during this argument you i hope you will realize that we have the same rules as if we are in court which is to say no recording visual or audio of this presentation the audio will be available through the court tomorrow and finally we've read your briefs and the record acts it's maybe not read the entire record in this case so we appreciate your record references and with that i think that say oh yes i will give each council well in mr anus and strawman's case how about three minutes loose in waco texas the battle of twin peaks involved mayhem multiple murders and two warring groups who were heavily armed and were prepared for battle one hundred and ninety two people including the plate of were arrested that day in the aftermath of the violence the violent confrontation between the rival gangs which resulted in nine deaths and multiple serious injuries there are three critical important issues that i want to bring to the court's attention today d the two st two because a limited time i'll be addressing the st two and mr mckenzie will be dressing the rd but these are the three issues the st issue involves probable cause specifically how probable cause is applied in multi suspect cases we think of laws far from clear in this area giving qualified immunity to reading and others the nd item of serious concern is the plaintiff's frank's claim and whether it was clearly established that able rayna's conduct could give rise to a frank's claim and then the rd item that mr mckenzie will develop more fully focuses on the plates of factual allegations in this case since this is comes to the court on motions to dismiss he will focus on are the factual allegations sufficient to overcome qualified immunity  they conclusory are they immaterial and in fact do the plaintiff's pleadings actually support a finding of a problem because in this case again the setting is the battle of twin peaks multiple suspects into warring groups and clear criminal conduct by members of those groups we believe the able reyna is in time to qualified immunity from all the claims that are brought against him including the ones that are pleadings the players were arrested by waco police department and not by raina let stroman the former chief of police of the city of waco or i think your time allows for questions so you are pressing that your client had absolute immunity yes we are that is a something that that i've met in the brief but i'm not focusing on today because i think the lower hanging   is qualified immunity but he they did plead themselves into a situation where he's entitled to prosecute a prosecutorial absolute immunity so i'm not waiting on it all meant it are you familiar with our case in july wouldn't versus roch saying that these decisions were all made but in his prosecutorial capacity so that's why we just need not tell you how i look at the case with your client just quickly it's to me that the law is pretty clearly established you need probable cause it has to be particularized except in mass arrest cases which in my mind might justify arresting on the day but not to me days later and certainly you can never lie to a court to get a war in this case the district court focused on the last and and you know i have some difficulty with the very thin affidavit in whether it makes an untruth but wouldn't all that be a relevant if our law doesn't attach frank's liability to your client is that where you were going if that is that melton case yes that's that's the nd point i'm making because looking carefully at the franks case law we've come up with forty four have to be either a signer of an affidavit you have to present an affidavit you have to provide false information factual information or you have to admit omit material information so with case it's a there's no factual allegations that would support that he signed the i think we know he didn't that was chavez you know he didn't present it and we know and we've developed this in the record where we're right into all he did was provide legal advise in the general nature so saying that if you if a person meets these following elements that person can be arrested that he believed there would be probable cause and so he sets out legal advise to the law enforcement the law enforcement then interviews the people that are collected the one hundred and ninety two dollars people and comes back with a recommendation to chavez on this point if the incident occurred two thousand and fifteen b believe you're absolutely correct that that would not give fairness you can't give the rayna and no one in a public officials position is expected to produce to anticipate rulings that court would make clearly established law only a backward capacity and in fact it can be just described as unclear or even after the acts are taking place but you cannot clear a fiat after these acts and then then import that clarification and apply notice that his actions would make him liable so he needed it i'm wrong i understand that argument and it's one of the courts wrestled with it but i'm back on the point you said you were going to make at the outset the st one and i interrupted you mass arrest relaxing of probable cause is a complex area i would have thought that yes it would be relaxed to arrest people on the day who are rioting but it would not seem to me to apply three days with the same thing every other person was charged with all the one hundred and ninety two dollars people they're arrested they're all charged with the same thing so that was what was going on there and the exit jency of the situation had to do with the court that they had been apprehended originally but then they were released none of that has to do with only the how would the mass arrests case all relax probable cause well let me address st of all the mass arrests situation it modifies the way probable cause is determined it  the phrase particularize probable cause we're not saying that doesn't apply but we're saying this that you can apply it in a different way in a mass arrest if you have a group of people who are who are clearly committing crimes and you do not have to have particularized probable cause as to each specific individual in order to say as it this situation the