should reverse the decision of the lower court and find that both mr relief and mr hall are entitled to the protections afforded by absolute immunity for the following two reasons first all of mr reeves conduct associated with the issuance of the search warrant indicted therefore after the initiation of the judicial process that's affording them the protections of absolute immunity finally both mr reedy and mr hall should be afforded qualified immunity because case he did nothing more than the supreme court judge who reviewed those affidavits and found that they supported had probable cause to support the warrants and as for mr hall he was a lying officer just as this court recently recognized in  a versus bo who should be afforded qualified immunity it does affect your in any argument your honor let me explain why in bishop high you try vs how do you thin you know this court found that the district attorney was not entitled to absolute immunity because those action took place before an indictment or before the initiation of the judicial proceedings in fact this court recognized four distinct points where the judicial judicial proceedings begin first and foremost being the indictment in this case mr immunity but as i understand it this court only found that he was not entitled to process tarling unity because those actions related to the search of the casino were done before the  to present those to the court and the united states supreme court found that those activities his review of the affidavits in his presentation of those facts to the court were within his role as an advocate of the state surely mr reavis mere review affidavits would also be included within the absolute prosecutorial immunity which brings me to my second point all of these actions took place after the initial after the indictment honor i would disagree with your assessment that these were unrelated or somehow collateral to the indictment in fact the affidavit of russell more states explicitly that the affidavit or the search warrant necessary in order to gather evidence for which robber or mack was already indicted in fact that is stated on page one of moore's affidavit located on page a zero two one four two appellants record on appeal further it states that he understood that there was substantial information related to the ninety seven ninety eight crimes that the grand jury indicted wrote robert womack on however to complete this puzzle he needed more information that information included  it was drawn or robert so that was part of the investigation correct your honor robert womack was indicted on twenty one separate counts including transportation of hazardous waste various other environmental crimes perjury witness tampering in tax fraud it was very broad incitement this search was very broad but it was done expressly to gather evidence into support of that indictment so therefore his actions were related capacity and his individual capacity in reviewing pelleas brief it appears that there are no longer pursuing a theory of liability against mr irene on the official in the official capacity doctrine so i'll move on to the personal exposure personal liability aspect of this case unlike mr womack we believe that mr irie is entitle to absolute immunity in this particular case the conduct complained of by the plain me and the search warrant affidavit was in support of that indictment it clearly set forth the reasons it was necessary to delve into certain areas and related it to the indictment focus is on the likelihood of criminal activity by robert womack in removing the underground storage tank u s t and dissuading witnesses from testifying before the special grand jury  so it's our position that yes in fact the search warrant affidavit is related to are connected with the prosecution absolute immunity applies at that point the question might arise then  the absolute immunity can be transmitted or lost and it's our position that as long as the particular conduct complained of in this case that is the kind of complained about regarding mr  ridge road address as far as the basi ranch search is concerned the judge basically said it was premature at this time that was necessary to conduct further discovery specifically to take the deposition defendant moore the c h p investigator to determine or to attempt to determine what role if any mr really played in that particular search i think and i would concede that i think it's premature for this court to rule on the basi ranch s well as far as my understanding as the boss the ranch was it was three was judicial deception and execution i didn't pick up on the over breath of that particular search warrant so  point but in any event i think the key in this case is to look at the search warrant affidavit and to make a decision is it connected with are related to the indictment clearly it is that's not only my opinion that's judge l opinion in this particular case at that period of time there's no question that he was aggressively prosecuting this particular case and against robert womack the pelleas made some note of the fact that we were seeking records but i think that's a red herring argument at this stage because in this in fact they are all his alter ego of robert womack and so we can clearly i think get records that does not cause you to lose your immunity even to the circumstances and i would analogize those cases and make the same argument that even if you felt that perhaps it was somewhat over but it would not alleviate or eliminate the absolute  i do not believe that bishop stands for a new proposition whatsoever it is merely a case which follows burns and  pacman and buckley versus fitzsimmons with respect to counsel's argument relating to burns versus reed and standing for the proposition that  district attorney is entitled to absolute immunity in the preparation of search warrants that case does not stand for that proposition it stands exactly for the opposite position burns versus re advice to the police absolute immunity is not available and the only immunity if any which is afforded to such district attorney would be qualified immunity now in this feel that would be a solution held a significant issue you raise your best again however in this case the standard of review is whether or not there is evidence to support the trial court's ruling that that wasn't what on on the issue where they took the bus you write they they reserve ruling on as i understand it and we have two different u i say to you what i say to my wife is that i don't interrupt me while i'm interrupting you know i can't remember where i was do you have any questions court judge that he did make a recommendation that the search warrant might be narrowed in the time but he never signed after that as far as he knows it was taken directly to the court if there were other changes mr really wasn't aware of that the record is clear on that mr reed the sole involvement was on his first day in office view the warrants before they were presented to the superior court judge is doing some investigations to further the prosecution further the indictment against mr womack at the direction of the district of the direction of the district attorney as this corresponding freeman versus hill hall mr moore was down just on direct examination did you understand who killed our words and he stated i believe k r l and robert will makar one in the same this idea that the investigation was going towards landing timothy adkins was arrested improperly on a warrant which was issued for a timothy actions there's a difference in spelling it was close to but not quite mr adkins spent thirty days in jail before the district immunity the fact is these officers the district attorney's were acting the further the prosecution of robert womack the fact that p r l is now making a separate claim is really a non issue in this case because robert was the target of the investigation and he always was your honour's in conclusion this court should overturn the lower court and find that mr hall and mr reeve your vote entitle that absolute immunity because