hear the policeman my thinking is that if the man did not disperse he would be innocent of the crime because if he did not have the mental element of knowledge of the order to disperse but the police would be innocent of a constitutional violation because the policeman has probable cause to believe that the man heard the order to disperse and give me your reflections on i absolutely really really loud and a reasonable policeman would believe for a minimum of a block and probably several blocks why wouldn't that make this case just like my hypothetical case because no to leave when i read the affidavits from your clients i did not i do not at this moment recall and you tell me if i mistype may give me the reference i do not recall any of the three point of for one order to disperse at the end when everyone was totally blocked in already and he told the officers he wanted to disperse and they wouldn't let him eric thomas said he heard why and says there he heard in order to disperse after it can't take my client's declarations and add them to what the officers knew to make probable cause you have to look at what the officer knew the arresting officer never saw my client has no idea what any of them were doing or did not hear any of the orders to disperse except for the last one about the other two plaintiffs erik thomas says he heard perfunctory orders to disperse at the end when i was impossible to get as he was at the end when it was impossible to get out you said orders all three of my clients have various times talking to police officers asking how people can get out and being told go north you can't leave so first you have no evidence  negative evidence that they heard anything down at the beginning they weren't there david seidenberg had left before any orders were given in this far north of what was going on lyons and thomas never were at westlake center they c think they were risking arrest if he didn't know that they had been ordered to disperse and also why would he go in and tell them you risking arrest for no purpose to disperse if they can't at that point they could and he was telling them they were risking arrest because people were acting as if they were simply going to stay there and i had first there were no orders read at that time he and the others had come back to try to help these kids from the community college to get out of the situation peacefully and that's all they were doing there and then after that conversation he laughed and went north  circuit two thousand and six the current court involved case involved a mass arrest and without records of individual arresting officers and so forth in the court policy that they would only arrest people if they had a record of individually speaking to the person and telling them that it is from the city's policy not part of the us constitution so i don't really care what their policies are  when i'm a little more interested in is how the police can constitutionally deal with what has already become a violent and law breaking a and under your theory of what the lawyer is it would seem that until they talk with an individual and tell that particular individual you must leave and then give him a substantial amount of time to leave after throwing themselves if that individual understands the order they can't do it as fact and what that means is the most violent group owns the streets not what it means if an officer sees someone doing an act of violence they certainly can arrest them for that if they're breaking the law while you're talking as though they can deal with people one by one but if you have an assembly of people through i think they threw rocks and bottles and then some sort of rockets so that that's what they say happened back at westlake censure that was not happening proceeding up to four th begin with secondly it may be appropriate to detain them contain the group and then take the time to look like give them a chance to disperse they weren't arrested my clients were arrested for shooting off rockets they were arrested for failing to  perse and they were never given any opportunity to disperse realistically in the cases that's only true if they didn't give the orders with the way to disperse the still open right go and i think that's like the example of the deaf person if the crowd doesn't hear because of some reasons that the officer can't know then that maybe they have there would be an issue of fact if the only water to disperse was given at belton for the evidence before the court is uncontroverted that over a period of seven over a period of five plus blocks seven  reason why it doesn't is because we've tenets sandow was the arresting officer he was i'm not sure if you had an opportunity to view the from the field d v d a that we put together at seventeen minutes i would encourage you to do so because the court needs to play the role of an invented reporter here to go back to determine whether the tenets and we're going to go ahead and answer church based question before i forget it yes i will the answer is no it doesn't create probably shoot back in the reason why it doesn't because probable cause needs to be determined from reading from the second line at the bottom some time prior to the issuance of the final dispersal order is significant period of time after the initial order the police have blocked means of eat grass plaintiffs might legitimately have probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs and other protesters for previously refusing to disperse when it directed and having the opportunity to do so and in the evidence we have before this court i tried to sum it up on the same exhibit but he goes last week who we have with regard to may have overlooked what i tried to do to summarize some of the evidence for the court is i took the same aphids up here on the board plugin where the appellant's said they were during the protest and when they entered forth happening and just reached just first orders over a period of five plus blocks who remained in the street blocking traffic could be lawfully arrested and i would encourage the court to take seventeen minutes for us to have the court's take seventeen minute and disperse after hearing the order and have failed to do so of the failed to do so is easy but what i want to know is the one contradicted evidence that they heard in order and had an opportunity before everybody was are five factors that he looked up among others and making the arrest of individuals the state the group and here's what he looked death starting at westlake center which is that for some time he observed a large crowd of protesters in that street refusing disperse became violent after eight o'clock and in that context we had a captain take a bottle for a rock to the eye it was only in response to aggression against police officers that the police officers escalated their response so  given another way would be if i had just like of but caroline terminal you don't hear some announcements because you're talking to somebody so you're not paying any attention to him i want to know what evidence is there that these people heard of the evidence that we have is that the tenants to not broadcast these over a public address system that were mounted on a truck they were loud orders are given authority to fashion they're given over period of it if an hour and a the situation of saying that in a situation where there is a protest and there are warnings given that we have to go to trial to determine loud so they're not going to hear any commands to disperse and it sounds to me as though that works i've just beaten the system and i can run my riot in no one can be arrested no