crime for which he is appropriately included allegations court of probable cause means or allegations in the affidavit for arrest warrant at issue as as the court will notice and summary judgment briefing the appellant spent a considerable amount of time going over every single specific allegation included in that affidavit and got an admission and got deposition testimony to to  show the district court that every single allegation in that affidavit for arrest warrant did not pertain to the appellant and addict for it pertaining to some theory that they espouse about conspiracy and how the plaintiff appellant would be included in every single allegation if anybody else in this conspiracy committed one of these acts the defendant greatly conflicts with the evidence to surmise that there was probable cause to believe that the plaintiff had committed some other offense that was i'll quote amongst the admitted through quite extensive deposition testimony that was proffered to the district court that none of the allegations existed as it pertains to the appellant plaintiff and the only actual allegation that they now are claiming even though they didn't rely on this summary judgment was this very vague very generalized facebook message between two other individuals that occurred over a year prior to the issuance of the warrant and and that is what the district court based its  however i believe that the district court somewhat contradicted itself because it did also find number one that the appellant clearly show which as a matter of fact the defendant as you can see in my reply brief as mid is that this was a generalized arrest warrant for forty some odd individuals and that they were all exactly the same all exactly the same it constituted the exact same allegations for every single individual the only thing that is changed in this generalized arrest warrant is the name of the individual and that was that paragraphs that paragraphs five and six should be taken out because in the frank's analysis because those were included with reckless disregard so so the district court assessed the affidavit corrected affidavit with those two paragraphs removed is that correct that's correct you are right but paragraph seven dollars and eight dollars remained and why wouldn't those paragraphs support  parceled out there were dissected and questions were asked of the defendant do you have any evidence that for example in paragraph seven that he purchased marijuana that he transported marijuana that he distributed marijuana each single allegation was dissected and every single time the defendant said i have no evidence that it was plaintiff and it was based you know his belief that the plaintiff was tied into this conspiracy allegation was the sole basis for probable cause to believe he committed some the facts ok so if i understand your point and so my my my next question is then that your argument that this court should look at the affidavit not only with numbers five and six removed but also seven dollars and eight dollars they have to come out to is that what you're  specifically to the to the evidence that they had no evidence of item seven and the allegations and seven and eight  but i just i'd like to just have a two a question about clearly established law and why aren't we in a similar position as the th circuit was in  the case of the air is mandy case that is why isn't a lot of attempts or could not clearly established that an officer can be held liable for false arrest too to a fault statement in the arrest warrant affidavit when that officer had probable cause to arrest for another a family are you saying that the law in the th circuit is clearly established on that point judge whether it's when an individual if an arrest warrant is let's assume completely invalid and you go to arrest  with that with that particular issue framed in that way but the way that the district court framed it was i think number one it contradicted the factual findings  number two it is construed the evidence in a in a in a light most favorable to the defendant and really not based on the evidence but  well let me just ask one or the question then i'll stop but tell me if i'm understanding the argument properly if i understand it your your position is that once you take arrest your client for any offense whether it's based on the corrected affidavit or on the facebook page is that is that what you're saying yes or and if it's you analyze the facebook message for example if you if you now the district court i guess somewhat converted that into well the officer may have believed that this facebook message supplied probable cause to seventy eight and somehow it it it kind of pulled that back in there even though it wasn't included  let's go ahead and include that for argument's sake that statement i think even tied into the other evidence other allegation affidavit would would certainly not suffice under  i think any arrest type scheme is you have to other individuals that are talking about an individual named chad they didn't even identify the plaintiff in this case  and there's certainly no no indication that this happened in their jurisdiction there's certainly no indication that there was any timing to this or this was a year prior and i believe it was commits a misdemeanor outside of the officers presence you have to get a warrant to arrest them as that is that's the law in oklahoma yes ok and  judge mathis and was asking you about the areas mindy case out of the circuit in the areas mindy case do you recall was was the arrest there on to an account that could be a that the officer in this case is safe because he may have thought there was another crime i could see that if he could have arrested someone without a warrant but  doesn't make a difference if the only thing you have probable cause for was was there wasn't a rest for a crime that required a war what was not clearly established was whether or not citing the wrong offense kind of like the word the particularities requirement would you know inserting the wrong address mine probable cause for particular search but citing the wrong statue even though you've got the right allegations count your time is up says please be as brief as possible is a very interesting case i think it's a very unique case i certainly don't have cases quite like this one come up in my practice i do want to share my time with mr karr so i'll try to you have him equal equal amount of time and i am watching my time but i think we have here a situation where where deputy hands lee his his argument is a little broader than the argument i think heard from m what's different about this case is we have a situation where we have a rest warrant affidavit but we also have a crime that mr bickford says well all of the information