livingston manors based on the arguments raised in the briefs including the supplemental briefs we respectfully request that this court reversed the district court we're asking that this court and that officers c and savion not shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity we're asking that the the case against the city the false arrest a place a case be reinstated when we ask that this case be remanded back to the understand off the road yes when the police officer came by yes the officer approach and the rear or from the front from the rear from the rear yes and passed him yes sir through an intersection yes what happened after that explained factually what happened after that mr mann is sitting in his car watched officer drive through the stop sign and keep going straight ahead at that point mr manners pulled up pulled out and drove to that same stop sign made a complete stop made a left turn thank you after making that left turn that is when the officer made a u turn and then made a right turn behind very much now the good news in this case is that livingston manners is alive because based on the facts of what transpired this could have gone much worse than merely getting beat up by the police and arrested and the case boils down to two at the core issues the arrest which was  legal and the force which was excessive now this case was decided at the stage of summary judgment and as the law provides supreme court this quota said repeatedly the law and all inferences are to be view in favor of the nonmoving that would be in this instance limits the manners and according to limits the manners he did not violate any traffic laws or any other laws that while being detained he merely inquired how long the officer cannot intend to take because he was going to work b s the question this way is or let's go beyond the initial question of whether he ran the stop sign or he didn't hold that aside and i understand there's a dispute of fact this are about that the officer sees matters drive he turns his the lights on his siren and he hails the car over yes manors does not obey the command of the officer to stop he drives by his account if i have it right at least for one hundred and seventy five yards before he stops and he stops only because he sees a gas station and he figures there are cameras in the gas station that will record any subsequent encounter that's a fair statement taking the evidence in a light most favorable to manners right with the exception of he not complying with the command to stop the he doesn't stop immediately he continues to drive by his account for at least one hundred seventy five yards and for fifteen seconds fifteen so that's his account yes he's going about two football fields about three city blocks he sees a gas station he pulls in and then he stops and then the other things happen that's a fair statement of the evidence in the right most favorable to the  usually yes you knew it was open you know it was open let me ask you why couldn't the police officers stop and arrest him for violating the command to stop his car is he free to decide how far he's going to go before he complies with the order or is your position he doesn't have to comply with the order at all because he was wrong the cop was wrong to have stopped  in the first place well i do believe the officer was wrong to have stopped him in the first place and when you look at it that it is that sufficient to vitiate probable cause that otherwise would exist to stop to arrest him for fleeing well well there's a statute says it's unlawful for the operator of any vehicle having knowledge that he or she has been ordered to stop such a vehicle by duly authorized law enforcement officer willfully refuses or or fails to stop the vehicle in compliance of the lot of officer violates this section and commits a felony in the third degree that's what the statute honor we can put in an officer believe based on those facts that there was a violation of three sixteen one ninety three five one well that to respond to a question yada yada that's one of the problems with the statu also be material yes and there are no cases where a person drove so how would how would an officer be put on clear notice that he couldn't arrest him for violating that there's or anything that would have told him looking at the law that he's got to go five hundred yards before i can arrest them or a thousand yards or a mile if i put my lights on i put the siren on i expect that who's ever driving will pull over if he doesn't pull over immediately is there something in the statute that would have warned and objectively reasonable officer to know that i've got to give them x number of feet and y amount of time before i can pull them over well that's one of the problems with the statute you're out i mean the statute is facially unconstitutional because the court state courts and federal courts we've judged deal over informers have interpreted the statute saying that it does not require a lawful stop let me ask the question this way have you has any case for qualified immunity purposes we can only look at the law for three places either from the supreme court of the united states the supreme court of the highest court of the state yes or the eleventh circuit yes was there any eleventh circuit law or u s supreme court law or the law coming out of the out of the state in this case i guess we're talking about florida that said this statute was unconstitutional because it was void  didn't my source of the law i have not found any law that says that this statute is facially unconfident constitutional or unconstitutional because of vagueness if that's the case then how would an objectively reasonable officer be put on notice because i that's the standard the supreme court tells me i got to apply well i mean what we do have is a question where how many seconds how many feet could  a person ultimately be charged with fleeing and eluding and i would argue that and in fact i've joked with my my law partner about this issue so one person's light come on it is the case that even if you want out of the five you should just slam on your brakes and stop cause made him or should you try to just