already our next case of the day is goldring versus henry and we will hear st from this miller right so we don't start with whether he had arguable probable cause or not we look at whether the legal process whether there was some kind of a problem with it and here we have  application to obtain the arrest warrant and that and that that information was necessary in order to establish probable cause so i don't know if you want to maybe he not yes he did and that was in the what but let me ask you a question then isn't there administering the record in the context of an internal investigation internal affairs investigation when you put those two things together that he alleged positive that he provided you know that he wrote out the arrest warrant application and delivered it why is that sufficient under our case law if a jury were to conclude that he recklessly or lie why would why would that not be sufficient because as you know we have to we have to accept the it first of all he didn't follow the instructions and that he conducted it numerous times that there was no pink over blue as required in fact there was no change of color at all and that another officer give it up it's not going to change you know we obviously need to assume those to be the facts under the summary judgment standard why would that not be sufficient to create at least a material issue a fact that both officers were recklessly admitted false information to support the arrest warrant application yes you know so far there must be a showing that the in the head if it's positive focal pain it will turn blue but that blue can be shown in many different way it can be in the corner of the dot of the test kit it can be thanks it can be a line and all that is i that that there was no drugs in there that give it up it's not changing anything and we have to accept that is true and if that evidence is true then what officer henry saying isn't right and he didn't see  to favorable to appellee however i do not believe that the statement was that the color never changed from apparently there was a statement that an officer could have or may have said that give it up however self it doesn't really gulfport whether the other officers knew how to do the test or what knew how to do it correctly or what the the test results show so you're saying she didn't testify that because it looked the same once you brought it out it looked like as it never like it never changed anything it was still the regular wasn't that the point of testimony yes the honor and and i do believe that any training on the on the test so one says that the color changed and was a pain positive the other said there was no change i'm i just i'm having a hard time understanding how that's not a disputed fact on whether what's in the affidavit is accurate or not believe that he saw that thing positive as well apparently had no understanding of this has let the color should have been or could have changed to and so the statement that i jaywalking there were four individuals who were all standing together according to this goldring this statement is a fact also she alleges that that none of them were jaywalking and how or walking in the street i guess which is technically the georgia statute that they were charged with but only two of them were detained and the other two were just allowed to leak and she asserts or suggests that the reason that she was detained and b and the two other women were not was because she was transgender i wonder if you wanted to address that and explain why two of them were detained but the other two were not recklessly misrepresented the results of a drug test and therefore qualified immunity is not appropriate i'd also like to specifically address the issue of malice both for the federal and state law claims w know that while he's performing the test another officer said give it up buddy there's nothing there that officer henry showed outward signs of frustration repeatedly shaking the test helping him puffing our client testified that he performed this test in front of her as many as seven after each ampules broken you can't observe sequential color changes if you break them all at the same time he also put too much in the bags any one of the errors she went home errors that he made performing the stress test predicated wholly on the positive drug test moreover a jury could find that the basis for the initial arrest so from that evidence i think the jury could find this was at least reckless and i think they could find that this was intentional officer struck a draw showed more light on it he told internal affairs he didn't see the test i'm sorry he told us he didn't see the test and if that's true then he's not going to be liable for that if  the trouble making that last connection i understand what you're saying regarding officer henry but regarding officer if he mistakenly believed that it was a positive test at least at the time and it's clear that you need some degree of recklessness of reckless disregard going to intend almost in order to to stay frankly and why is that not closer to negligence assuming he saw it and assuming that that this is cocaine and he knows that there's no other basis for cocaine and he was there for the initial arrest and the jury could find fabricate a basis for that arrest then that same jury could find that  jury finds he's covering for his partner but when he sues for it suddenly he doesn't want to have any role in seeing the test so that his narrative shifted completely also goes to goes to both his overall credibility but  it goes to what he knew and whether he's trying to hide it let me ask you a question if possible i would think that he and perforated whatever the answer given to him was that that's a positive my partner says it's a positive and as judge look suggested that might have been a ne evidence in terms of what officer risk of observation of the actual testing process that is is there evidence he was there watching officer henry do this seven times and then being frustrated and grumbling is there preparing a warrant and he didn't see the test he took he told internal affairs he did see the test result and that's that's that's the evidence we have because he denied having any role in it but to internal affairs he said he did see the test result what that translates into is he saw a negative result and so if you knows that result is negative and we can make that inferential that result is negative he was not with the directions on the test or reading so official made of the requires it's the highest sort of standard that we have in this case that requires a subjective intent to commit a wrongful act and the resulting harm  allegation is that both officers knew the evidence was false and submitted it to a magistrate that qualifies me to the highest standards actual malice if an officer knowingly presents false information and there are a number prosecution claim can be inferred from a lack of probable cause and it's it sort of collapses into the probable cause element and that includes persons gully and williams for security recognise that as well  i don't think malice is an issue in this as far as the federal cause of action right so let's turn back to the state malice issue what if you had to list have been in their records that would support a finding now for purposes two other people who engage in the same conduct were sent away they were arrested immediately for jaywalking which officers have discretion whether or not to do that obviously we all know that not everyone gets arrested for jay they were motivated by you know race or appearance or anything isn't the germane issue the germane issue is that they lied and whether they lied about whoever it was if they lie about ministry of the chili could maybe under some optical illusion find that's a reasonable mistake or something but they could also find that the also fabricated the basis for the arrest and so the fact that from its inception this was a targeted license so that they would then that your client was in fact transgender it's a male name on the license but i think she's dressed like a woman at what point in all of this did they determine that information obviously from a distance unfortunately that's the only snippet i have in front of me that's restructured that position page fifty eight line twenty two to page fifty nine line thirteen my question was what point did they look at the drivers like that in the record i can't answer specifically whether the moment they looked in the driver's license in the record and unfortunately the best that citation you the definition mean i agree that maybe a jury could reach the conclusion that you're suggesting but why couldn't a jury also equally reasonably reach the determination that it was intentional that he kept doing the past he was able to say that he got a result he wanted because it has to be with malice and without probable cause that is the standard for qualified immunity for probable cause when you get to the legal process  that i guess that brings me back to my original question what is it about the evidence that he conducted the test seven times he was frustrated he was told to give it up by a fellow officer that there was no there was nothing said that it never changed color at all let alone changed to a faint positive which in and of itself would have been enough why couldn't a jury reasonably construe that evidence if it decided to believe all of that evidence as evidence that he knew that they tested it come back as positive for cocaine he swore to it anyway in the last it was a conclude that an officer may have why we also consider fact that the officer did not include and here those facts would be the ones that i've previously stated he didn't talk about how he did it six said in our case that when you don't put any of that in and you just put in the part that is allegedly a lie that the fact that the other facts are in there can also be construed  science and they did and in this case both qualified an official movie present and there was no actual malice there is no evidence that is in the record that shows that either investigator henry or officer or stressful intentionally or recklessly presented any lies or had any reason to do so again apparently in this case and we add that she reversed the lower court decision and fine for