circumstances were the individuals were there identification with the warring factions was enough to to identify to establish probable cause it doesn't in the mass arrest cases the courts have said we think it's b s it's not it's a there's a debate going on about how specific you have to be as an officer to say aha i didn't see you breaking that window or i didn't see you looting that store or torching that building but you were with the people you were in identifiable in that group and there and yes yes can grant to the extent in a total riot type situation and it and at the very least there's there ought to be you know probable cause is what a reasonable police officer would believe under the circumstances  mayhem breaks out the flexible no notion of probable cause flexes and it just as a supreme court has indicated in westby and others in maryland perceive print book the authority the th circuit does not it does not clearly establish what situation where not where where the rich bars been overrun by two gangs and so the french officer does arrest everyone because because the the bar is in ruins at that point so what else was lied to only because the court was told these are members of criminal street gangs and then the definition of his criminal street gang was given and yet it doesn't appear that that's a true statement there's no evidence that they were members of either the cossacks of the bandidos my time is is up but what what the heck what happened was as far as rain it was concerned he did not participate in the information gathering and supplying to the court  ok that i understand that history and yes ok and my time is now over so i the rest of the time now goes to mr mckenzie you know mr mckenzie may it please the court my name is alfred given course of conduct would be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law as mr brett indicated i'm going to focus on the plaintiff's complaints in these five consolidated   st to overcome qualified immunity the plaintiff's apple e's must plead facts sufficient to establish a constitutional violation and this case the alleged arrest without probable cause and the plaintiff apple lays complaints must demonstrate that the clearly a stablish law at the time in the un president circumstances faced by the officers at twin peaks was such that no reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed to arrest the plaintiffs for engaging in organized criminal activity the ultimate question regarding probable cause is whethe at the time the warrant affidavit was presented to the magistrate any reasonable competent officer possessing the information the officers had could have concluded that a warrant should issue again we rely upon the plaintiff complaints at this stage of the proceeding based solely on the information in the plaintiff's complaints this court d should conclude that a reasonable officer with such information would believe that there was a fair probability that individuals present at twenty six dollars displaying the signs and symbols or colors of one of the rival gangs the banditos are close x or participating in a show of force in support of one of those gangs and that from such participation a reasonable officer could infer that the individual plaintiffs committed at least one overt act in further of a conspiracy to get mitt capital murder murder or aggravated assault plaintiff's own complaint alleges the essence of probable cause quote the plaintiffs were arrested based on their presence at twenty wks and investigators reliance upon the motorcyclists clothing and personal effects such as key chains and bumper stickers to determine membership in or affiliation with and four so the plaintiffs theory of this case is that the district attorney selected criteria a rest the motorcyclists who are displaying gang colors of the banditos of the coast acts the testimony from starting price again included in the plaintiff's complaints is that's what we did the officers arrested not everyone at twin peaks not everyone in the whole world as the playing of suggest in the brief would be subject to this form affidavit but the officers arrested those motorcyclist who were sporting gang colors this court recently found in jones versus paras seven that effed appendix five seventy six sided in our brief that in the rest is reasonable when there is probable cause to believe that the criminal offense has been or is being committed warrants are no warrant it's the city appellants position street gang and i will address judge taken since concern about evidence supporting that as pleaded by the client that's and participation in a conspiracy to commit one of the object offenses as this court instructed and as the supreme court instructed in westby when considering probable cause the court must consider the totality of the circumstances rather than review each fact individually and sec it the court should not dismiss out right circumstances better susceptible of and a set explanation so st with regard to the totality of circumstances what do the plaintiffs complaints allege mr mckenzie i'm just going to interrupt because i  judge albright although in a very tight paragraph i thought he actually did conclude there was probable cause that this is not a mallory case so my book if that's true my focus has only been looking at paragraph four of the can't either omit exculpatory evidence or include false evidence your honor a couple of things st with regard to judge roberts order i read it in a way that was difficult to reconcile i didn't see the discussion about mallory is finding probable cause but certainly the way the malory complaint was dismissed that that would be a reasonable inference if probable cause of the stablished the plaintiffs were members of a criminal streaking which it does sound like you're reiterating your saying well unequivocally these plaintiffs were members of the last six or bandidos but as i understand the plaintiffs argument the the law enforcement particularly m knew full well that these plaintiffs weren't members of those two warring gangs it was more like they just pulled up or they were helping someone in the hospital but it's it's contradictory to what was told to the court