try to pull over safely to avoid other accidents and so forth that's one of the one of the prophet the problem here is it was two am there was no reason why he couldn't pull over immediately yeah in fact other than he was worried he was very he was worried that he was going to have a problem with these cops they were going to harass him and hassle him and that's why he wanted to keep going till he could find a gas station with some cameras i  understand that but our only asking is whether or not there's any clearly established law that would have put an officer on notice that he couldn't that he couldn't find a violation of that that section know all of all of the case law it was much more time and much more distance the law does not say how much time how much distance and in the us i mean even reading the statu popular opinion both of see it that empowering a law enforcement officer to stop a vehicle without having either reasonable suspicion or arguable actual probable cause of a criminal or tr driver's fourth amendment right to be free from unconstitutional seizures the videotape we have has no audio i take it that there is no videotape with the audio of the of the driving no of  audio that is correct i was just curious about that the audio is not picked up is that common or do you turn off our audio or there's no audio ever i was just curious well this was a surveillance video at a gas station sassi so it's not arrest because as he did make one money stops him it looks like he gets a license they tell you your client gets out of a car yes and it looks like that something is exchanged are some words are exchanged and then your client goes back into the car this man and then the officer lunges in the car after him yes it looked like he standing closest to the entry of the car and and that's when my understanding of the fact is he so you're under arrest and mr manners falls back into his car and says four way and but he's not pushed back in the car in the video no if you're caught really just gets back in the car in the video well he he falls back into a car he was not shoved in shoved into his car  good morning morning may it please the court jeffrey marks on behalf of officers canela and savile on my co counsel representing the city of hollywood is also here we split our time ten fifteen to address judge question about what the video portrayed and what the interaction between officer canelo and mr manners i went and looked at the undisputed statement to real facts filed by the defendants and it appears that there was an exchange between officer canela and mr manners at the gas station when mr manners was outside the vehicle according to documentary fifty seven page four manners is told to get back into his car and he there's a verbal exchange and manners proceeds to refuse to a bay his commands officer can always cancer which cannot come out c about manners but as he said before we get in the what happened to the car can i ask you the same question i asked earlier yes or tell me your version of what happened factually after the officer passed as i understand it the officer passes mr manners who's sitting in his car at two thirty in the morning and sees he goes continues in the direction through the intersection and sees in his rearview mirror officer man  manners not stop at a stop sign explain to me where the cars are how that happened i believe officer callas car is in front of mr manners car having either gone through or in in the intersection and he has to look back in his rear view mirror officers going through the intersection that's correct i believe that's what occurred your honor and so it's clear that officer canela did not directly see he sees what occurs looking back through his rear view mirror i'm confused in his deposition this is where he says the officer i pulled up to stop signs stop told to stop sign and through my rearview mirror observe the traffic infraction which was very abrupt and sudden turn that appears to be what officer kanellis testimony is it's clear though that he says i observed him through my rearview mirror so he doesn't actually see and yes and directly see but he sees but i think that that's the basis of his initial probable cause to stop him let's talk about that let's start with the initial encounter you've got three pieces to this puzzle first the initial stop he or didn't he stop and could he pull him over for that second weather recorder we couldn't did he flee when we rights went on and third once the stop occurs and they're in the in the gas station this incident escalates into a really serious set of circumstances but let's start with the the stop because i understand the district judge the district judge says there's probable cause to arrest for the stop right yes you are ok that's wrong isn't it if if you look at it from the respective of it being a fact dispute in other words let's start with that and mr manners says on ambiguously if i have it right i didn't go through that stop sign and i know the officer said i did he's either mistaken or lying i didn't go through that stops and that's what he says right correct or i and the cop says no that's not the way it happened he ran a stop sign don't i have to take for purposes of summary judgment in qualified immunity the officers reject the officers account and except mr manners account the answer is yes your honor for because there is there's there's clearly one version of that says that there was a stop at a stop sign and what ver events that says there wasn't ok so the bottom line is that wouldn't form a basis for the record is wrong that this record is not wrong in its overall  i want to just break it into pieces there are three pieces to this puzzle that's where i started right to the extent the district court held that there was probable cause to arrest mr manners for running a stop sign that's wrong at least for one reason is that factually there's a dispute and the summary judge and judge is not entitled to resolve that dispute she says she says in her order that she is not resolving the issue but how could you find probable cause if you accepted manners account well that's where she goes to the mistaken belief analysis ok