facts that are not facts in this case what i'm saying is the court based its ruling that deputy mcgowan was not entitled qualified immunity because the court found that mr barry whether that's right or wrong that's what did this right it doesn't matter whether he released him when he saw the officer because at that point there's a no attempt by the officer to do anything with as the officer is coming if he has her in a bear hug at that moment in time he's done nothing wrong right until the officer either tries to get a hold of her or gives him a command he's done nothing wrong we're going to agreement on bury turner recognized it was an officer and officer i have her i won't let her go down the road and you don't need to be twisting her are just to utter those those words is going to take two our that that two to three second obstruction when barry knew he knew it was an officer he was still holding on to or any other words saying i have her i won't let her go down the street and you don't need to her when he grabbed her wrist and went to pull on her and told barry to let her go he let the girl ok i am not sure what if that's from the criminal trial  it certainly appears that there is an issue of material fact about whether here as soon as he realized that the officer was trying to take control of her and if that's the case why isn't why isn't this appropriate to have summary judgment what you're saying he's is he's able to then create issue of material fact by pointing to cherry picking a certain witnesses recollection of how it happened but very himself is the one who saying yes i was said officer i got her i won't let her go down the road where you still holding out yes and then i asked him mr berry you said officer you are you don't need to be twisting her arm where you still holding on to her  holding on to her when he realizes the officer i mean that's the problem here right it seems to me that when you look at the record how light most favorable to mr berry there is an issue   you have to take that in the light most favorable to him granted so based on that he was still holding on to where he felt the tugging he said don't be twisting you don't have to be twisting her arm however you have to a nalyze qualified immunity from the officers would a reasonable officer under these circumstances consider the temporary i'll be short brief hesitation to release this nine of document documentary thirty three it is correct that he asked mr barry would you agree it's safe to say when you said sir i got her you were still holding her at the time but then on page sixty says would you agree with me that you told the officer you don't have to twist it before you let her go or before you let go of her mr baer responded no that think that's a key to there because at the moment in time that mr barry is holding  mcdaniel and officer comes over and he assures for that he's not going to let her join this fight at that moment in time mr berry has no idea what the officer wants him to do and then when he realizes he wants his officers tugging and in fact there's no doubt there's some testimony in the record the officer never issued any never and i just don't see how the officer any reasonable officer could have had probable cause to arrest resisting without violence correct i don't even know the twisting of the arm comment would have would have that that extra moment would have even constituted resisting that could have been as he's letting her go that could have been it's such a bang bang moment that this is happening in and  and at that point that and that mr barry was there before the officer is to barry's on his way home from work he sees his cousin his fourteen year old cousin we know the nine one one call was because of fighting between teenage girls so in stark contrast of the fact you heard about in the correct it's completely opposite that when she when she proceeded to rejoin this argument of this fight very emotional that deputy mcgowan's testimony is that he had to grab her and but that's in complete contrast to mr m i did want to mention the case because i do think it's materially different in that case the officer comes he gives a warning to this disorderly woman and then he comes back and remove her from her seat in the stadium and her family follows including her mother when they get out to the stadium brams so at this point he's the the defendant in that criminal case is in the officers custody they're out on the stadium ramp it's clear with the officers intentions are and that is t grabs the daughter's hand and says where are you taking her so i agree that a momentary grab could give an officer arguable probable cause two to arrest for resisting without violence but that situation is completely different as at that and i think i also want to point out just rosenbaum's point i think is important here is that both before this incident and after this incident there's no testimony in the taking the testimony in the light most favorable to mr barry there's no testimony that he continued to resist  think those cases just show that one because somebody asked a question clarifies tries to ascertain the officer's intent but perhaps doesn't do it as fast or in the manner of the officer once right are you agree when you're holding her and you feel a tugging you look and you see it's the officer and you tell the officer sorry i got her would you agree would you agree it's safe to say that when you arm i guess to the point maybe the follow up question was not asked at exactly what point in time did you release her at least we've got him holding on to her state law claims for false arrest are inextricably intertwined with an issue the existence of arguable probable cause that is proper and properly before the court on the officers and the denial of qualified immunity so as a re