finished went on to tell a pretty internal affairs investigations which importantly were to lieutenants ranking officers you guys might be doing an investigation on me for something more serious than threats on a guy who kept messing with my family i mean we're all getting toxic ated and basically move into to defend and beyond are of another officer to stick up for the of other officers the connection and badge of authority who are his authority stems from the internal affairs investigation in the idea that there was a code of silence there was a code both to defend and officers family and a code of silence to look the other way in this case when when mr  he went to the hospital and at the hospital there are officer sinks responded to that to the hospital and he asked them do you is there anybody that you think might do this and his response was off of our phone the second call that are important in the context of giving the officer the idea that this is ok first off the so how do how do we distinguish between private actions of a police if you let it get too far you know i think that's you know we're all like that and he it's important to note that in the context of the internal affairs investigation that also comcast you suggested that that my client shouldn't of report of this at have is there any indication of blessing from superior officers the you have blessings for the absence of knowing every context every police agency has a right in the yes they do in the context of they did both the in my point judgment is that they did both the internal affairs and the criminal investigation yes that's my points every agency has a criminal internal affairs investigation for the idea of almost as a human resource notion in this context it both and they did both the criminal investigation as well and so the the authorities stems from from  swiss court has stated in previous cases you have a this code of silence that should not be you know not should not be endured how does is different than say people who work at the same manufacturing plant or people who have to be in and it all in the national guard or people that have any sort of affiliation and friendship together would act i don't see how they would act much different because he in his position and his authority as a police officer i understand they have authority but if they didn't exercise it he was on duty at the time that this this attack occurred and he was he indicated in his testimony that he was and this is an alibi case an alibi  defense in this case was i didn't do it in that is a question for the jury in terms of the sighting you know what's going on here and you have to look at the context he was on duty at the time and he may recall my client did what you supposed to do through his so you have neither the time called police the police didn't respond to you didn't interact with him i should say at his residence he was then taken by his girlfriend at the time to the hospital and then at half point the officers were spot in when he responded again to the important part is who do you think did this officer bartholomew but do invest in his response was i didn't view him as a suspect because he couldn't visually identify  almost holding him to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard at the time of the investigation which is not law enforcement's responsibility in that context and i see that little mr bertram used to ask you we've had a number of cases where we've  necessarily from the circuit that might have applied that under the train on the kind of basis that you're arguing here ordinarily you know you would have somebody is the problem is that is that overlooks the fact that there are contacts in which law enforcement does things where the public doesn't know about right doesn't bash flash undercover police officers even by the district courts logic and undercover police officer would never be using his badge of authority even though he be doing work in that capacity in the difficulty is that there are in that context there are cases that don't get to that point and so it's hard it doesn't come to light very often i guess is my point in terms of their using th afternoon claim is can call you make are representing mark on the we're here because a judge moody on his own motion granted summary judgment on the color color state law but i did not raise that is appropriate the green law case and the k versus board of education case which is being argued that the judge can't grant summary judgment assess wate is just simply wrong in that he was on duty at the time i know you dispute that for future purposes of perhaps a state court trial but do you agree that for purposes of this analysis we have to assume much he cannot because mr vander plaats himself testified he had no idea who had allegedly assaulted him in the alley right ok but but judge moody should movies as decision seems to assume that assaulting somebody even if assaulting somebody on a personal level because that's what this is they were alleged it legibly is is beyond the scope of the employment of the of the police officers even if my client was he in his uniform and actually did attack this gentleman on the street and says to him i'm beating you up because you are starting and harassing my fiance that would be beyond the scope of his authorities and i don't know if it be beyond color of law though think of think about all the criminal law protections for example that officers in uniform have the  officer etc that's an aggravator for a criminal right yes i mean that that arguably would be you know what do you do if you're walking down the street and a police officer in uniform starts to beat you up that's it that's a real problem under indiana criminal law and it might be under color of state law your honor but we're talking about in this instance given the background you can and you know scott started with what happened and he's out  you know p d you know especially of my other client mr way i'm soo mated made some very stupid comments to this gentleman on the phone but that does not mean that automatically that he was the perpetrator or my client was a perpetrator of this alleged action in in fact this plaintive testified in his deposition that about a year or so before this all occurred he had gotten in and instigated in the fight in a bar with no notorious drug dealer in lafayette and if anybody's going to be beating this guy up in the middle of the night it's going to be mr drug dealer  not not officer barthelemy who was on duty that night with three other officers serving warrants and they were in they were together serving the warrants except for when they took their individual car still to the next place and they were in radio contact to serve that next warrant there was no opportunity for mike my gentleman to go in and wait wait in hyde and then somehow summon him down the the alleyway to his house and he walks down there and he comes back out and walks into his house about fifteen minutes later there's no way that my client could have been lying in wait when he was on duty with only a matter for a state court trial and that's where it's headed because that's what the judge moody did if you take a look at this white case that was last cited to you your honor it has it the for a jury in that context and i believe that there is a particular light if you look at before during and after in the context of his authority that it demonstrates that he was using his badge of authority using his h