so maybe he was wrong but in good faith he did that's correct let me ask a slightly different question let's assume all of that's true isn't running a stop sign a missed civil traffic infraction rather than a misdemeanor criminal infraction under the law that would govern here and if that be the case what authority would there be to arrest anyway even assuming it was true that he ran a stop sign i can't answer the question i can and i can tell you that it's a civil infraction not a misdemeanor without a good reason that's a misdemeanor but it carries the right to actually arrest but running through a stop sign i don't think is a is a criminal offense therefore i'm not sure that you had a basis to arrest on that ground but then we move forward in the timeline ok so let's assume for the purpose of my question as to the initial transaction you had no basis to stop and arrest one because this is a dispute about whether he ran through the stop sign and two because you couldn't arrest in any event for the civil violation is an issue of clearly established law but that wouldn't answer the facts so we get to the second transaction let's assume then that he wrongfully was pulling him over by putting on the alarm and the siren and the lights and all that business was the plaintiff obliged to stop when the officer asked him to stop even if the cop did not have  lawful basis to pull him over in the first place the answer is yes and the district court addressed that issue in its opinion and its order at page eleven the district court says said in its order that a court may not employ quotation marks hindsight to determine whether a prior arrest was made on probable cause so i can lowe's been case and in quotation marks a driver is required to stop regardless of the  police decision to direct the vehicle to stop citing the derosa case from the middle district which was a firm in part by this court so when officer canela turned on his lights there was clearly a statutory violation by mr manners in not pulling over right away and the failure to pull over gives officer kello probable cause or on the more objective standard arguable probable cause to arrest mr manners so if i have a right maybe it is right but i'm asking the question if a police officer lets his lights and siren on and pull somebody over for no good reason i don't have a basis and the person does not obey immediately that command he can be busted for that the statute i believe says that the officer that that when an officer is operating his vehicle and a person has been ordered to stop such a vehicle by a duly authorized law enforcement officer willfully or fails to stop the vehicle in compliance with such order then there's been a commission of crime a third degree felony and in this case your honor regardless of the factual dispute in the initial moment of probable cause and terms of the running a stop sign at that point mr manners was supposed to pull over and should have pulled over is there any were corporate the answer was made that i did pull over i pulled over in fifteen seconds into a gas station and in the london versus ripoff had a reasonable difference to say hey officer was a little quick on the trigger no your honor it's not and it doesn't create a factual issue because the officer i see him over my time and that's all right you take your time the officer was effectuating a enforcement of a criminal statute for which at two thirty in the morning mr manners did not immediately pulled over and he admits that he did not immediately pulled over and he admits his defiance is identifies his reasons but you have to go into forget the reasons for a moment taking the facts and of the light most favorable to mr manners as we are required to do at this stage in the proceedings have to accept his account his account is he continues to go forward notwithstanding the lights in the siren for how long mr manager says i think one hundred seventy six hundred seventy five one hundred seventy six yards he does a mathematical computation and i believe he comes out with about fifteen seconds that really there's no way that you didn't speed up or try to get away there's no there's no evidence that he attempted to do anything other than did not pull over and of his own volition didn't pull over in the gas station immediately in the gas station but went to his top of choice so the in his says he was traveling at twenty five miles an hour  here's my question to officers testimony it seems to me that he admits he didn't cut on his blue lights and maybe i'm the he first saw him three blocks ok because the gas stations on the corner at the turn right rector ok and the stop sign is three city blocks right yes you're so necessarily under the officers own testimony he's already through the stop sign ok and he's moving he never says he stops he says manners comes around him and he says i can't remember exactly but he says he watched him and then he put on his boot like see i'm not so sure our manners in the officer don't agree that about the fifteen second time no manners elsewhere i mean scuse me officer out elsewhere says it's two to three minutes which is logistically proven wrong by the just you can look at the distance it can be to  any event i don't want to stand when the blue light went on so if he's already through the stop sign that is the officer a man has got to go around him before he manages goes around him before he puts on the blue right correct ok there's not really much left space left except to turn and i mean it's right at the corner by the greatest nation that's why the courts have held that there is no case that says that the statues and cause i'm not worried about that i'm worried about under the light most favorable to mr manners the gas station is locke says in the record reflects that manners is from the one that lights first to the time he did he says i didn't stop immediately he doesn't dispute that he said it took me one hundred seventy five yards and fifteen seconds to pull over i did not stop immediately i was waiting to find the go into this gas station where i knew they had these cameras that's his account is that correct that's a fair characterization thank you except