the honorable the judges of the states court of appeals for the fourth circuit oh yea oh yea oh yea all persons having any manner or form of business before the honorable united states court of appeals for the fourth you this case as your owners are aware presents stark disturbing facts and preliminarily forces me to talk about things that i ordinarily would not in a federal courtroom but such are the facts of this case in this case playing to propellant was a child at the time and forced to expose himself and manipulate his penis while a police officer took pictures on his personal cell phone the purpose of the pictures to seventeen years old that's correct a minor he was the purpose of the pictures was to compare them to sex being charged and investigated as child pornography so the purpose of the pictures was to mimic and duplicate child porn so it could be compared to what was being investigated as child porn and then later when someone realized that you cannot compare and honor as penis to an aroused one through fully he threatened plaintiff appellant with an injection to forcibly procure an erection from that set of facts on appeal are three claims the federal statutory claim for forced participation in child pornography a fourth amendment unreasonable search claim and a fourteenth amendment question about the rights of the throat wasn't made directly to the minor was it was made to his lawyer that's right he was represented at the time so much make a difference in this case i don't think it does your honor he was represented at the time by his criminal defense attorney so i'm not sure that contact with him directly even would have been appropriate on the part of the officer so the fact what is what is your best case for the proposition that a threat to a police officer made indirectly to a client through a lawyer is a violation of substantive due process i in my research this is a novel issue i have not come across a case dealing with viability of a threat under the substantive due process clause i think that given the outrageous nature of the threat and the bodily intrusion of the threat that is what brings it within substantive due process protection the yes if you get any further still at the pleading stage this is all at the pleading stage so we've done a little bit of discovery but we are all at the plea did you discovery discovery was propounded on th defendant yes it's a little difficult because he is deceased now so the information is limited without the further enhanced discovery so i'd like to start with the federal statutory claim because i believe it has implications for qualified immunity so the statute the federal statute prohibits forced photos of sexually explicit conduct which is defined among other things as masturbation black letter calling within the statute being forced to create pictures of himself masturbating the detective would simply ask the client to drop his drawers and simply take a picture replicating child pornography that's the purpose of the pictures is to compare them to sex being investigated as part of the i mean this this is an unusual case but also sometimes want course officials they sometimes be required to take a picture of someone's sexual organs for purposes of investigation so how would that be any different in that in those cases there is no duplications of child pornography or underlying child pornography that is being sought to be replicated in those  cases maybe i'm not understanding what's the child pornography that's being sought to be replicated here so his criminal prosecution or grows out of him sending consensual listen he has pictures between him and his girlfriend and the question is one of identity right so if the officer had simply taken a picture of your client's penis without in order to manipulate or otherwise touch or engage in any of that activity would we have a constitutional violation  constitutional violation yes or statutory violation i'm not sure i'm not sure because in that case there is not he's not trying to replicate the pornography that he's last week and why would he have a constitutional violation if in fact this was a legitimate investigative process technique so it would still be an unreasonable search in my view because he has there's never been an allegation that he had some unique identifier that would such that warrant that was approved as far as the officer was could shard or the seeking of it was approved by the prosecutor which i will call here in virginia the commonwealth's attorney and then an a those search warrant authorized pictures to be taken to be used as compared to the underlined sex are the pictures authorized under the warrant more specifically so that they could be compared to the underlying sex being charged as child pornography detective abbott upon executing the search warrant sought trays on a route state and then on that basis alone taking pictures of a male genitalia that is not going to be compared fruitfully to the one under investigation on that basis alone that is outside the scope of the search warrant also the manner of the execution of the search warrant is a separate basis for a fourth amendment claim here he is doing all that but he do anything that was not which is redacted here describes the height and weight then for the following property objects and or persons photographs of the genitals hands or other parts of the body that will be used in comparison in recovered forensic evidence from the victim and suspects electronic devices this includes a photograph of the suspects erect pen and meters that's what he was commanded to do you are further commanded to seize that property persons and or objects that they be found or produced or and to produce before they prints were william county circuit court and inventory of all property persons and or objects see that's what he was commanded to do by the court your honor we do not know what he did he he followed up on that warrant it did ease things and then the officer made a return in the ordinary course an officer absolutely is commanded and under an obligation to perform as the court says he or she should what circumstances that the officer disregarded court order we are not