plaintiffs in that case who had gotten an extension of time claim and presses claim was because a court ordered me mr brass to be released i should have been put at the head of the line of people who were going to be released that's the only issue the future plaintiffs would end up in the pickle that my clients are in now that they're cases would be thrown out because a judge would say based on the blessing of brought the reading of brass you can't challenge the overall release policy so my position here is the overall release policy was not the policy or custom that was changed that was addressed in brass what is the policy or c with the fact that there are a lot of people go through the system and many that much of that evidence is the same here about how many people go through the system that processing is required and thirty nine hours per midst of all these plaintiffs were released in about twenty nine hours or less so i don't yes i'm not sure what's different about their situation that would make twenty nine hours unlawful or thirty nine hours was lawful circuit i understand held in brackets but in the circumstances of that case that had to circumstances one of the released time and two took brass claimed he should have been put at the head of the line to get out and in the circumstances of that situation there was nothing wrong with the policy and the only policy in that case was i want to get out before everybody else  language that he wanted to be part of the head of the line it's actually give me a pin i don't have it i've got it in front of me i've read it a couple of times and frankly i don't see that language and i see the language  ninety nine twelve hundred which gives you that's what i'm referring to but but that's a little of what you're saying put me at the head of the line as different than this language in the opinion which i think is very carefully selected i don't think it's different from the reason that brass contended that those persons who had been ordered released by a judge should get out first that's where that's why i'm saying it's put me at the head of the line the order the order he claimed one thing everyone together and not differentiating among reduces and anybody else who's going to get out is why i'm saying that what that boils down to the order says put the front of the queue that's the only question but it isn't the only question and i i keep coming back to the time because it seems to me that in a minimum the court held two things in brass one is that the policy however you wish to word  processing everyone for a given day all at once was lawful and that when that resulted in a delay of thirty nine hours that too was lawful because it takes time to law at the end of the day and they're still processing a lot of people and it's taking less time now than it did then so i guess i'm having a hard time seeing how that helps you know i think it should help us because in brass this court also said also held back to the extent and this is i'll put in the quotation marks when i get to the part from this court i'm reading from something not in our  quote here's the part that comes from brass and the circumstances of the reasonableness of the larry brackets in release that the jury to determine that's a three twenty eight f second level ninety two i didn't have the pinpoint citation at the time i wrote what i wrote and then it's cites the case of lewis versus o'grady which is a seven circuit case that's a fifty three f second thirteen sixty six is thirteen sixty seven three seventy i think that brass stands for the proposition that the determination of reasonableness and release time or not this to be evaluated on a case by case basis were no dispute as to the times of detention which ranged from one person from twenty six hours in some minutes to two others to twenty nine hours it's a minute so you're relying on  reasonable but there is no evidence from the plaintiffs to demonstrate that the policies were being implemented in on a reasonably efficient manner i don't believe that the plaintiffs had to submit this they're simply saying that they're not expert witnesses they're simply saying we think it's reasonable doesn't take that issue away from a jury i mean i can put in a declaration from somebody saying hey i think that's unreasonable and i think that takes away from a jury each case has to be viewed as in its own circumstances and what would have to be shown in this case is that what happened here was a reasonable i  into confines with a preliminary injunction so this doesn't happen anymore as far as the county is represented to me this is over now judge orders you released you can leave the court room they give you some kind of temporary guess and certainly it's better to have people released instantly than have them wait for a period of time but i don't understand what's different about them stances quote unquote here  i i don't know whether lewis the o'grady exposed expressly said that that is always an issue for the jury to learn which correct i mean correct me if i'm wrong i mean i can knowledge that the court there that language suggests that it is that's like the jury i itself could could under certain circumstances decide as a matter of law that it's always reasonable so certainly if in fact maybe it did hold that it is a jury question and i don't think there's a way around it to say that there would be a split  decided that it didn't need to reach that decision because in brass it was a thirty nine hour delay would have this case this court's actually in an even better position because we're not even i mean we're not even talking about thirty nine and then i think it be a tough question i think the court what they have to reexamine the the procedures and say well you know is it something that could be done through the ceiling of thirty nine at least in the county of los angeles or should we  allow it to be up to forty eight and i think when i look at the brass decision and i recognize the press that in these circumstances we find that thirty nine hours was reasonable as a matter of law i read the decision twenty four twenty nine hour early one hour delay and the defendant that he's tried to rely on brass the court might say well look the circumstances and brass involved department that faced a humongous load of paperwork each day had to release a huge number of who were ordered released at eleven and people who were ordered released two were batch together and all dealt with one time and that that aspect is not what he's arguing about here what's your response to that sing of releases intel all information relating to the prisoners scheduled for release on a particular date has been received and entered into the computer system most of the discussion that follows all growth rate in terms of its main contention also covers the secondary argument to the court and brought this court in brass addressed to arguments it's right there in black and white that it will also address think the second contention which is exactly the contention that was raised in the complaint in this case which is still have to process three thousand five thousand pieces of people and i think understanding what that procedure was in brussels and understanding what the procedure was at this time maybe we'll clarify why there's still some delays t isn't that a different situation than where we have a judge's order that this individual be released and isn't that what that last paragraph that middle sentence in the last paragraph is finding really talking about of substantial difference between what really was going on and rouse and what you're arguing here i don't think so i mean if i can explain what the brass procedure was what the procedure was was at this time maybe that will be would start processing the people work what happened was if a piece of paper could come in earlier in the day let's say nine o'clock am think be sitting there in a room not being processed in told the last that the people came in so as a result there was a be released roughly from the courts and looking at the holding of brass it implicitly recognized no it was not unreasonable for the county to not then have a computer system set up directly with the with the releases and in fact even at the time of these cases that will still get in the process of being implemented and i'm glad to say that it has been implemented since then but i don't think it's it would be fair to penalize the county for not having that in effect at the time of these releases especially in light of gra i don't know that it's pertinent to these appeals or not put on my view of whether or not the technology existed to do this previously is different than what i think the judge graver observed here technology the pointed out in these circumstances the question is what circumstances is it referring to factual circumstances or legal i think it has to be referring the factual circumstances and if that is one of those fact circumstances in that case was the prioritization or not one somebody got out and i don't read grass as saying that the entire system at the jail was ok i read brass as being limited at least by the claim in that particular case that brass thinks he should have been put at the head of the law and i hope people get out early or other people get out later the question is in this case does it have to be fact specific to these plaintiffs and those there have to be a showing made by the count the after the plaintiffs have shown a length of detention  say this is a reason why should have been kept for more than an hour because the burden shifts to the county to show what makes it reasonable i don't think that happened in this case and i think that it's got to be done on a case by case basis trial forty eight hour cut off and the panel of family said well we don't need to decide whether it can be more than forty eight hours because here it's less than forty eight hours but  period rather than a shorter period you refer of course mclaughlin versus county of riverside case that set the forty eight hour limit but that was a different circumstances but the panel in breast just said we're not going to go judge panel but it doesn't say anything it's strawberry statement a statement about nothing new to say we don't need to decide this whether or not forty eight hours is here or there