that the court doesn't go behind the violation the violation did occur here there was probable cause or even argue will probably cause because we also have that secondary standard in analysis which is what would reasonable often do check the standard of whether the police officers acting or objectively reasonably regardless of whether you officers intent or motivation so when officer manners aside officer canela turns on his lights mr manners at two thirty in the morning was required to pull over immediately and he offers his reasons for why he did that back to get back to jones the judge tells question it really gets to be very very confusing and i don't think there's even fifteen seconds involved when i don't know how much they can do you got going there but it's obviously ten seconds ok but i have seconds but that doesn't create a factual issue in a factual dispute because it is undisputed that officer canela turned his lights on and mr manners did not pull over and did not follow the law it's what i am asking is the motor supposed to all are called four wheels just just slam on the brakes and stop in the middle of the road  exposed to pull over to the side of the road once an officer puts on his lights in the officers testimony it looks to me like you're talking about five to ten seconds when the officer was behind him with the lights on siren on taking the first point possible in the gas station at two thirty in the morning and pulled to his it cannot be the law you got to stop at the first point and rightly in poland the gas station can't move i mean that that makes sense the mansion is when he makes a left turn you're at the gas station correct yes or at least that ok and it seems to me one reading of these facts that's possible when you take pieces together  a blue lights don't come on until he is at the intersection where he makes a left turn why am i wrong that's not one potential reading of the facts here that's certainly a way to view the  when you take a left turn you're at the gas station i believe that's correct your honor but that is not the basis for splitting out and saying that there isn't probable cause or arguable probable cause to arrest to stop matters and then arrested and then of course we have the third part of the incident which judge marcus was going to was referring to which is what occurs at the gas station right but you would arrest you would concede as to that that if they had no basis to arrest him for running a stop sign and he complied promptly with the command to pull over then the force used to effect that they couldn't if fact lawfully would be unlawful as well wouldn't it or at least arguably unlawful well i think the excessive force to if you couldn't arrest him for failing to comply with the command to pull over then the force used to effectuate the unlawful arrest would be excessive  don't know if it would be excessive that would be a factor that's the claim with that and that would be a fact wouldn't it be excessive to use any force to subdue someone that you had impro over not not if they engage in the resisting arrest all if the guy took a swing at them that be something else and that's what occurred here which is that even even even if you take that as the view of the evidences that there wasn't a basis for stop either through the stop sign let's assume for the purposes of the question there was no foundation for stop one that's the one to running through the stop sign and no basis for pulling him all over for fleeing the command and arresting him for that let's just assume that that's the case so then we get to the circumstance where they're in the gas station he's pulled over and he gets into a fight with the cops to the extent the police used force wouldn't the force necessarily be excess of because there was no basis to pull him over in the first place i don't agree because you tell me one that because the the court also looks at what occurred in the stop itself in my stop i don't i mean the actual custodial stop and the gas station and in that in that so in that aspect of the timeline or the series of events mr manners and officer canela get into a fight and it is there's a statement by mr manners i did not touch or strike the officer and the op in the video shows that in fact he did that's pointed out by the district court and so what you have at that point are the additional charges are you disha no criminal violations of a restraint resisting arrest battery on a law enforcement officer and an attempted homicide of law enforcement officers so that is the third component of giving rise to defeating the excessive force what is there that even remotely suggests an attempted homicide well the in the in the criminal case there's no dispute that mr manners was not convicted of any of the things that he was charged on about not have but what evidence taking even a light most favorable to the officer suggested that there was an attempted homicide here i can't get can't get behind the mind of the information that was filed a but if i take all of the facts is canelo laid them out right what did the defendant do that could possibly kerik be characterized as an attempted homicide on an officer there was a fight and there was thrown fist punches were thrown an officer can all the cells felt that he was in fear of his life and so he believed that this larger person could have put him in imminent threat of danger including homicide and that's what he was that's he was cited for that's what the information included but i'm not going at the affidavit the officer file had forgotten to ask this because i couldn't figure out where everybody was exactly on the street i was confused like judge whether it was time in the rear view or what because the here's the complaint as the defendant traveled on plunket street when he observed my place for the defendant disobeyed the stop sign at south twenty six avenue before exiting l f south on south twenty six see that stop sign is the stop sign where you turn in the gas stations there is that not a no that's not the stop some we've been talking about but that's the stop sign on the officer says he right and when he filed a stopped i don't have a picture