waxman good morning ron this includes the court this case prevents presents the court with an opportunity to correct the mistake it made in two thousand and one in newsome we do it now after five or six or seven turn down the the most recent challenge to newsome was rejected by the court with the statement that counsel has not presented us with any argument about why do some was wrongly decided or why it's been reversed by the supreme court i am here today to earnestly suggest that do some was wrongly decided that it  need not reach the new some question could decide only that fisk court's view of the fourth amendment that it and the judicial issuance of process is incorrect not the fourth amendment seizure continues throughout incarceration that would be all that the court has to decide in manual to reverse that case and send it back for trial this case does not involve a fourth amendment need could involve the fourth most violation but was frankly district court also involved the substantive due process violation there's outrageous government conduct which is alleged in the complaint which comes under newsome if the city's argument that there don't i would think you just got a more fundamental kind of problem with the due process and of the due process clause with the deprivation of liberty that the plaintiff in essence could not doesn't mean it's right i mean it's a whole i think it's wrong in this footage certainly could reverse without questioning newsome and you wouldn't that be easier right then asking us to go in bank on a mistaken view of this case to deal with this argument of errors that are arguable errors that the supreme court may straightness out on or may not eventually that would certainly be easier to carry now that you've indicated in your brief there are a number of other similar cases pending in the district court here correct there there well there are different then this this case in the case making gadgets for being locked up for seventeen months the other cases basically were brought to challenge the refusal which means it's in the nature of malicious prosecution even though it's not malicious prosecution just in that nature then the cause of action accrued when the criminal proceedings were resolved in favor of mr again so what's the argument for arguing  flaxman that the statute of limitations started when the deprivation of liberty and because this is what we're complaining about we're complaining about it being deprived of liberty for seventeen months until he was found not guilty and then the clock starts to that everything depends on ruling the news your main problem is wallace against kito we should discuss that because it says that claim based on deprivation of liberty accrues when the person is deprived of liberty i guess i disagree with that reading of cato cato said when there's a false arrest or false imprisonment claim that claim accrues when you are arrested or when judicial proceedings begin there was probable cause to a repetition was involved the arrest if if your argument is as i understand it that you're questioning whether the city has a pattern or practice of sort of refusing to follow the monitoring law and instead pointing homeless folk to to one of the shelters and not requiring them to check in every week right right ok and you're arguing that by failing by exercising that power practice and failing to follow the importantly they caused his prosecution if we were just arguing about the arrest under this court's fourth member jurisprudence his damage is what and when he went before a judge just a probable cause to detain him and he would get damages for two days of incarceration says something i know that's how you structured it but what i'm asking is why because it seems to me that if this pattern or practice caused a deprivation of liberty that starts at the time of arrest and if it caused a prosecution that should not have taken place that's at the time of the filing of the complaint and the amount of time that passes after that is a cruel games that's not the way the supreme court roboto says i recall that they said if it's false arrest it occurs when you're arrested we don't know if we're not deciding if the damages for false arrest and when you see a judge this court has decided that and that might be before the supreme court in the joliet case but we're talking about prosecuting him and it was talking about outrageous government conduct causing a prosecution which fits under the say he's been in jail for a month awaiting trial on the street and he files the civil complaint yes for damages what's the city's response it actually isn't if it is in fact what city refused to accept his honest registration that he was home page under this it should there is no discretion to accept the person's word report every seven days with the with the evidence with the places where they stayed for the last seven days as far as in that's and reporting requirements the requirement to fight a cop to let the on council on these pleadings don't we have to assume that he was trying to comply with the law and that the police made it impossible for him to comply with the seven alleged similar problem alleged by a number of folks right yes so if the city police are in fact in gauging in this practice it seems to make it very very difficult for people who would like to comply with the law to do so and they wind up committing a strict liability felony right cellar in this lawsuit so why isn't that a is true of elementary denial of liberty deprivation of liberty without due process of law where the person can't manage to don't mean to put words in your camp and mouth but he's not asking you about the initial registration issue he's saying if the statute required mr against or anybody else to go in every seven days and report and a police officer looks at him and says a friend went on a put up with you for every seven days just go over to the homeless shelter over there put that down as your address and then come back in ninety days we don't want to see before ninety days and so he does that he has been told by an authority figure a law enforcement officer that he does not have to do what the statute says had has not the police department made it impossible for him to comply with the statute in such a way that to arrest him for failing to comply with the statute constitutes a deprivation of liberty  circumstances certainly complied with that they should have an imitation and just just so we're correct though the city is taking the position that it is not premature to file such a claim before the end of criminal process right so you would not be opposing these other claims on the theory that well we're still the case is still ongoing if you want to because i'm not on the police refusal to take the seven day reports then i believe i understand you you were not alone i believe we're in agreement to help tell you what i think it would be helpful for you to within seven days notify our vote mr flaxman em chord whether the city is relying on her against  thank you very much this case thinking under advi