whether the court below judge crotty presiding committed reversible error when on the complaint he dismissed it and concluded that her bina had failed to plead sufficiently adequate specific  particular factual conduct to state a facially plausible claim under the seizure concept of the fourth amendment the actions that took place while baena and his  been pled observe that urbin you know scott and went up to the apartment to enter into it they entered into it as they entered lives be returned to to hide his apartment they directed scott and robina to leave the neighborhood entirely as they went to leave the neighborhood in compliance with the authority albeit an unlawful authority interaction for them to think that we have a lot of constitutional claims of everybody who was told by a policeman to move on or get out of here that this is a constitutional law elation or violation of the right to travel it's a little well actually it's more fun of the judge to bring us it's more fundamentally the right to choose a location to be where you want to be it's sort of like a terry versus ohio situation when you're walking down the street as the supreme court says you have a right to walk down the street and less there an objectively reasonable facts supported law enforcement justification to stop the individual the same is true in this context any one of us won't going to visit a friend we are invited to that residence we go up to the residence there was a police officer there that tells us to leave has to have some objectively reasonable war enforcement justification to do that as the court said in terror and terrorism and what's wrong with the justification here we don't have a justification yet we're at a pleading stage let me go back to the issue it's a very narrow issue have we pled sufficiently adequate factual krondor that suggests that there has been an interference with an obstruction a hinderance with the right of one's for the freedom to choose where to be at this point that's all where that we have we have the pleading no discovery no justification yet each individually collectively describe a seizure now was on them when they were excluded when they were excluded from the apartment to which they had a right to go without any objective law enforcement justification for such that itself was a seizure when they were escorted out of the building that itself was in seizure when they got on the authority of law were seizures now one might argue that one aspect was an in and of itself a seizure but then the collective nature of the conduct was a cumulative seizure the theory being that once the car the officers in the apartment to leave they were not free to leave they were being compelled to leave they had shows they have a right of freedom to choose where they want to be all of us have that right unless there isn't a judge of an objective basis for the law enforcement officer to say you can't be there so once in our officer asserts authority of law coercive you have to leave their interferes that hinders their up structure the freedom to choose where you as a citizen want to be you know in terry versus this is a very important thing to recall to remember the court the united states supreme court said no right is held more sacred or more carefully guarded by the common law and then ver four and within the constitution then the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person free from all restraint or interference of others unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law at the point in time when urbin as an invited guest went into the apartment he had a right to do that he was invited he had been there many other times it was his friend's apartment and they see the police at least as pledged at this point in time had no right to exclude him and or to take him out of the apartment and or then to banish him from the neighborhood and to do so in a direction that he didn't choose of his own accord to leave the can comment and corollary of a right to leaving go is a right to stay and b he had a right to be an apartment he had a right to be in their neighborhood they had no right unless there was an objective law enforcement factually based justification to tell him get out of here no they don't the police officers in this country don't have unfettered power and authority to tell someone to leave and at this stage of the proceedings we simply say this court should  may please the court cathy park for the city defendants the dismissal of planes as claims should be affirmed on several independent grounds he has not made a showing of causation he has not possibly alleged constitutional violation and he has not alleged the type of pattern of similar constitutional violations that would be necessary for him to succeed on his theory of liability you heard opposing counsel allege that he had a right to be let alone and not interfered with isn't that part of a number of rights that individuals have just walking on the street it's not and explain why i'm going through each of the constitutional provisions that plaintiff relies upon it's not a seizure of a fourth amendment right this court and shepherd b behrman has already held that there is no o person when they are prevented from being inside a courthouse and that there are as corded out as long as they are otherwise free to go wherever they wish and here are being nine minutes that as he walked away from the hot the allegations of his complaint well first they were in the in the private location the first let me take a step back plaintiff's here was never in a private location he was never in the apartment the police were in the private the seizure of his person because there is no constitutional violation simply barring entry into a private location and or telling them to go in one direction or not we might have a different case if the police arrested him by simply on the facts alleged here where the police simply told them to go home wonder action where he then you know follow through with that direction and then and also admits that he  had he believed himself free to return back to that location and in short order he simply hasn't alleged factual matter that would amount to a seizure of a person under the fourth amendment under this court stirs prudence nor movement between places it's not about access to a perfect killer pace place as his court noted in in williams greenberg there's no substantive right to to cross a particular parcel of land or to negligible restrictions on freedom of movement does not amount to constitutional violation here at most that was just a minimal temporary limitation on his freedom of movement where he admits in his own allegations that he  free to return to that location in short order that he did not find feel feelings of banished from that area and where this court has has noted that there is that the that the constitutional right to protect claim under the due process clause even if under the facts alleged here there was any opportunity for the police to have intervened or had any knowledge of any suspicious circumstances the due process cla doesn't impose any affirmative duty on the police to intervene in these types of situations and the two narrow exceptions to this rule don't apply here he has an alleged that he was involuntary custody of the police to invoke the special relationship exception nor has he he shown that any governmental actors here actually affirmatively assisted in creating or increasing the danger to the victim through any kind of interaction with the wrongdoers to invoke the state created danger exception and even if any of either of these exceptions applied he has not shown that the police conduct at issue was so agree just or so outrageous to shock the conscience which he would need to plead in order to to avail himself of either exception that minimum he is qualified immunity would protect or insulate the officers actions here even if this court ordered setting aside whether he has possibly alleged a constitutional violation he is is not pointed to any remotely analogous case that would have put any of the officers on notice here that that simply  directing the plaintiffs to walk one direction instead of the other direction after an arrest at three am at night or barring entry to to a private dwelling that did not belong to any of the same reasons that he has not alleged a constitutional violation or adequately alleged proximate cause ation on those grounds his claim also fails but even setting that experience that that there was a pattern of similar violations similar constitutional violations if you need to plead that in order to support his menow claim i mean because he only cites his own alleged just make clear that this is a fourth amendment claim or alternatively a substantive due process fourteenth amendment claim was pled but as laurel points out where the source is the fourth amendment that's how this case should be and analyzed and that was one of the problems with judge crotty is and alice says he never made that fundamental initial determination and therefore mixed and matched and confused elements that might have been relevant to the fourteenth amendment claim into the fourth amendment or let me just now consented to amend your complaint and nay i'm sorry he gave you an opportunity to amend the complaint he gave us an opportunity  to amend the complaint to add certain other fourth amendment claim credit played clause complaint had a fourth amendment claim based and seizure we had the opportunity and then elected not to to a down a search and excessive force claim we didn't do that but initially the initial complaint has pled pled primarily a fourth amendment claim and alternatively if it wasn't a fourth amendment claim on a substantive due process claim as we argued in the court below we sent a judge probably the first thing you have to do is determine what's clay what amendment controls if he had said it was the fourth amendment he would have never had to analyze anything under the fourteenth amendment and when he didn't make that initial determination such caused if you will some confusion in how he analyzed the fourth amendment claim let me just say about qualified immunity that was never addressed by the co