of google or a map picture of life right at least white so i can only do this based upon memory in an image that i have in my head but i take your honor back to the fact of the three separate probable cause events here the running of a stop sign the failure to pull over or you except for purposes of argument i'm just focus on the second probable cause the failure to e you from what i'm talking about yes you're ok i looked out on google maps and it's like got three if he is running a stop sign and his rear view mirror then that's enough one hundred seventy six yards is probably correct on the three blocks on won't get straight i would add one more factor that we haven't discussed and that's  that's not what the officer says that's not the stops he says and his that night that he the officer also says that after he turned his lights on he saw mr manners go through that last intersection while the light was changing from re to green so he's really saying you're saying this stops on here is a second stop sign he's trying to say correct your daughter ok but the first stop on the rest report that night he doesn't talk about first stop son well i believe that's what he was ticketed for which was running a stop sign on the first site but we've already agreed that the first thought of running the first stop sign cannot for cannot create a foundation for arrest and right you don't really dispute that i  components of it i think that the court needs to focus on first is the absolute obligation to pull over and the second part which is it e c f sixty page fourteen which is that mr manners drove through the stack and second intersection as the light was tourney from red to green so that is more evidence that there wasn't an immediate i mean there's no question that this record stab sign your honor there's a second intersection that mr manners goes through before he pulls into the gas station what did you make it three sixty mr you know officer no he made a u turn in the first intersection your honor not the second intersection there's an intersection before the gas station mr manners mr officer kel was already behind mr manners with his lights on and says mr manners went through the intersection before the gas station after his lights were on while the light was turning from red to green and so he not only does he not pull over immediately he goes through a second intersection sensually we have manners account which is one i didn't go through the stop sign i stopped i went forward it was a cop behind me he turned on his lights and his siren at some point  pull me over i didn't pull over until one hundred seventy five yards elapsed and fifteen seconds and i went into the gas station and the reason i didn't stop immediately was because i wanted to film recording it that's manors account  right regular the officer's account is different the officers account is the car is stopped here the officer drives by goes through the stop sign that's the first intersection then he sees manors go through that intersection his account is that manners ran the stop sign by this point somehow man car got in front of the officer's car and the officer was behind manners at which point the officer turns on his lights hails them to pull over he doesn't pull over for  view mirror which means he has to be ahead of correct the only way the rear view mirror works correct and so how does he get behind manners car by his account is a turns left after manners has gone through the first intersection is going straight ahead like that right he and he makes a left and then the cop sees him from behind rack manners makes a left correct that the officer is still behind him i believe so your honor you just said he was ahead of him he was ahead of him the officer was was here manners as here well ok i try not my intention to confuse the court of the facts ok my understand the facts is that officer manners officer canela saw manners go through the stop sign in his rearview mirror which means that he had to be in front of him in order t ahead of the other side of the intersection it didn't do it right didn't do a u turn in the intersection did a u turn in the street and gone through the intersection correct which is how i mean after he saw the manners is for all the officer gets behind manners correct is he is through the intersection does he makes a huge turn because that's the only way because manners is already gone left at the end and that's the only way that he can get behind manners because manners already exit manners aren't this really energy you're manners doesn't dispute the officer was behind him at some point you know at the office a put the lights on and that he continued to go forward for one hundred seventy five yards correct then pulled into a gas station  the stop sign is that manners is alleged to have improperly gone through they were here's where the again help me manners goes through the stop sign by the way officers account and turns left the officer is already in front of him on that street having gone through the intersection turns around and does a u turn right and then turns right around and gets behind manners when does the officer put the lights on when he's doing the u turn or when he just gets behind him he's already now on the street right behind manners i believe it is when he is in the street behind him ok i think we've got it thank you we've got a little bit over  we'll hear from your good morning may it please the core i'm lara wendell oyster to help me on behalf of the city with me as an riley also of my for your honour's the court should affirm the final judgment in favor of the city as well as the officers managers sued the city for false arrest probable cause is a complete bar to an action for false arrest under federal or state law i was going to come up and explain to you the diagram and the facts but i think your honor understands now what occurred the reason why the arrest why there was probable cause for the arrest  focuses and you've been on it focuses on how much time does mean you can see there wasn't probable cause to arrest him for running the stop sign well there was certainly probable cause to stop him and write him a ticket for