that was known in the mind of officer hensley is true so if he was charged with or were arrested for a crime of possession of marijuana while he admits all of the facts that would support that all of which were known to deputy him for example i took his deposition he admits yes he was known by chance that's who he is he was the person that actually yes in fact did take possession of the marijuana and consume it so that part of the case he doesn't dispute but i think what's what's different and interesting about this case is that the court found i think accurately and correctly is that did have probable cause to arrest mr bickford for knowingly or intentionally possessing marijuana so in oklahoma that's still a crime it is misdemeanor but we're focused  on mr bickford claim that his rights under the th amendment were violated so the the th amendment simply says that you have to have probable cause to arrest for a crime and i think the court accurately pinpointed that you know here what are the issues and now i do think that the court went through the affidavit and then concluded that the rest warrant affidavit did probable cause that the plaintiff committed the offenses and then the court says listed in the affidavit but i think the law is a little broader than that when we talk about the th amendment and in particular we look at  of devon peck and devon peck you know the court was the supreme court was reviewing a argument similar to what mr bickford is making here there that the the court of appeals held at the probable cause inquiry is confined to the facts bearing on the offense actually invoked at the time of arrest and that the offense supported by these known facts must be closely related to the offense that the officer in voked so here we have a situation where the officers invoking a conspiracy that particular statute but then the supreme court rejected that whole argument and said well  facts known to the officer were sufficient to justify an arrest for a crime so i would submit that the st prong of the qualified immunity analysis is is not met in that there of marijuana correct and who are you relying on the facebook message for probable cause yes correct and that wasn't the face this is part and parcel of him reviewing thousands of messages so he knew that there was you know a lot of activity going on he knew chaz was heat identified this that says you know probable cause based on a conversation about a rd party using marijuana why why is that probable cause it might be reasonable suspicion but how does it get you to probable cause if if the   a discussion amongst these members of the ring that they had given this information to chaz and he had consumed it and the officer did not have any other information that would have discounted that i think that's a factor but i want to really focus court on the case of goed versus town of maker and there the court was faced with i think the very issue that we're faced here which is can you go outside the facts own on the face of the warrant and look at other evidence known to the officer and i think they're after the court reviewed the case law and it was going to other circuits it concluded that yes you could in fact the court concluded that even when the arrest warrant is invalid probable cause is sufficient to to justify the arrest and cited another cancer case st bought for southwest airlines assess a seizure generally requires either a warrant or probable manger under oklahoma criminal law no my point on that issue that would be but when we were dealing whether or with whether or not there was a constitutional violation we simply look to the minimum requirements of the th amendment which will only requires reasonable notice for the seizure which is probable cause in his facts supporting probable cause but still not made an arrest without a warrant even on the main offenses that that were that were included in example occasion for an arrest warrant isn't that right correct yes ok so i mean at some point don't you have to and the fact that you're relying on for him to have probable cause to arrest byrd for the misdemeanor those are those are facts that were outside the application right that were say so  and effect an arrest and you might say well it's a misdemeanor no he can't but my point here is though however we are simply looking at the th amendment requirements could he go and say i'm going to arrest you for cases points to is there a violation of the constitution under those circumstances and they would say no there is not they will go to go to the pub was not presidential right it is it is not published but on the other hand i don't think gold was was making new law it was simply looking back at the body of law as it existed in two thousand and sixteen so if if deputy hensley were making that same survey of the law he would see that i think the same gray area or cases on both sides of the issue that the court was observing and was going to be the core idea of can you look at facts outside of the warrant that but that were in the mind of the officer and the answer was well yes you can and then you can simply determine make a determination whether or not there or not there is probable cause if so there is no claim for false arrest i don't have anything district court didn't necessarily address the issues specific to my client having already found qualified immunity for the deputy the court's discussion on the probable cause is informative on the st prong but i would  reiterate that as does was discussed in the direct argument on the plaintiff or on the appellant issue here i would urge that the qualified immunity was appropriate here because of the law is not clearly sued only in his official capacity or why it is qualified immunity even apply to such a client well that wouldn't apply to that claim as as it is to the sheriff i think the court found that because the deputy had qualified immunity and therefore there was there was no violation there it just found that there was no violation on behalf of the sheriff and his official well that's my that's that that still goes to my question if if if the district court found that there was a there was no quality no constitutional violation that's one thing but that the district court relied on lack of clearly established law yes you're on that's true issue to hold the sheriff liable in his fishing vessel well what if the court said there was a constitutional violation but no clearly established law why would that why would that resolve the official well i think if they found that there was a constant there was no constitutional i'm sorry that there was no constitutional right now that there was a constitutional violation there being i'm sorry the only procedure get to that point because they did and didn't do that