there are three reasons my summary judgment should not have been granted against mr morris section one hundred eighty three case the first order granted summary judgment against mr vora on his fourth amendment claims relied explicitly  is this and a continuous audio can you tell whether the audio on continuously or is that every time he calls and to dispatch then it triggers an audio well the audio recording you can hear lieutenant pastoral a call into dispatch so you can hear what's coming from the car then you hear dispatch responding back on the audio so you can't see here from what i can tell from the tape what miller that is intercepted by intercepted by chapman and then it's intercepted intercepted by rose so orange there been miller if he was east of that means that he was east or in stoke and ten street which is the location that was used to calculate the point nine mile distance in addition to which mr forrest testimony is clear he filed a verify complaint he filed a declaration and he was deposed and in all of those statements and all he was not on where all the lights and siren and he's an alert driver and he would have been aware if they were there so the magistrate said what case they were just doing no no what was in the deposition they contradict the deposition testimony and again i don't five of the order of the report recommendation and it's in footnote one so what he indicates here is the plaintiff's desk top deposition testimony was clear that he first noticed pastorals presence including the officers vehicles lights and siren at the intersection of course the open roads whereupon plaintive promptly pulled over yet plaintiff's declaration submitted with his opposition contradicts this live testimony where as he testified in his deposition that he was not is assuming that there wasn't a police vehicle that was there so then mr gorst testified that there wasn't a police vehicle this hardly stating that he's an alert driver and would have been aware and observed is what he's saying is a contradiction where mr gore didn't state whether he was alert or you know an alert or a aware of all  or siren or that there was lights and siren and that mr borat did not see it because he wasn't observant in some way the inference should be drawn to mr burrus favorite summary judgment that the reason he did not observe lights and siren is because they were not  ok so that is the second reason that so that leaves us of second reason why summary judgment should not have been granted in this case related to mr gore's fourth amendment claim the second evading an officer or is it also based on the citation for not having a front my son's plate the position is that there was no probable cause for lack of a problem since plate or for evading an officer therefore mr morris not have been arrested all and i'm actually is because that's really a false detention claim right had he only been guilty of not having a front my son's place he could have been arrested for that it's a sizable infraction but he could have been arrested for that well i guess that the answers at this point he was arrested and he was cited for faults or he was cited for invasion so you know to the extent that i think this case is taken on an appearance of something more complicated than what it really is what this really is is a matter of whether or not there was probable cause or arguable probable cause to arrest  vote on october sixteenth two thousand and ten now i want to address something that was brought up just briefly regarding the conflicting testimony and what mr valma did and did not see i missed of testified a deposition that he was not he didn't know whether or not there was a police officer behind him that was i think the problem if you refer to his deposition testimony which is that   reasonably necessary i don't have the exact language in front of me but it's not a requirement all that's required is that there be a police vehicle marked police vehicle uniformed  know when it became necessary to activate the reasonably necessary to activate the i don't know that to be another words one of the elements is that  as may be reasonably necessary right that's correct all right so is there any is there any testimony on when it became reasonably necessary to actively i think the testimony goes from that on page two fifty seven that had stopped in the middle of the street leaned out of his open driver's side window and began shaking his fist and yelling at the officer so that when i did not immediately pull over and began to accelerate up to fifty five to sixty miles an hour i activated the unit siren and remained directly behind fora i think at that point it was reasonable for the officer to assume that i had seen him shaking his hands and yelling out the window at him and continued to drive away rather than pulling over he continued to drive away and moved in fact to the left side of the street rather than the right side of the street the story that the officer tells may be totally true but it is not consistent with bogus testimony that he did not seem did not sit well down the window and shake any any of that if you accept the officer's testimony everything follows if you don't accept it you accepted both his testimony the officers testimony couldn't be true that's in that particular instance with regard to yelling out the window and shaking his fist i think that's correct i think what's telling is that in both arise testimony deposition testimony at page two hundred four he states he doesn't know whether there's an officer at supplemental excerpts to twelve when he stopped at orange sharp and rose was the police car directly behind you he says yes in his declaration at three fifty four he says when he was stopped at the light he saw a police vehicle coming from a far at a high rate of speed with lights flashing that contradicts that the officer was directly behind him he also when he was stopped but he doesn't say that the car didn't end up directly behind i think these are different issues but i don't it is not what the magistrate put in his ruling no it's not the problem is that it it seems to me that your argument every inference against him when on summary judgment every inference should be drawn in his favor including inference well that may be true however the issue i think is that when you're looking at it from the officers perspective which is the arguable probable cause the officer believed that mr boehner had been evading him for some time m vora states that he never saw the officer until he approached orange park and rose at which time he immediately pulled over mr barr i goes on to say that in his decker and his deposition testimony that although he saw the lights behind him at orange sharp and rose he didn't know where the siren was coming from he thought it could have been coming from somewhere else which is a little i mean he pulled into the seven eleven parking lot he immediately jumped out of his car if you're to believe them he was told to put his hands going to write his back and it was arrested now  as far as the officers point of view the officer saw him long before apparently mr vasan the officer the officer has no way of knowing that but in his mind he had the probable c arrest mr bauer because of this i mean despite whether or not mr voer i didn't see the officer didn't believe he shook his hands out the window and yelled the officer still says i saw mr and i was behind him and i turned on my lights and siren is he didn't know if there was an officer behind him he later tried to alter that as my sam very alert driver i knew that there were no officers around and that's what the magistrate struck as a sham declaration i would just quickly say in response to the question related to what was required for a siren lieutenant pastoral actually called in a failure to yield in which the code explicitly requires the siren to be activated for that in addition to which we have the audio recording which shows almost a simultaneous calling in failure to yield at the time that the that the siren was turned on which could lead  did find that there was a dispute of fact as to which from whether mr bork drove your radically so any issues related to whether he shook his fist out the window or not has already been found to be disputed fact and finally what the officer believed in this case and no reasonable officer c