running the stop sign but the problem you have is on summary judgment we have to accept his account which is he didn't run the stop sign the facts we face at this point for purposes of the surname qualified immunity are that mr manners did not run that stops or the officer it was either lying about it or mistaken but manners didn't run that stop sign he stopped let's assume that manners start we have to end that don't we we have to assume that he stopped that leaves two possibilities that the officer fabricated the  evidence and fabric or he was mistaken or he was mistaken if he was mistaken he nevertheless put on his lights under this reasonable but mistaken belief he was he saw the car through his rearview mirror it was dark assuming for purposes of summary judgment that manners did stop and the the officer nevertheless put on his k what i was going to say your honors the statute doesn't you're going to worry about the alter this is where i have a problem with even the fifteen seconds so i understand that the officers terry blocks from the time the lights went on i suppose it's it's three blocks from the gas station is three blocks from the intersection of twenty six and manners account is he gives different accounts at the trial he gave a different account but his account i think is taking a light most favorable to him that he went one hundred and seventy five yards approximately two and a half blocks that's five hundred twenty feet fifteen seconds after the lights went on that's his account correct he says fifteen seconds originally and he says one hundred seventy five yo and he says one hundred seventy five yards so the question is is that a violation rest in his whether or not an officer see situated at objectively reasonable officer under those circumstances could believe that he violated the statute three sixteen thousand nine hundred thirty five because he didn't stop the vehicle when he was directed to stop the vehicle by the police it's a simple as that right i think that your honor is correct it is a simple as that but florida law the statute which hasn't been deemed unconstitutional for vagueness and which doesn't say how long someone can go once the sirens are on says once a sirens are on and what once the lights are on one has to stop you tell me what you are going to say at the outset because i'm not totally clear on of officers testimony do you agree with your co counsel that he first the first stops he says manners cora pull out from this will speed up and make a left hand turn onto twenty six avenue without stopping at the stop sign that's what the officer testified ok but twenty six ave when he went through the twenty six ave that's right at the gas station twenty six implant that is the address of the gas station well then you're looking at a map that i don't have the benefit of because i understood that that there was the gas station that he pulled into was three blocks down twenty six when i put on the blue lights he's just saying i went past him and then he didn't stop but anyway he says the defendant disobey the stop sign at south twenty six avenue before executing a left turn on south twenty six so he was first time pluck it when he saw him he went down plank it and he disobeyed the stop sign itself twenty six and turn left and the gas stations right there but now we're talking about a stop sign three blocks down on pockets i don't  arrest affidavit for why he stopped him you know why he put him under arrest ok right ok so the issue is did he stop or did he not stop when the lights went on and it's admitted that he didn't stop that's what the statute says that's why he had probable cause to arrest him if indeed he didn't have probable cause to arrest him would any act of force used by the officer inside the gas station necessarily be accessed as a matter of law under the circumstances o of force to if it didn't have a basis to arrest him for running the stop sign because by his account he didn't and they didn't have a basis for arresting him for a flight because let's just assume he stopped prompt and then they got into a physical altercation is a struggle and we know he falls to the ground and he stays the couple of times with the force necessarily be excessive as a matter of law if they didn't have a basis to arrest him in the first place i believe that i guess what i'm asking is if it's legal we need to know more then based on what we know from the right film etc assuming argue window that they had no basis to stop and arrest him now or on the excessive force case i guess your answer is we're not charged with excessive force you're asking the wrong person i think you probably are asking the wrong person your honor i suppose i'm not looking at the mat i need to correct what i set the gas station is the corner of twenty six and pembroke so it is three blocks down it is three blocks down from the left so he goes for the  twenty six is he seen that in the rear view mirror right because the officer sees it in the rearview mirror because remember originally managed car was parked on a swell the officer drove past the car parked on the swell through that stop sign intersection at twenty six and when he was beyond the stop sign the officer saw in his rearview mirror manners  stop he slowed down because he was concerned about being pulled over and so he he slowed down but he continued to drive three blocks to the gas station pull into the gas station not immediately where the gas station opens but beyond the entrance to the gas station two blocks up to situate himself in front of the camera that then there that's correct that's correct the officer had to quickly turn around quickly turn around he was beyond the stop sign he had to turn around on plunket and make a right turn as opposed to manners quick is it only one account or does he give more than one in his deposition he said two minutes so when he was the powers he said it took them two minutes to stop and then where did he one hundred seventy five yards fifteen seconds i believe that was in opposition to the motion for summary judgment but i'm not that's a pleading from a lawyer i'm talking about his account i thought they manners account his best account