the criminal cont think you hit exactly on that there were findings as to only or specific databases and those war offensive the databases that were the subject of the operative point in two thousand and thirteen there was if you look in the record there's no general percentage there's nothing  issue enable the court took pains to point out that that i asked officer at the time could not arrest on his own that he had to apply to an independent court described as an independent officer at that time the district director the court didn't delve into the details of that person's position or their neutrality because that the plaintiff in that case had had conceded the claim wasn't actually challenging the validity of his arrest but the court took pains to point out that there wasn't and append an official in the picture and since able all those cases that i and finally to the forty eight hour point on our own we filed this lawsuit the regulation allowed for detention of up to five days the regulations still allows for detention of up to five days i submit a voluntary change to their detain or form the little piece of paper that they send out but the regulation at issue is still allows for up to five days at the tension without any probable cause review and then once the person is brought into isis physical custody it's again just another possibly just any other ice officer who reviews that are us all right thank you all of you for your