is arguably playable but the point here is that it is that license that distinguishes this case from so many of the cases that have been cited here for example this court stated on page ten of its decision plaintiff must first show that feel is no longer able to pursue employment in the bar or nightclub industry that is not the case that is not an accurate statement of the law that law was modified in the wages le decision to state uni comparable those are the modifying language that was at the comparable position for mr feel i'm is not to work as a bartender or as a bouncer in a bar or even a bar manager comparable position for mr philo is someone who holds a license under sixty six twenty four six hundred and if you attack that license and remove that license you remove mr filos ability to go out and work in this industry is what makes this case comparable to shore a versus the bar of examiners just because you were a member of the communist party years before does not prohibit you from sitting down to take the new mexico bar exam and that's what the supreme court said that was wrong in that particular case it was the license that was the issue without a license you can't practice law without sixty six twenty four six hundred you can't operate a nightclub no one in one actually cared whether ryan feel when it became a bar manager a in this case they show the police officers the minor allegations they sat across the street and watched this particular location they followed customers as they drove away they followed the staff deposed from the liquor control board and asked does the actions of club level comply with the policy statements created by the liquor control board regarding alice i his answer was no they did not when he was asked why have no avians been issued against club level his ask about your arm analogy of the shorey case is it clear that your your client would be totally barred from ever getting a license the license under sixty six twenty four six hundred he could certainly reapply as you know as he did in one actually when he felt the pressure at the one location was too strong and he moved the location however he did have to apply to move the license he couldn't even within the city when actually he couldn't just pick up from one physical plant in move to another physical plant in relocate he had that it wasn't the same application process as applying for no you know we have heard multiple times and there is nothing we ever did that forced him to lose his license i'm just asking you to point me and what you think now that he did not lose his license he voluntarily closed that business because of the economic pressure that was created i this is distinction between what the court is asking me in the reasons why he closed the business and that will be you know certainly with knowledge that but the reality is the same club level is close to that source of income and stream that's been lost to him essentially receive a written warning one reasonable inferences while you've got a bar that's a simply has a great deal of problems that are being studied for the local police department and so they need to report things well there's another reasonable inference which i respect we  four reports for the same period of time the reasonable inference that can be drawn from that i would respectfully submit to your honor is that this is the police department there is communicating with liquor control officers you've got the e mail from officer  reports from a law enforcement that's why you've got twenty four unfounded reports in a two year time frame when from virtually every bar in the city you've got four it is because the police department knows we can't shut this bar down on our own we need to use the administrative process and that is why you have all the reports being made you have selective enforcement for example you've got sergeant houston coming in with three female minors are stopped at the to operate a nightclub but mr feeler does and that's why anklets respectfully does not apply it is just is it is just simply dissimilar to the current circumstances so when we look at all  substantial facts in that substantial facts have been created and put into this record and when we look at them but many cases and look at the facts of the nini that took place in that particular case they are directly captains rescuers own testimony regarding a spot called the scene spot a bar when he was simply a patrol officer not an administration he admitted during my deposition of him that he acknowledged that by going and with the question asked the counsel he had mr feeling or to club level where they for occluded was their fourteenth amendment due process rights violated by not being allowed to maintain their liquor license or to apply for a liquor liquor license w glaringly absent in the record is that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that club level was declined its license for washington state liquor control board did not take its license away nor is there any evidence in the record that mr feel r as a court addressed a question could not apply he chooses to get back into running a bar or a nightclub apply for another their privileges even though he let his license lapse the fact that he did let his license flap laps is based on business reasons financial reasons but there's no evidence tying that any fleece involvement preclude him from getting his license but i think his argument was if your police action led to the business a key fact that they think shows despite the allegations of counsel the city when anchee mer frank koontz actually wrote a letter approving and recommending the physical location move from club level in one part of the city when actually when they moved to another location he also went through the procedure that one has to go through to change their license to a different physical location the city actually approved that move had no objection to him running a business in the city when angie the only objection was law enforcement officers are mandated by statute under the state liquor control statutes to enforce the liquor control statutes and so because there is a glaring absence of any evidence that he was precluded from pursuing his his business the first prong of the night circuit law is is absent he has to demonstrate that there was an inability to prefer pursue his profession and i believe judge  past had been involved in different groups and had some sort of a criminal history and although he had an exemplary record through law school at the time who's going to sit to take the bar exam he was precluded based on those affiliations that is a classic example back in the and i would also although it wasn't touched on on the other the other issues i think judge shea from the eastern district did point out and citing a case in his warder that although counsel argues that mr feel was not going to pursue any profession in the in the liquor business the case is clear under the inquests case which is a two thousand one hundred two thousand seven thousand circuit case the right to pursue an occupation is highly generalized generalizing compassing the right to pursue an entire profession not the right to pursue a particular job and is just absolutely no evidence in this record that he mr fuel was unable to pursue his occupation in running a nightclub business and the fact that there was a larger number of walk through sex club level is an argument that doesn't go to the prongs that have to be analyzed by the court but what is in evidence in the in the record is that there was a larger volume of criminal activity at this particular location and that there were concerns of police activity needed to be involved to preclude that activity from from taking place but that didn't violate any constitutional rights and any state think is it that i don't believe it is a factual issue daughter aren't in fact i think the district court was squarely on point when it when it said that all that plaintiff is demonstrated by the evidence in the record was that the police were enforcing the liquor laws as they're enacted under the state statute and other than that that doesn't show that there's been any constitutional deprivation that he was unable that he lost his license or was unable to pursue his right to perform the business nor under the second establishments as far as the other claims i don't know if they were were argued but i believe that the district court was was accurate in that there is no fourth amendment protection in a liquor establishment for a right of privacy counsel raise the issue that the constitutional standard is not met that question is answered in following way when you utilize lawful actions to achieve an unlawful result you are engaging in unlawful conduct which is both  as stated death by a thousand cuts when you walk in a hundred sixty times as opposed to a hundred ten for every other bar in the in the city when you were parked across the street when you wish to cite parking citations when you work with a conspire with  actually police department issued a citation for an adequate lighting and then immediately calls the next day down to the policy or to the licensing component of liquor control board because he knows that their temporary license that was  issued that allowed in club level to move from one location to the other would be immediately so that any opportunity for a hearing on this issue if that it never quit letting citation is sustained it had to be heard by the head of the department