all right our final case for today is jamal lavender hancock and levon galleries against city of chicago argument this case i rose as a result of the police report that was written that we subsequently discovered in two thousand and eighty this was written in two thousand and sixteen  not here to evaluate the conduct of so that these because that's been done and it's not part of this case looking exclusively at what the city of chicago sometimes they act on it and it doesn't work like here you have a no contact order didn't work yes which the report how was the suggestion actionable well if if the president of the united states announces in a day of prayer that has no legal consequence it is a fact perhaps actually it's really not even an unfortunate fact it is a fact that a lot of things that are undesirable happen to people in life that don't engage the legal system you know maybe somebody writes an unpleasant letter about you or they post something on instagram that you don't by putting in unflattering position you're eating with your mouth openers all kinds of undesirable things happen and the fact that somebody writes a report that somebody in the chicago police department writes a report that says something negative about a person if there are no concrete legal consequences no court order no proceeding paul against davis says you know just because something on flattering news in the report isn't enough for the three then you just have to cope with it you know but this is this is different again petition for such such your e bay's on lack of due process and then before that could be heard by the court he was already released so the court said that you know the  that sort of b s was located and the reason why he's concerned that if he walks on that street i'm not i'm not going to buy that he can't walk there he has a concern perhaps rational perhaps not but if he walks down walton technical when that report is totally arbitrary and without a russian a basis because number one there were port in that state if you came back to the property and by the way he has been married all of th complaint if you know did not see if you came back to the property you you know call him call the police did not see within two feet six feet it was so broad that there's no order  and you want to and it became a separate case and when you became a separate case although it was alternately transferred back to the same judge that case should have been given ability for men court stated that each constitutional count has to have a substantive case of violation or all any obligation indicating that what the so which is what some of these what mison and we would have been able to amend that bees on this particular case and also what happened with respect to the overall case is that once he was consolidated back to the s discovered this supplemental report in fact the police was not even involved in all of this on till we find out this report and then dismiss the brand new case that should not have been lumped in as an amendment t about my status as a as a criminal an offender i'm afraid to go into that neighborhood or in is the shops i believe only shop as a whole that's essentially this case supreme court said that was not liberty deprivation of any kind and disposed of on that ground the honest again we laid out several counts in this complaint and we felt like if this had been left to proceed failure to train you don't know when you look at the police report but the initial one that we discovered in two thousand and seventeen and the subsequent one we discovered in two thousand and eighteen