claiming that he disregarded a court order will minimize the danger of an unreasonable search or whatever it is what have you by exercising reasonable professional judgment and that is exactly what did not occur here he asked the magistrate to allow him to commit a crime so it i would hold them all my own book but that is not how the law for it's here but you all there is only one is here and you are an officer that has a warrant and you say you should have disregarded it a magistrate cannot that the officer should be prepared to disregard court orders and that's a big step for the court to take is this ought to say that it's all right for it would not be i th past the proposition that officers are commanded to comply with court orders and you're saying that his fellow could be held personally lob you want to make a to address on rebuttal if you want to reserve your time my problem with your case essentially is in the clearly established law prom what clearly established law is  that a police officer is required to ignore a warrant issued by a third party neutral third party where is there clearly established law in the force circuit of the us supreme court that he was required because isn't that what needs to be shown in terms of violating a clearly established right to show that it is clearly established that he was required to ignore the warrant and so if you can think about that maybe an address that on your rebuttal if i may i'm comfortable addressing those points right now rush right now and in that a a duty not to execute the duly authorized warrant so your honour's as i understand the issues in this case the clearly established prong is going to the right that we allege was violated it's a clearly established right that he should have known he would violate the warrant is a separate issue does he know that he's violating the privacy of this young man and think that his privates and their shocking facts there's no question about that but what about the law put him on notice that he was violating this right that there needs to be a compelling was not trying to point clearly established right is the right to finally integrity but the officer to our case law talks about notice does it not and the officer has to know and in this case the facts are so unusual the officer would seems to me would have to know that notwithstanding the issuance of a warrant by detached neutral  obligation not to offer to execute the warrant because of the serious personal right that was being invaded in the opposite case law that says that the obligation was not to request the warrant and that's the only be line of cases that we are going to put the onus on officers to not request something that's patently on reasonable in this case violates child pornography law so that is where he was on notice and then the clearly established right i submit was clearly established by the vichy line of cases saying that you need some compelling governmental need in order to override someone's undeniable privacy interest in their clothes genitals so the claim is that on doing whatever it takes perhaps to solve the case and the magistrate it's neutral and detached and says wait a minute there are things you can do do things you can't get and certainly there is wrong with asking this neutral person is this out of bounds or is it a judge is a court order that has to be complied with the nights i bet around the law here for all full time and that's what that's the principle that i otherwise you've got to anarky i mean the system depends on those involved to comply with court orders it we're showing all the time appeared and we don't have to force that mechanism but we have people that respect that go do it and the daughter did it then they went to the and they went to a judge and we complain all the time because most of these things come up here were the officers didn't get a warrant they stop somebody on the street or they stop somebody on the acknowledging that it would not be presidential in the circuit and it has been long established that warrants are not going to immunize officers in every instance so that's one point even if you have a warrant as an officer the manner in which the search conducted is always subject to fourth amendment reasonableness analysis here that is a separate basis for the fourth amendment claim as well as the fact of the search itself so here he lied in order to get trey isolated by a respect to the search warrant in virginia and there is a secure detention order is the mechanism by which an officer can immediately seize a child and take him to a juvenile detention center what extent is your case premised on the fact that you know would a constitutional violation have occurred in this case had he been an adult what your position on that you know because he is a juvenile his privacy interest is enhanced under the law sure would it constitutional violation have the curt regarding invasion of his personal integrity had he been an adult i believe it would have your honor and that's because here there is no unique identifier then he was seeking to find by virtue of the search so our law is very clear that we have a very enhanced privacy interests in our nude bodies so it's a it's a balancing so how much of your case is based on the fact that he's a juvenile i guess that's what i'm trying to get at will certainly the federal whether or not it was reasonable for detective abbott to seek the warrant all let me ask you yes just king asked this question of your opponent is it your position that an officer can rely on a order regarding a search or  seizure no matter how patiently and reasonable that order maybe i recognize the line of cases that say that it officer should not seek a warrant if a reasonable office no reasonable officer would under the facts ask for the warrant there is that isn't that it but it's not supported by the record and for that reason we will search and seizure no i don't the run of the mill but i do say that this falls within the parameters of torsion ski that case and what judge hilton ruled on at a minimum qualified immunity and that's because anne and that's because the law of the case is that the commonwealth attorney richardson directed