and so a couple things  there's a distinction between what the officers need to fairly d believe of rather than guilt and the definition of criminal street gang under chapter seven he won and you're on your reference to the banditos the criminal street gang is not the banditos in it's form a license card carrying members of banditos the criminal street gang are all those people or more carefully a reasonable officer could believe that a member of one criminal street gang or all those people who arrive at the seeing sporting banditos colors whether they are members are otherwise supporting and answering the call to a racial i agree so but again you're saying the record is only open to the is going to the innocent explanations and i'll come back to totality of circumstances one of the allegations is will these individuals arrived on the scene wearing gang colors the plaintiffs in this allegation innocent explanation as well all the clothing worn by the players was completely lawful this is record complaint at five o four or much of the clothing patches and key chains signify again your membership was readily available on the internet this is in the complaint  complaints record it for ninety two those are those very innocent explanations that westy says don't disregard the allegation of wearing criminal street gang colors because the officer a reasonable officer doesn't have to take those innocent explanations it's immaterial so it's not a well plea complaint to simply say everything we were wearing without even the nine that indeed they supported one of the other gangs was readily available on the internet and completely lawful in and of itself it's chapter seventy one of the texas penal code that makes that relevant and allows the officer to rely upon it and so yes if if there were a lie and that's the question that jones ultimately puts to it is did the officer lie to the magistrate and was that light material to determination of probable cause if there were a lie that was necessary there would be no probable cause it's just logical but there is no lie i don't get i mean they're filling in the blank implying that they're all members of a criminal streak and regularly commits murder and quite criminal activities and and yet and yet i thought at least one of the pla those games did commit crimes of murder but i thought these fellows were members of just other texas biker gangs and the op your honor i could be member of multiple organizations and again this is one of those immaterial and this in explanations of the plaintiffs raising their complaint many of them don't deny being members of the bandidos the coast that some of them alleged we were members of independent organizations that's immaterial to whether they responded to a call for a show of force wearing the colors of the membership in a criminal street gang and it's not necessary that every yes sorry i just got disconnected for about fifteen seconds not my fault but we're ready to go i don't know the name there was only one trial that's right and it resulted in a mistrial and ultimately all of those were dismissed after many years of this ongoing prosecution in the criminal proceedings because surely the  people who killed people were prosecuted well your honor that's been my concern all along no one was prosecuted someone was guilty and that's why we have a bit of a disconnect between what really happened  nor was there any reasonable belief of probable cause that any of these individuals who were never even presented to a grand jury in the three and a half years the cases were pending at anything to do with any of the violence nor do they encourage it it is flatly false that any of them admitted to being bandidos or cossacks as mr mckenzie just said that is completely false that is nowhere to be found in our record in fact in our in the plaintiff's pleading each of these individuals very expressly indicated that they were not members of a criminal street gang there were small independent clubs they were into vintage the type of they are not the bandidos or the cossacks these thirty seven individuals as plainly pled in the complaint they were not going members they did not answer any call as the city suggests they did not participate or encourage it any of the violence and in fact when the violence occurred their actions were to duck behind cars run for cover the city in misconstruing westby even go so far that they don't have to except that is a well plated fact because possibly someone was diving behind a car to get a vet a better vantage point from which to shoot that is a complete misconstruction or  application of westby and i'll address that more d momentarily but west be ultimately stands for the the law enforcement must look at the totality of the circumstances and they're not required to accept a a suspect or apply to us as an explanation if it is not consistent with the totality of the circumstances d they observed that does not give law enforcement the license to case let me say that while these defendants talk about a reasonable belief that they have a gang membership and involvement in a pre arranged plan d in fact with respect to these thirty seven individuals that make up this consolidated appeal law enforcement had no information about them it is flatly false that that both the mr right his numerous detailed facts but when and when we do that they then say we even minute something or if we have failed to anticipate what they would say in a twelve b six motion we've somehow and minute it there is nothing in the what plan is well com pleted complaint that would even remotely allowed entrance that they were wearing gang colors or that they answered a call the reason that the defendants cling so d closely to that narrative is because as judge higginson pointed how out of that thank you your honor with respect to the mallee claim the district court denied the motions to dismiss on the grounds that the at least facially states a frank's claim however the language in the court d order it indicates that the court believed it did so because it named the suspect it identified the charge d and there are several other facts that were related to the situation if one looks at the probable