i want to start by acknowledging that the event that you know brian to this case are undeniable eat tragic and the impact on the numerous families that were involved in that case and the suffering that they've experienced are  virtually unimaginable and you think that it's important to recognize that the outset before i proceed the issue that we're here today to address is a narrow issue and the district court ruling allowed the reference clearly established law that their alleged conduct violated not read munity applies an equal protection cases just like it applies in every other case on the analysis and the same and the same salient points that have emerged from the  the plaintiff there is that there is a subclass of crime victims domestic violence victims who are treated differently than other types of crime  here so don't we we look at the the government treating these classes differently under a rational basis theory and i'm just wondering i don't really see where th rather where they leave the park county articulated the rational basis for treating the subclass of domestic violence victims differently than other to domestic violence victims could you could you help me on that that's not specifically an issue with what we're talking about currently in chief judge but to answer your question the basis for treating those particular individuals differently was not the basis that the policies that the district courts an issue with exist or they have no no reference really two categories of victims or two different classes of victims what they're designed to you is address how the silver city police policy considerations are the same unequal protection claim as they would be in a th amendment claim of st amendment claim particularly in a police context where we're dealing with that it's tense rapidly evolving situations a lot of discretion that's used and implemented on the part of the officers reasonable government officials have to have have to be able to understand what the rules are and the purpose of the qualified immunity doctrine is to allow them to do enforceable order of protection in the case where the victim was heterosexual it's notable that the court now particular case based its ruling on a single comparative case and the reason it did that is because that was the only other case that that particular undersheriff was involved in as the lead investigator on the on the cape and the courts specifically rejected the idea that it could rely on cases where the undersheriff maybe assisted other deputies or was the secondary or backup officer at the call and instead this court was very clear that that case was the only valid compare because it showed what now particular law enforcement officer did in a in a situation into situations where the only difference the only meaningful difference was the sexual orientation of the big miss rogers why does that matter now price cornell said recognized in watson that there is no truth although there is no general constitutional right to police protection the state may not discriminate in providing such protection so for example if if i complain that i am being treated differently than other people but for any protected right or any fundamental baby people don't the police don't like the people in my neighborhood they're hostile to mock me a local community and they discriminate against me in providing me adequate police protection in my view why use the distinction that i would have exactly like the lesbian in price cornell so i mean i'm not sure why if there's just one comparative why that would undermine the clarity of the like there was in the watson case which was statistical indicating that that particular police departments arrested the mythic violence abusers a rate of about half i think it was regular assault gets to be done the district court the combination of the silver city police department domestic violence policy which more or less requires unrest where there's probable cause with  don't believe that we we are challenging we can't challenge that ruling currently but it is important in the terms in the in that it sets the context for the qualified immunity analysis because that's still an important  in terms of statistical evidence or in terms of compare evidence a policy forced them to treat the situations differently whether whether it had bad motives or good motives they intended to follow  policy in the policy intended to treat the classes differently the policy and i think there's a slight distinction that is subtle but important and the that and that is that the policy treated law enforcement officers differently our law enforcement officers who were employed by that killer still are still the differently from other domestic violence aggressors we do not discriminate against the category of another jurisdiction right it's actually more nearly they're even chief judge the district courts finding that the policy on its face was discriminatory was based on a policy that addresses only employees of the silver city police department individuals who are employed by the town of silver city police departments and to be investigated further serious crimes including domestic violence then there is for not employing you and that was the practical impact of that policy however  given the fact that there is that that policy does not violate clearly established law chief reynolds and captain bill is we're still entitled to  city in domestic violence cases is not an inappropriate classification no judge what we're arguing is that for the term silver city police department requires that criminal investigations of their own officers be conducted by another law enforcement agencies and so those investigations have to be referred alps onto a different law enforcement agency policies and he's just for a policy is radically treat two classes of people differently and though it created it was characterized as chief reynolds himself as he did so he did not protect make it past him in this instance throughout the day and throughout the month and a half previous as a result of this policy and it's a result of the policy that required criminal allegations against their police officers to go through an internal affairs investigation without any provision for acceptance and without any provision for asked now to have multiple occasions to talk to the potential for an agency they were on the phone three times that day and still didn't manage to do a those those things all establish and then you compare that to compare that to truly the robust remarkable card violence policy that they have so over city generally does a very very fantastic job of protecting domestic violence victims so like any any any discrimination when somebody doesn't give a job to a woman are they protecting men who want the job or are they discriminating it but you know what is what is the intention and here she funnels himself sat down and authored both of these took multiple steps he was on the phone on two separate occasions with the grand county sheriff's department and he liked it from its withheld information from them about the ongoing criminal to because of this policy and at that at the end of the day they were on the phone with one branch county sheriff's officer who was asking them for information he wanted he said i would like to stop you know i'm thinking about the dispatcher when talking to the grand county sheriff's official who was devastated that he hadn't stopped kept in contrast the dispatcher said it's not your fault they've been sleeping this said sweeping this under the rug for over a month he relied on silver city's police department's usually outstanding domestic violence to test so general it in light of the fantastic policy involving this preprinted you are situation the policy itself is a problem because it doesn't because it doesn't allow for any action when there is an ongoing dangerous situation which is exactly what happened here so the policy is problematic and it withholds information so they take this time to investigate to determine whether or not they're going to ultimately refer what is a serious criminal complaint  d and i think that it is an important fact even when they do ultimately refer any any investigation any information that they learned to not investigation they're not going to provide it to the outside agency so at the have we have pressed this class based equal protection claim based on their own testimony like that if there's a murder by a police officer and it's clear it was you know a mall or premeditate you they believe they have probable cause this is an instance where we have law enforcement that questions whether or not they cover us if kept in contrast i believe that they could have they made a determination and their policy did not allow them to do so or some of the  not go far enough in providing for an ongoing emergency or a lack of correct your honor and when you compare that to the domestic violence policy which does take into account the immediacy and dangerousness of a domestic violence situation these two policies combine there is discriminatory intent right that beyond there is circumstantial evidence and it's overpowered overpowering circumstantial evidence mrs bascom was treated differently each case as he looked at suggested that there is a different policy for the silver city police department when there is not a silver city police officer involved the the harasser would provide group protection in a key bastion but i was going to ask you is the policy independently dispositive because you know if i'm being not constitutionally relevant it's not and makes absolutely no difference whether or not the at the point is the classification and that's where you knew it you would say it's clear you can depend on the level of generality but you would immigration crimes differently than other types of crimes we're going to treat property crimes that occur during protests differently than other other types of crimes what's the limiting principle through the selective on the concept that basis there's a rational basis when you win when a department decides i want to focus on this particular issue over the other this is about a group of people that this court has said in particular domestic violence victims we aren't even just talking about lease arrest the co officer if they have probable cause that he's committed a crime and it's an emergency the they are encouraged to follow the palisade to refer it out judging it and obviously they did not