detective abbott to do this number one now that's conceded they did not appeal that no matter how how unreasonable that directive is an officer fourth circuit said that is something to take into consideration i mean it's important no worthy that two different judicial officers in separate proceedings determine that the officer had demonstrated probable cause now that was an a broad sense and the process applies here is a different question but that's clearly is that this is an yes ok facially invalid warrant but here in this case we have the affidavit so many times in virginia officers specifically that he is looking for they have recovered evidence on the victim's phone and on the suspects phone they've recovered evidence that doesn't show face or head doesn't show shows hands actually shows him manipulating his organ in these photographs and that's what they're trying to replicate and that's what's alleged it's alleged throughout the second amended complaint the purpose of taking the photographs was to try and obtain basically is this exactly what is depicted or close to what's depicted in the photos we have from the phones so me ask you this and this is an extreme question that mitt but let's say the photo had been of this young man inserting an object into his rectum are you suggesting that the police officer would have been within his rights to replicate that act i'm trying to find a lot of his hands are touching or is the line between reasonable and not because the fourth amendment obviously requires a reasonable yes it doesn't have to balance we're not in the cases that have been relied on for example we're not puncturing his having the police were choir somebody to perform a sexual act in the course of their investigation well i don't believe that's actually alleged they do not specifically allege that the police officers required him to masturbate they don't replicate it simulate a photo of his erect penis and fact if you look at the warrant that's not what they were asking for the actual warrant which is  seventy four exhibit was exhibit twenty eight presented and that lower court if you look at age three to page three of the actual issued that he did but he did but detective abbott what is alleged is not that he required him to masturbate it's his hands touching his or word organ in the same manner as depicted in the photographs as depicted in the photographs there is that's what's and that's what he said he wanted to do that's what the affidavit says we need needed to document it compare with the already obtained evidence additionally in some of the video pictures the head of the subject is not visible but the erect organ hands and waist of the subject are visible documents  etc that was the point and that is consistent with what they've alleged they have photographs of this young man as exhibit one which is the juvenile complaint describes himself fondling his or and that's what they're trying to replicate and that's evidence and and i do think it's important that it's a fact now that the prosecutor directed him to do th qualified immunity defense as well as whether there's a constitutional violation the fact that he told the young man to who is two months away from being eighteen that's another factor i think that that the court should analyze son who argued that many years ago and just like the case with the prisoner who they wanted to go in and remove implants there's a balancing test so would this case be different if the young man was eight years old seven years old yes it probably would why isn't that an appropriate factor to look at and balancing the intrusiveness number one didn't take place in a public place it was at the juvenile detention center any argument about detective abbott lying and they're relying on the detention order that's gone they didn't appeal that they have withdrawn that appeal and they cannot make arguments throughout which they didn't allege they never alleged in the second amended complaint that my client obtained the detention order for the sole purpose of getting these photographs they would put that in the briefs but that's not an allegation in the pleading and they shouldn't be allowed to argue that here so then you have these balancing doesn't involve injury physical or mental that's ok but you have a young man who not only did this once or twice but the record shows he did it multiple times even after the mother told him stop doing this so they're trying to get evidence to obtain a conviction so that they can do just exactly what ultimately occurred this young man was prohibited from having any contact with the one with the young lady and prohibited from doing this and he didn't for another year for a year and presumably not since who knows how the facts regarding repetitive behavior how that impacts and all the relevance of the police officers actions either they were reasonable or they were not what does it matter how many times he did this for the fact that he didn't stay away from the victim because it was a legitimate law enforcement purpose to get that evidence you mean this was a crime was committed there was a legitimate law enforcement purpose the question is how far may these officers go in securing this evidence and i do know i think that it was reasonable to ask him to replicate the position of his hands as shown in the photograph and the videos that were changed from the electronic devices they had where he's also reasonable to have him follow his you know in the process and they don't specifically allege that they talk simulating in order to replicate but they also allege the reason and the reason was his hands were on his organ in the photographs and it was in different positions and that's what the officers wanted to replicate just to show that they have the photographs and this and that you can see his hands they can see everything else and this would be maybe goes the way but it should have it would be admissible the fact that they chose later not to use the photographs doesn't mean they were non legitimate lawn best law enforcement investigatory tool to obtain evidence that would secure a conviction secure a conviction  that that's a stronger part of the argument would be