line eight through ten and this is the court's ruling on the defendant rule fifty motion and the court said quote the ultimate back as shown in the case is one where the as the issue of qualified immunity is concerned the court also to earth in finding that these officers have qualified immunity first of all and determining whether or not these officers were entitled to qualified immunity the first inquiry is whether or not the figaro's constitutional rights were violated here they were because they were arrested without probable cause the second prong of the inquiry is whether or not the right that was violated was clearly established at the time the advance occurred here it was clearly established in a few thousand and two that it is a violation of a person's fourth amendment rights to be arrested without probable cause the essence of the qualified immunity defense is whether or not the actions of the police officers were reasonable and here they were clearly unreasonable no reasonable police officer could have believed that his or her actions arresting the figaro's without probable what's reasonable the problem here is that the officers took them to the police to continue the investigation and i stand a long line of cases starting with this it's close question and they guessed wrong though so this is not an outrageous case when they simply picked somebody up off the street who wasn't with no reason for any suspicion at all there was some reason for suspicion but enough we think he's wrong even though it was close he nonetheless is not entitle qualified immunity that's right because the court below made the decision in the context of a rule fifty eight motion and the standard of review on a rule fifty  motion is that looking at the facts in the light most favorable to the point that i understand that so i want a small looking at the facts and on the standard of judgment as a matter of law which is in a sense is the just the same thing mr figaro have been injured he was bleeding from the head and needed medical attention further these officers knew based upon the testimony i'm sorry the the testimony of officer blessed who just by an act of god crazy quilt of information that flows in a situation like this when the officers arrived their intent was to determine if a crime had been committed and in order to determine that in this situation i said that it was appropriate for officer stroke remove the involved parties the people who'd been accused by the store owner to a quiet place where business could be conducted that was done and they were released very shortly they were released by an officer who when he took them to the  plaintiff's case and her appeal is that they didn't do anything wrong and they not have done anything wrong they may have had some extreme form of buyer's remorse in dealing with mr mckernan the store owner maybe he overcharge them that wasn't what officers brokerage was trying rizal he was confronted with the situation first that they're armed robbers that's never totally resolved and while trying to resolve that we think it was trying to determine if there was a gun in the first interestingly that there's no pushing by the plaintiff even a case below or on appeal that this was excessive force and grabbing for the purpose and the plaintiff's trying to pull it back in which accurately by counsel the one thing counsel left out is the very bizarre behavior in the store of mr figaro of taking a negotiable instrument and chewing it putting it in this mouth for reasons that he said were to protect himself because he wasn't strong enough to fight the other person off another thing that officer stroger to determine in this phone call to the bank is that mr figaro had essentially lied to the bank officer when he wanted to get that check back he was told by the check for fifteen thousand dollars we're talking about adults it's not some teenagers in a flea market arguing over some cricket has apparently got something's wrong here is of course three is there some reason why this driver was arrested they have been released this court made very clear that there was probable cause for an arrest if the officer had chosen to do so what they found when the government tried several face the stolen mail that there was  no reasonable jury could find it if it wasn't probable cause you know that no reasonable jury could find that the officer was unreasonable so this appeal is essentially a challenge to the thought processes of judge looted and that it's not appropriate that the district court heard all of the evidence didn't weigh the witnesses against each other would be unreasonable for any of your two to find against the officers that finally on the a your police officers to take the figaro's down to the police station and lot of ways farther restraints they were handcuffed they were placed in the police vehicles they were taken to the police station they were hands in her panties looking for whatever they were looking for that's what i mean by strip search it was a very egregious restraint a very egregious violation of their rights and the problem is that the city has testified to by the police police she had a policy of allowing this to happen that is it was ok to take suspects to the police station for the purpose of continuing the investigation even though there was no probable cause