cause affidavit as judge higginson pointed out there is one and only one paragraph that even purports to claim a fact about all it is worth noting that isn't does or not articulable facts that is simply a cut and paste straight from the penal code i mean it is to me it is a very very frustrating affidavit fill in the blank to me it doesn't seem justified by the existence of the moment because it was done late later i may be mistaken about that nevertheless i have two difficulties with your argument one is if really that sentence the deficiency is that it's a legal conclusion then it is really a false operative fact so because court may have been mistaken that this needs probable cause but i didn't see in the dis flying any actual false operative fact because the affidavit is devoid of operative facts what's the false fact if if there is a fact alleged in this affidavit it is only one of two or three statements at the very beginning it says so and so is a member of a criminal street gang that don't at least arguably a fact i will say it's or to note your honor the defendants both made the arguments at the district court level but that was a fact they have sense of abandon and said no that's a conclusion of law so if you strike that off you get only through the paragraph d you've mentioned which is no there are no facts you know that i care less i mean that paragraph also in stone the definition section of seventy one and two so let's strike both as just legal conclusions were left with no facts as opposed to dishonest on and i know that seems like a trap for your clients but it's been a difficulty for me with this case i believe the court could certainly a far the denial of the twelve b six motions on other grounds we pled both mally d and state probable cause it doesn't have particular any particular us facts whatsoever not a single one the link they i'm just going to hold this up just because well i know you're familiar with that but just so i can point to the  section i'm referring to the link the narrative in the middle of the affidavit is literally just a newspaper article describing what happened it has nothing to do with these plaintiffs there could arguably be an implication that after describing the cossacks in the bandidos and associates and brandishing weapons that somehow the next paragraph d must include that i don't know about that what about th just general proposition that in two thousand and fifteen police officers responding to this this riot this mayhem they basically the law massa arrest just really isn't clearly established that i think well let me specific question do you agree that they had more lists p c to arrest everybody there at the time it would seem to me that the law is not clearly established they couldn't arrest everyone and if that's the case then the only issue they lied about was the p then dissipate it as to these plaintiffs after that big huge convention center time to discuss and segregate out people you see where i'm going with that yes and whether over whether the illegal we do not consider contended that the illegal that the initial detention was illegal had a right to investigate this crime it is completely contrary to all facts that we've pled that it were these were two warring factions that one of the fallacies of the county's argument is that everyone there is either on team a or team b that is simply false there is no that is only necessary because they must have that scenario in order to create a totality of the circumstances in the manner that they that they want d to but i believe little officer could have arrested everyone at the time just because it was unclear who was in the navy but but they then then i thought the argument was they investigation but i don't believe even initially they could literally just throw a perimeter throw d a rope around the perimeter of a parking lot that you know quarter mile or half a mile wide and simply arrest everyone even on the spot idea that the police have to use each individual before they can arrest them well sure your honor thank you they already are st of all the the arrests were not made until at least half a day later isn't that sort of what happened it is it is accurate that they were investigating it and people were being like go and the waco police department believed the result probable cause until as we've always best a right to enter the picture in light that evening and he orchestrated and the mass arrests theory it was his idea of which there was opposition from waco police department members he had to persuade the chief of police to agree with him is everything from you book to barra to prime goal to the cases we've cited in our brief the fact that it is a crime scene where there is multiple where there are multiple victim victims does not  relax the standard there is not a different particularized probable cause standard it is particularized d probable cause and if as you don and knowledge that other circuits seem to have held to the contrary the those courts do not just eliminate the need for particular i suppose d because they simply say the group was acting as a unit cheering changing they were an individual and therefore there was particularized probable d cause against each one it is completely false narrative that the county is suggesting that everyone is at this location was acting in a war in a group or multiple  i don't you can we don't you have to agree that it is not as judge said earlier it is not clearly established that they cannot arrest people in that kind of situation i do not that and recently this court in courtesy may feel or may feel be turned us recently held that exactly that the violation in fact mally itself says you do not have qualified d immunity if you present honor this line from the from this quarter in with preview rogers recently in which the core address this exact question is a franks case here the clearly established custer's the right asserted by the individual that was junior is to be free from police arrest without a good face showing a probable cause since franks the delaware it has been clearly established that defendants forms of em are right or violated if you fire in support of the warrant includes