that there wasn't a clearly established constitutional right because it i mean it it really is shocking you know what occurred in this case i think and i understand your burden of advocacy but in the factual situation it's really bizarre from my perspective and could you address why whatever cuts to show right the young man had that was violated was not clearly established so i think that will that is something we have to consider as well well exactly and that was the premise on which judge hilton granted the motion to dismiss that the right was not clearly established would a reasonable police officer was part of the evidence the reasonable police officer would not have known to do this was the issuance of the warrant and was the direction by the commonwealth attorney that's middle of it's heavily premised on that with the whole thing is with alki you just said without the warrant you wouldn't be arguing qualified immunity i wouldn't because there would be no arrest at this point he wouldn't have had the police the police up i'll try i will try there are a lot of cases that we both cited about genitalia and situations whether it's a juvenile whether it's an adult who's and  number of cases where yes photographs of particular individuals private parts have been deemed constitutional we know let me ask you about that because you mentioned judge hilton's order and i certainly respect which he did in his order he did he did stimulate and erection then he goes on to describe more about what happened but when he gets to the legal conclusion of the order all he says is that at the time of the incident it wasn't clearly established that the tech the abbot would violate plaintiff's constitutional rights by seeking photographs a plan to subpoena as well there's no dispute about that that's clear the question and the cases that he cites i don't think are controversial at all respect to taking pictures for investigative purposes but the question is whether or not the manner in which this warrant was executed that is the manipulation of the defendants of the minors penis a request that he obtain an erection whether that somehow makes this case different and i say to you that the affidavit that the detective completed very specifically said he was seeking to photograph the end of the plaintiff in this case mr simms in the same position as was depicted in the photographs obtained from his phone and from the suspects phone and there's no question that the photographs obtained from the  report of child pornography that is based on the disposition of the case so to replicate that it's no secret he was seeking to take pictures of him with his hands on his ma organ that's also based on the other documents that are in the file that were filed that are in the juvenile court files so it's a question of was did he should have known that that was unreasonable to go in and say we that to replicate what's in evidence what we have already and that's understood so i don't see any clearly established law he certainly wasn't touching mr simms himself he wasn't directing anyone else to touch him does it fall in between some of these cases the nature of the intrusiveness that's what we're talking about the nature of the intrusiveness know asking the young man to touch himself to put his organ in the same position as depicted in the photos that is not clearly established that it would violate this young man who's going to be eighteen yes he's juvenile but the age of significant to you know our case is also clear that you don't need a case directly on point sometimes to establish the constitutional violation why isn't this just so obviously by a law to someone's rights without needing to point to a particular case because it is that the officers would have been free to compel him to replicate that no that would be that would be akin to the cases where they wanted to surgically invade somebody his body where they want to i'm sorry i don't mean to interrupt your answer no no go ahead you in sexual intercourse so they could see his body no and nothing if they had a picture of his body moving in a video now but that's not that's not what i think that would go to those line of cases that involve intrusive miss in on the on the body and besides another person would be involved that would go to something that wouldn't really necessarily involve having to identify the person they were they were requiring that he achieved a state of sexual arousal were they not know because the warrant that he actually sought did not ask for that well he the are not specific enough just like judge hilton said they haven't pled sufficient facts that the detective in the other two officers present were actually having him masturbate or actually having him they say you get questions we want answer to do it if it's not to require him to perform a sexual act on them so the warrant was issued with that in there but i argue why boy indicated they could do whatever was reasonable to get to go with the war or even reported to be lawyers but they were called we call them all judges and justices every day and i practiced before him it's not because i'm a big case lawyer it's just that i don't do criminal law and i'm everything alleged against him benefits my client it was not he but the last question was i forget but it had something to i was going to argue something very persuasive i know  to is you're required to do that and there were several questions asked about that the facts do not allege that that's what my client was doing the facts imply presumably they were trying to do th go and help write these are records from the court and helps out indicates it was gone before he threw them yes or yes sir so and then you have the issue of the second warrant which we haven't even talked about and then the parnell graphy but i argue the case look qualified immunity applies to all of that the case judgment on qualified immunity and that's what's going to be here you move to dismiss yes or qualified immunity and so this case was dismissed does that make any difference well the case law says you should never judge it's always  not yes but in this case by agreement we obtained the juvenile court record and the case law