to contract the amount of time is the lights went on the car was the cop car was behind him and it took him he stopped his car in compliance one hundred seventy five yards later fifteen seconds later after the lights went on that's his account that's accurate yes and that's in the affidavit submitted in opposition yes and that's actually consistent with what he said in a deposition two because he said two minutes at most two minutes at most is not too many was the posed in this case yes was there any testimony given in the test just as you did all right so the accounts that will get from mr manners come from two places from the deposition taken in this case and the affidavit submitted in this case that is correct the deposition was taken before he submitted an affidavit that is correct ok and in the deposition he said it was at most two minutes at most two minutes and in the affidavit he said it was one hundred seventy five yards fifteen seconds from the time the light went on that he saw the light that he pulled over that's his account yes his account is this is the speed i was going this is the distance travel must be for those of us who in that being the case yes why couldn't an objectively reasonable officer apply this statute and say he failed to comply with the command that he stopped the vehicle because criminal responsibility should not attach where one could not reasonably understand that his contemplated conduct is proscribed  the lights on it isn't a question that there's a lot of traffic on the street or pedestrians or anything like that complex on the right he says but everybody knows that means pull over he consciously says i'm not pulling over i'm not pulling over now because i'm worried what you're going to do to me and so i'm going to go couple blocks down the street till i can get into a gas station and have film taken of what that encounter is why isn't why one reasonable right for get this cop and objective officer because that's i think what we have to look at to believe that you violated the statute i think if you look at it from the standpoint of any reasonable officer does argue the probable cause but also in a light most favorable to the non movement that being livingston matters and and you know we talk about one hundred seventy six yards in this courtroom was probably thirty lot less than one hundred seventy sets one hundred seventy six yards we got almost two football fields you got five hundred twenty feet yes and traveling at twenty five mph his court room is from a pitcher's mound to home plate yes and that's probably going ninety five feet but you're talking five hundred feet hundred seventy five yards but by his lights he would have gone a thousand feet if the gas station was through four more blocks down that's his account right he says i'm going forward i didn't want to stop because i was afraid that this cop was going to harass me so i wanted to get into a gas station where there were cameras so we would record an incident that i was fearful right a car the reading of the cases suggest you know as a judge a  race should all four tires be locked as soon as you turn on the light i mean probably that's what i want to tell my kid when we leave here if a cop gets behind you know but we're not talking about we're not talking about immediately we're talking about almost six hundred feet three blocks fourteen seconds and then the question becomes should criminal responsibility is it reasonable for an officer to attach criminal responsibility where reading the statute one cannot contemplate that you have little doubt they could would not be able to satisfy a jury by the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a willful violation of the statute but that's not the question and this is what i want you to help me with because the question is whether an objectively reasonable officer would have reason to believe to believe not proof beyond a reasonable doubt not that maybe this statute will be declared unconstitutional next year or next bonds but under these circumstances quote an objectively reasonable officer believe that he was not stopping the vehicle when he was directed by the lights going on from stopping the vehicle in a reasonable way that he wasn't entitled to decide for himself how long it would take to stop the car he had to stop and it did mean if he was going fifty he had hit the brake but by his own account he wasn't going fifty and it was an empty street at two thirty in the morning what a cop believe that he reasonably believed that he violated three  that's not even more likely than not that's not clear and convincing evidence it's just reasonable suspicion objectively derived i think that's the question right there what do we have to ask i would have to can see that an officer may believe that a challenge however if a person is stopping in fourteen seconds if that if if a reasonable officer would conclude that he valued that statue and in fact it seems to me that if officer connla had in fact felt that this was a fleeing and alluding case of course he would have arrested him for it i overtook the video call itself twenty six and activated urgency lights to execute a traffic stop the defendant failed to immediately stop and travelled into the gas station no that i'm just can but but taking the facts and all of the facts in the light most favorable to the not move it if that is a fact that's even better for my client that further supports the reason why a summary judgment has to be reversed because if he didn't overtake him into the corner of twenty sixth and pembroke in the gas station is only twenty six in print book then judge pay as you ra could have even been ten seconds could have even been five seconds because it seem like it's right there and then he would have stopped by that light he stopped as soon as the rights were no problem as you have he himself says i didn't do that and i didn't do it for a very particular purpose i wanted the law i wanted i wanted to be in the gas station where they had cameras i understand that you're on to and in fact a jury may actually make that same reach the same issue i you very much thank you all for your efforts this court will be a