a false statement no intentionally or reckless disregard for the truth well now wait now frank said i mean i'm quite familiar with winfrey and the facts they're utterly in completely distinct and again i thought we had moved off the franks in hue and we were talking about whether the police had the authority to detain people and then charge them based on what they had witnessed at the same your clearly established if it is facially to fish a warrant and curtis b may feel recently within the heights i am asking we're talking past each other and i won't belabor this any more but i'll be saying is without the warrant we are not dealing with franks here ok i'm his or now a warrant we're trying about the police who were on the scene when people are getting shot and kill and they all rest everybody or most of that leave aside the terwilliger plaintiffs but all you've got one hundred and fifty other plaintiffs right waiting in the wings but in all these other cases here they take them all over the convention center they look at what they're wearing and they say we have probable cause you know we we had a reasonable officer could believe there was probable cause that these people are members of one of the other gangs if the if the defendants can prove your honor that these people were wearing these clothing and that they had participated in a conspiracy to commit murder as they are charged then certainly that would be proper for summary judgment it is not it is not in line with what we have pled with respect to your question about the a warrantless arrest i respectfully disagree that the just because there was a mass there was a large scale incident that was a specific area that you could go into a parking lot and start arresting every attendee i would give as an example what if any it would have just someone from waco was there and they happen to be wearing a red shirt and that's identified as a color of the one of the clubs with the with that would they be allowed to stamp their name in there if george w bush was on his way to crawford and stopped at twenty six dollars and was wearing an s m u all over that was red would that be a color that's associated the problem with the affidavit your honor is that when you cited the individual is at the same where you call in signs and symbols it isn't come but on the the da and the prosecutor to identify what those signs and symbols of war and the help they connect to the criminal street gangs and it's not enough to simply repeating myself because i think i do think in you disagree but i don't think it's fatal which it would have are ones right i do think that there's no clearly established law that they couldn't originally seize them and bring them to the convention center my difficulty is that that isn't the premise of your nine three claim as i see it your premise is that the police then lot by saying that these plaintiffs actually had a connection to these two criminal street gangs whereas in fact as you have pled they didn't yes i didn't realize that we had a disagreement on whether there is clearly established that they could be initially decided i think they could be honestly that saying no i'm not saying seized i'm saying arrest i don't think they were free to leave that convention center i may be wrong but i don't want to take your time up because there's another big obstacle at least that i see which is melton whenever the law about melton wasn't two thousand and fifteen it wouldn't wouldn't that mean they'd be difficulty not giving qualified immunity to anyone other than chavez the man who prepared signed and drafted your honor with respect to melton st of all it's important that melton has one of those d opinions and i say this without knowing who the author is so that's dangerous but it's one of those opinions that is certainly very nuanced and it was an attempt to reconcile a case called jennings and a case called hampton and what for a majority and judge caused a wrote a separate opinion saying no you can't pull it all together the law just doesn't fit together but either way wouldn't it mean it was clearly established for anyone who's just sort of taking photos and talking about it or seeing arrest everyone it will really all our law has always required for frank's liability that someone be aware what they're saying will end up in a war i mean in an affidavit for war and i don't see in your complaint that being asserted as to anyone except for chavez ok well with respect to melt and i don't think that it does i think it is saying that the law clearly establishes the bill if they participated in the preparation of the affidavit also says assisted in the preparation of the affidavits as for the purpose of right doesn't it isn't just if you were a secretary and you as you know added somers really got to be knowing it's going to go to a court i thought i made you want i don't i don't i'm not saying i don't know that you are and i'm simply saying that these individuals fit that definition for example mr r officer he he masterminded the entire thing he was on the same he called the meeting to establish this theory he told every or everyone what the theory was going to be the entire  information that is who provided them for who else would have provided this information i looked it focused for any i focused on paragraph sixty three and it does i mean i'm not a law enforcement officer but it would seem that the da might come in in the hysteria of the moment each of the individuals participated in a conspiracy we've also alleged bystander liability where if they are more aware of violations of individual civil rights arrest about probable precursor for the fact that you file cases for how many plaintiffs one hundred and fifty i believe there's about one hundred and twenty total and but let me said this group of people or you can go ahead this group of people these are unique this is a unique subcategory because none of these were indicted the other group of people who have filed claims that i believe the probable cause affidavit is equally lacking in progress for them there are i do represent a number of individuals that were there that's all i was find there are i would say this each of these cases is an