says qualified immunity can be should be raised at the first available opportunity because the whole point is to avoid someone head but lots of the bloggers who for summary judgment immediately own community yes they want to judge it on the merits and the case yes for their officer or the and public these records on the juvenile court case and it's to avoid the expense of going forward on the on throughout this country which is the most expensive part of the case we appreciate it that it was the concern of the officer to have trait simulate masturbation or ask you to look at page twenty seven of the regular appendix paragraph twenty five first is the issue of the warrant sir that you have focused on judge king and then i would like sic couple of words about the points that union was making i would submit to you that there are three problems with the warrant they are distinct the watch they are distinct there are a whole lot of things that the war required we have no problem with any of the committed something that was charged as a crime under virginia law they wanted stuff in was computer they wanted photographs of his hands whatever they they wanted whatever they wanted the warrant directed the photographing of h we respectfully submit that that was outrageous unconscionable and impermissible that is ultimately your call and this is one of those cases where judge pos said in that decision which he said just because there's never been a case where social workers took a kid and sold them into slavery doesn't mean that if somebody did that there wouldn't be in one nine hundred eighty three claim i submit to you that this is not permissible behavior what is the clearly established constitutional right that that contravene i would say two fold sir the first to stack you tory what i ask you about  constitutional right is the constitutional right to the integrity of the body of the person and there is no more significant application of that right that in sexual organs then in sexual organs of juveniles and here it's on steroids a judge because the man is he's being directed the boy is being told to in game in sexual behavior that would suggest though the simply taking a picture of his penis would have violated his constitutional rights is that your position i don't think i have to reach that judge but that your position if the purpose of the photo photography was to mimic the erect penis then it wouldn't be consistent with the direction of the warrant no no no just take a picture of the kid or if there were a valid reason for that judge i don't think that would be unconstitutional so that's not what call would you substitute probable calls for a valid reason of valid reason the constitution talks where probable call yes there has to be probable cause to take that kind of picture the probable cause they had was this they have a photograph of an erection and they want to take another photograph to compare with it so if that is what they were going to do and it was deemed a permissible intrusion then they could do that but they didn't have the erection what it what would it make any difference if the police officers had to wrecked it sems to go into a private room and take a cell phone and photograph his erect penis with that matter judge i cannot accept that as being constitutionally sufficient right to our order of law there are no circumstance and i have to take this position is not only a question of law it is my view and i respectfully submit that that is what our system of ordered liberty requires us saying in answering questions that have opposed to you saying it wouldn't make any difference if they had sent him into  or it would not the fact that it was requiring him to do it that's correct you cannot do that period and that should have been known going in and then when he  been known by the office or by the office or by the prosecutor by the magistrate respectfully joe you got all and the officer had no obligation to comply with the search for he had every obligation to comply with every aspect of the search warrant which he did he got all sorts of evidence we're complaining about one if you will modest portion of that search warrant we have no problem with the search warrant we have a problem with with taking a seventeen year old kid and having him in gage in sexual behavior which by the way then is photographed on the guy's personal cell phone and please recall that there are allegations in the complaint we did not do there was no discovery in this case we agreed to the know what yet would what happened was this judge counsel sought the entire juvenile record i had no problem with that frankly i didn't think it was relevant to any of the issues that we were bringing so we agreed they got the juvenile record with our permission with our agreement and it's all before you we didn't take a single deposition there isn't any any any discovery of the conventional sort here there is the juvenile record that's where they've had us when these all had been to claim to the judge that's exactly the case and all we we would like to scupper please keep in mind this police officer upon being served with warrants for said well it is pertinent to the quick to the statutory claim the question of production of child pornography i don't think it's pertinent to the constitutional claim i think that's an objective determination in the sense of you have of what is permissible and what is sufficiently outrageous that you as judges have got to say you can't do this or these claims of package d and i have no evidence because i have no discovery i can only tell you that what we pleaded in the complaint was that in addition to having the sanction of the magistrate and of his prosecuting attorney he had his own interest so that he proceeded to he took these photographs with you on it and it's alleged on his personal cell phone it's obscure igs it remains to be fleshed out which is why these issues should be decided on summary judgment because then we have a chance to a stablish what the facts may be and understand what their motivation was and what exactly did come down and see also keep in mind please both the chief of police and the prosecuting attorney the commonwealth's