was treated to the treatment he received they were looking for six year old man with long gray hair in a ponytail that was back to them very simple thing to at least check the i d s and the descriptions one of the defend its flight admitted never quote it never occurred to them to do that for the minimum being one of the most precious rights we enjoy where they have seen that he didn't have a pony to party when would they have seen th open the door so they when he was had his hands up with his palms facing the officer in his undershorts ok the best seats are there already in the house so you are you saying then they have the right to go into the house and they should have immediately no i'm saying for all the reasons in my repeat and even the court has questions about they had no business in that house they disregarded time and time and time again their own mandatory quote mandatory requirements of their own search manual me if you don't have a search manual then you go to either half five minutes and you know the reason for my question is i'm trying to understand a little bit better the details of the timeline and whether the things that happened happened over a long enough period of time that it was door which the force of which held him across the room they immediately had him on the ground shotgun to the head into pistols to the sides of his head ok and then they figure out he's the wrong guy you know they keep him there there's not going to exact time frame but evidence i cited that quote i don't have the exact citation was between five and ten minutes they kept in that way face down and cuffed behind his back somebody sitting on his back with gun barrels to those they still have the guns pointing when he was handcuffed hard to they still have the head is just the most outrageous part of the excessive force being the the being sat on with your hands behind your back and somebody grabbing your neck and hack have to be on your back face down on the floor for five to ten minutes when they obviously have told them that it wasn't me i mean there are other people who parked their cars out in front of my house and it's still my house so i don't understand how that would have prevented the entry because for one thing that's required by the de actually answer my question the fact that they would have found someone else or parked in front of this house would not necessarily have told them that the person they were looking for wasn't also there with it and that's the tragedy of this case there was one such factor utility records for this not only check you have to recheck and twenty four hours before your planned in three they were all in the stream in his name they disregarded that mandatory provision they're supposed to do some type of surveillance or walk around check the ickle is on the premises which are in dishes additional in dish of whether or not it's more or less probable that the target you're looking for in this case mr marty was either rise i did at or at the premises they disregarded that one they never talk to the neighbors  point five san walking street so some of their own information told them the mr marty was not at this rest and rather than say well you are now we've got a discrepancy used to be here now we have information stays it's no longer here it seems to reasonably incumbent upon the defendants to take some additional steps such as checking the records and the ownership in them and the utility records the license plates in fact one of the physically present when none of the vehicles are registered to him and i cited a case that had to do with that reason was thanks to us harper case where the police had placed valence for several weeks and though that members of the heart of the defendant of the person they were after harper his family lived there was two brothers lived there they saw physically observed harker entering with his own key to the target residen if that if the harper case is just barely sufficient we have the weight on the other side of harper and he seems to me this court is going to have to move their own goal lines considerable distance if they're going to recognize that the validity and the gun issue that is the most outrageous thing and this again this court's own own decision in robinson versus a lot of counties rendered a year more than a year in two thousand and one of two thousand and this happen are as in two thousand and one clearly said you can't it's inherently unreasonable to hold guns even from a distance in that case a five six to three or four feet at a suspect head unless you have a skate of can the record will have to speak for itself my reason is they should have never pointed guns to a nearly naked man with his hands in the air palms facing outward unanimous testimony by the police department i mean what there there was evidence that he said doing mr makiya forcibly lasted five minutes or more and my question is wilson could speak to this more accurately given that involves his clients is that mr may he in the pentagon has made the point that mr mcgee does not match the physical description of this remark well that's a bit of a red herring because the fact that he the ground and it was the question should be skewed and it was a question i was trying to get after with counsel did they put the guns away as soon as he was handcuffed and on the ground or did they keep it pointed at him during the entire episode i do not believe they kept him indicates that first of all the defendant him was one of our employee used and said that you pointed a handgun at mr here that's at eight you are forty six as soon as you saw the both both of us to be his hands and confronted he was not  he is less than it was five minutes and and that's i mean that's that's the best we can do but what we know is that this was a a one story house and that the mystery he was was gotten up off the ground it's soon as the sweep of the house was completed i don't think that took five minutes but that was most of me is the estimate and that's the only number that's that's from put on on this and so we got to live with that but suffice to say that as soon as the office of the finished reading the house realized that there was no first of all i would like to point out of the goal was not broken over and i think that's a critical factor in this case the entry was there was there was a push through the door after mr me here there's no damage to the door well there's th incidental damage something somebody kicked the door on the outside as he was going through and i think that somebody somewhere else in the back and why pull the screen door to to get through and damage that but the latch on the door was undamaged huge on the door and damaged officer came in and said gee i ran the plates we got the long guy or some words of that that effect that's when the the situation was as diffuse there was nothing to prevent who have done that five minutes before they kicked the door down in fact their own mandatory guidelines  they were supposed to do it but they didn't the robinson decision keyed on the fact that they were putting her innocent person in danger it didn't matter it wasn't based upon how long the guns were on their head it's the that i quoted so it's not is it's not like you can put them in danger and actually discharge for five seconds but if you do it for three minutes you cross the line let's assume they have the right house ok let's assume this was all marty's house and all marty was living there ok are you saying the police officers insufficient as a matter of law to come in armed drug drawn guns of people's head if that's the only thing you have a camera with in case off the top of my head it's in my brief and very specifically goes to that it's something that happened in the past  lot of different state of mind in the officers then actually falsely sell them we're picking him up for possession of a machine gun and i cited specific case what do they need to go into a house with guns drawn they need some probable cause to believe that guns are it he just didn't welles work program not only that but he moved and didn't leave the leave in a new address yes a common fact known well to these officers which is exactly why their search manual says you have to double checked recent records within twenty four hours on the we were all in good faith i said if you can't be in good faith as a police officer when you know only violate your own search manual ignore the records in your own computer that says marty's another address ignore the records joining your own computer the only person we