individual case the irony of this whole case is that if there is any are pleadings have been attacked as being conclusory yet the great irony is that the only thing that is really conclusory is the affidavit that's what caused the problem if law enforcement shows to abandon an otherwise proper investigation to just have a arrest them all let god sort them out strategy why does it i don't i don't think every one of these cases should stand and fall individual eight and if the defendants can prove that an individual was a member of a criminal straight day and he was participating in the violence or encourage the violence or he did something that they would assert that in summary judgment motions and they may or may not prevail but at this stage of the simply a twelve b six we have alleged numerous facts that would contradict the warring stretch in the war and going theory and vance by the city and the county the fact that flash violence occurred does not in any way comport with the defendants be that bikers descended on waco as they call it in their totality of the circumstances we have pled very clearly that it was a scheduled meeting of which people came from all over the state and they came to socialize that we are just simply not just because there was a tragic incident does not give law enforcement the opportunity to indiscriminately arrest people and i'd like to just say one thing i notice i'm only a few seconds under the criteria argument the city may just because we say they arrested people based on a criteria that was extremely indiscriminate does not mean that we are saying that therefore we fit the criteria that is the argument that i believe miss the city may that we somehow fit the criteria simply because we described this is how little thought there was given to who was connected and not a bumper sticker here a key chain there and you were sent to jail in charge of the st degree felony without any particular us probable cause and i sit at my time as all right thank you sir as you thank you arthur and minutes mr brant given chavez factual information of omitting or false information he didn't there is no pleading to suggest that rayna was involved in the investigation and provide production of factual tiriel and submission of that to chavez with the idea it was going to go to a court there's nothing there what you have is rayna provided legal advice about what he and his office believe chapter seventy one meant and how it could be applied in this situation no investigation there's no pleading that rayna or even any other v a s interviewed anyone they just said interview these people if they meet these criteria then we think you can have probable cause if they meet these criteria so then law enforcement went out and address the criteria by doing an investigation and then son on forcing officers provided chavez with information he even signed and it went on from there the nd point is that judge jones you asked a very good question to mr turtle and he never answered the question and the reason he never answer the question is because he can't there is no case that establishes clearly that in this situation that it's clearly established that he cannot arrest the people there that there is no probable cause there is no such case car and others it could car stated that it is particularized probable cause to arrest a hope a group is established if the group was observed violating the law d d even if specific unlawful  cannot be ascribed to specific individuals the law is not clearly established defendants especially ranna are entitled to qualified immunity my time's up thank you very much all right sir mr mckenzie you have three minutes not that they admitted the converse in any event that's what i intended to say in response to mr tiddles argument that law enforcement had no information which is included in the complaint that's not a well pleaded allegation because the complaint defies that conclusory claim one they don't allege any facts that they know that law enforcement have no information but instead the complaint alleges that there was video reviewed by  are taking place over the course of hours it is the same day rather than the overnight event or days later i was ready to see your st clarification i was i when i can go back and listen to the original oral argument i was i thought many many times at least three you said that it is acknowledged they had the collars of the banditos in the costs but it's now what you're correcting that statement to be is that they didn't deny they were members how is not denying you're a member of the criminal street gang equivalent to telling a court that they are members well and i want to be like you just you just made the franks violation now and i'm not making that point i'm not suggesting that they are we're stuck with the plaintiffs complaint and the players c both fails to overcome qualified immunity and gives evidence of probable cause and this is why i have to draw that distinction whether they're a member of the band these are supposed to x is not the material question the question is whether they're a member of the criminal reasonable officer can infer from the fact that they are wearing the signs and symbols of one of those gangs whether they are a member or not that's the point i keep well you keep emphasizing the word game and that's the law under seventy one  these if you read the poor t o decision correct now you're on are not involved in the genocide criminal federal criminal case the judge all right how this for these civil cases were state for years these are not games these are clu really they're members of other gangs are you suggesting that every single motorcycle club every member of every club that showed up for this meeting was by showing up it hundreds of motorcyclists show up the complaint alleges that criteria was applied to only those that were displaying the signs and symbols of the bandi those are co sacks and my point is doesn't matter whether they're members of a club only those that are wearing those signs and symbols then leads to a reasonable officer in s c my time has expired does that answer the question that so leads to a reasonable office to infer that they appeared as