attorney this is this is outrageous fact he said he didn't believe it happened that the the how is that relevant oh is that in terms of what is reasonable behavior on the part of the also sir if it's we have to establish in order to deal with the question of qualified immunity not only that what he did was wrong but that he should you should've known and any reasonable officer would have known and if his own police chief and the com also attorney will publicly declare not even privately publicly disclaiming that this was a proper thing to do i would respectfully submit that that is something that can be discovered saying it's evidence objective evidence of an reasonable yes judge absolutely it is judge ask the question  say that in this case instead of the fact that you had an erect penis the evidence show that the boy had some kind of a marking or tattoo on his penis that required that could be easily identified and the officers go and sees him require him to drop his pants and then ask him to manipulate his penis in a manner that the tattoo becomes visible is that a violation the case law involving adults supports the notion that jenna telia can be photographed if there is an identifying mark that is sought to be observed there is no case involving a juvenile and the protections that that adhere to the status of being juvenile would urge caution with regard to immediate application of the adult rule but more importantly there is no such allegation here there is no allegation that there was something unique that they were looking for well the allegation was that this was an erect penis which in the normal course of things is maybe unique think well that i would may i say judge that as part of what i had started working up in the case before was dismissed i mean this is a bizarre case was getting a urologist to provide testimony on these kinds of things i'm not clear on the the sufficiency is a is that then it's not so much the manipulation here then it's the intent of the officer know it the intent informs what happened but it's certainly the manipulation it's i would say three things number one it's getting the matters that story claim doesn't absolutely yes absolutely for the statutory care act first is a question of seeking the warrant second there's a question of proceeding with the photograph because the penises and direct that's not what he was told to do now so you're asking me ok go in there and look at playboy magazine and then come out that's not this case i don't know what i would do under those circumstances what i do know is he was told take a photograph of the erect penis it was no erect penis and he told the guy you know mess with yourself so we'll make it look like that so that's the second thing he did not do in that particular only search he did not do what the warrant said we have no nothing what did it not do that we didn't take a picture of an erect penis because there wasn't one it was unable to comply with that part photo of yes exactly and they knew it they knew that it was insufficient that's why they made the threat why they made a threat they made the threat because they knew that they couldn't use these pictures officer lawyer he said if he doesn't produce an erection we're going to take the hospital and inject him and it was at that point i never did do that he he didn't do it judge because defense counsel left if he could dissuade them went to the press and i am advised i don't know this myself it shut down the nine eleven system because i got so many calls they totally backed off it and that also goes if you will to the reasonable the constitutional standard and so so first it's applying to the war and second is taking the photographs when the penis is not erect so he's not doing what he was directed to do by the  judge it's like a bank teller i mean it's it's a whole lot more than four and may i say this judge i've been doing this i don't know forty years i have one case in which a police officer said that he had a we're not really judge i'm not asking you do you want us to take you as an expert witness that they're not neutral and detached judicial officers are in virginia and i don't know that that perfectly except that i absolutely accept that and so did the supreme court in mali versus briggs accounting for the fact that they can still make mistakes but because some people in our system have immunity i mean if everybody has that i respect that i want to return once if i may just finish on the statutory claim right  is boies charged with creating pornography the officer then proceeds to duplicate or attempt to duplicate exactly if i recall correctly he was charged initially six months earlier he was charged six months earlier than he was put on homebound detention for six months and let me take this opportunity because it's an important point to make sure that you have it straight because i don't want to be any confusion about it we do not make any contention that the officer misrepresented anything with regard to securing the warrant for taking the photograph he did what he did and we have no contention that anything he said was wrong under the virginia detention order for juveniles you can be seized and put under temporary detention for one of two reasons only risk of harm to yourself or others risk of flight this is a boy who after his initial arraignment in january was put on halt homebound detention for half a year he was then charged the second time i didn't know my question was going to get in all this he was going to take out he was taken for one day  or and he was taken for one day in the tension taken the photographs taken and he was left out so we respectfully submit that misrepresentations were made by by the officer to warrant permitting him to be taken to the detention center and that's part of the execution of the sort of iconic resort that's not the search warrant that is the warrant that permitted that the photographs of his penis to  taken place the search warrant was otherwise fully executed in his home and we have no complaint about that the problem is what they did when they seized him under this bogus temporary detention order brought him to the detention center three armed guards they