and he was arrested and indicted for violating a custodial interference statute that indeed he did not violate the question then went through  the question is whether there are existence substantial evidence to support those verdicts that is only relevant evidence that come in through a final decree that's why it became an important issue particularly since it had been signed that friday august fourth two thousand but not filed until the following monday for but i don't see why that was much of a difference particularly in light of the buyers the lewiston decision here relating to police officers failure to unsupported by any legal or factual basis and the jury ruled in our favor the same thing with the question of whether the indictment for thirteen zero two eighty three requiring joint legal custody and in fact a judge the judge left the indictment related state torts intact now the ike it appears and i guess the only plane relating to that jury question would be better thirteen o two a three should have been applied at all and i think that the jury question says no police didn't know about it is outside of the state access rights so we still go back to eight through my client book did the police have any probable cause to believe that my withhold the child and of course we know that with that temporary order no communication was to go on between steve hill instead and his soon to be ex wife susan communication through officer read paragraph five designating del killing stad as the person for visitation and custody scheduling issues no one lead paragraph one does anything in liaison in the first place on duty then soon they didn't know what happened before and they go out and arrest your client well that's exactly what they claim here so are they on constructive notice of whatever notice was given to other police officers but no no no the police officers knew that steve took devon up to can pretty much else office that afternoon they didn't know that until they arrived at his house the decree because he had primary physical custody and since it's he had done what he was willing to do by appearing at full work and she had not done what she was ordered to do and had come after three hours he had every right to hang on to the kid and that's a reasonable thing you don't want these children being tossed about as pawns in a in a match and if a child is going to be upset because mom didn't come pick them up at some point you're going to be able to calm them down and get things moving which is what happened here a couple other kids in devon were eating pizza everybody's playing around in the yard when the cops roll up three hours later so  i think that we've handled that we'll look at qualified immunity the burden was on camp verde to establish objectively reasonable officers with believe they were not violating indict without probable cause and you surely can't have an indictment that's based on facts and misleading testimony and that's everything that we have here in the state law that existed on august fourth give the officers fair warning that their actions were unconstitutional byers says yes camp pretty officers didn't even rest than the officers did in byers they did not confirm the existence i don't really work nobody did they made a week from when the season began her most recent complaints the reason it's really important factually speaking is that a year before supervision officer of hoff called the clerk at the superior court subdivision that's only five or six miles away from the marshal's office so the headache is this order in this case number still valid now it was crashed a couple of weeks ago that's why it's really important just to check on these things ok and of course raccoons didn't know about that so killing stat and if a governmental agent doesn't look at the letter itself understand it understand the a prohibited let it allows and apply it to a statute they can't be acting objectively reasonably and in this case of course the the marshal said you need to check on the staff then he clicked the so called experts said you have to check on this stuff one of the supervisors o'donnell says i think you've got to look at the statute every time because it's such a convoluted statute that we don't use very often it sounds like only  the lawyer and mr rock concert officer reckons believe that we don't have to check those things out the response of thirty five said police officers are busy persons they simply don't have the time to comb through a court file every time they arrest someone for custodial interference mr rock concert i don't have time to look through the books it's up to you little years to figure out the little things that's what he said i'll touch briefly on arizona torts arizona law is that the probable cause you goes to the jury when conflicting versions exist for the facts that that's why that's you come back to us immediately and the court views evidence in light most favorable to the verdict there are no as in a statute screening qualified immunity doesn't pack really the post trial motions found the existence of probable cause and in addition legally determining the existence of qualified immunity on behalf of the officers i believe and it's pretty apparent from the record in the based on the court's rulings that he found new system for probable cause based upon a factual determination by the jury as to whether or not the officers involved particularly officer watkins knew that the final divorce decree and custodial decree had been entered into that spot ask that question not no that strange perspective when i was not there was no dispute among the parties that the temporary custody order which had been entered by judge understand required an exchange of the child at three o'clock on does not create joint custody but rather creates primary custody in the plaintiffs even killing scad and although the final order may make some arrangements for visitation rights on watkins had probable cause at the time to believe a violation of the statute had taken place not whether in fact the violation had occurred i really care about is what i can subjectively at the time and here's what he knew that there was a section h you would also states that the intent of the statute is to prohibit one child from the other parent and if what we're talking about is the temporary order here then if we presume the jury's response to the special in rugged terrain is appropriately taken then what we're dealing with is right officer watkins knew at the time and what he knew e probable caution qualified immunity and so whether or not the jury took into account the temporary order or the final custody order as it relates to rendering the verdict they were asked a specific question did correct question because if officer watkins understood reasonably that the temporary order was in place then there was probable cause to make the arrest the final order had been entered then there would be no probable cause have time to read to the lawyers to do this and that was things like don't bother with the details that's pretty much it was not that is a mischaracterization of his attitude on the stand here in fact testified that he read  to take place that was what he was concerned with that is the complaint that had been made to him and it was made when the second week in a row any checking that steve believed that he had the right to hold on to daven at seven pm that night number one there was a degree whether the police knew about it or not steve said he knew there was a decree number two he had complied with the temporary order in every single respect he was present at four pm susan was not present at four pm he waited around he went back home no changes have been made through the court ordered liaison del killing stab he knew that police if they would have checked if they would have considered that there was a liaison and talk to the guy who was right there when steve was being put in the car they would have learned that too because of course it appears that there was a lot of focus on the existence of a creek no change through del the officers stated that they did not rea anything other than the exchange time and even denny click said that's the time where you have to exchange it's not from that time forward you can come pick the kid up at any time we also have the yeah the pike county guidelines that presumably those officers ought to know this isn't a solitary case and we have use it or lose it was the july twenty nine discussion or interchange i'm like devon pack with the officer who originally planned the guy over a new i believe that the guy was impersonating a cop even though they ended up citing them for something else when i threw trudeau and we still didn't know