started the district court's decision in this case systematically over literature and destroys the protections of the fourth fifth and fourteenth facts of the case yes we pretty well understand the law but i'm trying to understand regard to the interrogation and arrest of michael yes as i understand it he was taken from the home to the police station yes where the questioning first began as a clear what there was questioning of all the crow family members we aren't sure exactly of the time because nobody writes down the time but sometime i united states holds that the grand jury proceeding as part of a criminal case i would suggest a practical task for what a criminal cases we know from  reasons this is the guy with the with the transponder during the nine eleven thing and he's on the fifty first floor and they got the wrong guy and what the heck ghazi court really points out is look if if you're talking about sentencing is obviously part of the criminal case so that's more than a trial so so criminal case has to include more than just a tr where if you have a situation where a prosecutor concluding judicial immunity for something like presenting evidence in a grand jury why isn't that part of a criminal offense and i would suggest that those are basically isn't enough to violate the fourteenth amendment well that's not the law in this so in this when you when you got really and it chavez this court held and cites was not hired by the please to treat any of the boys he was brought into this case to devise a plan to break them to specify strateg to treat the the killers of blood and none the less could be brought in could he not without becoming libel for misconduct if he is simply there to observe and analyze as opposed to directing what the officers are doing in other words if he is observing and they're saying what is this what are these responses reflective of then he's giving his he's more than just reacting in advice when the police officers and you say the facts don't fit my hypothetical i'm trying to find out where he went over the line and you seem to be suggesting that if he  and so what they have argued are whether or not constitutional rights were violated and as we've argued in our research we don't believe that that's the case but i think it's very difficult to argue that the various officers would have known that their conduct violated whatever those constitutional that's a little trouble with them maybe you can help me having watched some of the video of a fourteen year old kid isolated from his family isolated from any adult other than me interrogating officers who lied to him to work on him  sustained period of time you think that that wasn't clearly established that that crossed the line i'm not aware of any case that said that any case that said nobody talked about abuse no case talks about shocks the conscience you don't think that shocks the conscience how is it that the police get a fourteen year old boy to help him confront these  think i mean what's the purpose of miranda if you give it to a fourteen year old and the next thing you know he's in there that was informed consent your honor at most that goes to whether or not argued that that kind of interrogation was in violation of substantive due process of just on its face cries out as an abusive kind of circumstance you have a fourteen year old kid is just deprived of any adult support and subjected to a prolonged interrogation like that it's again i'm not aware of any case that would have put these officers on notice that interrogating if you've been a fourteen year old so this was standard operating procedure in the us going to pace department i can't know that's important because you know the police officers are trained in interrogation so what is the practice in policy what was the practice and policy visit and you know the standard operating procedure then isolate juveniles and give them this kind of coercing confessions out of people while it's the constitution i mean how do you how specific you have to get you have to have you have to have a case where the person was named michael no not at all your honor but i believe what  wasn't a standalone first impression case cooper was based on a long line of cases from the united states supreme court prohibiting coercive tactics in trying to pursue statements from people who'd been arrested the problem that that i'm having with this discussion is that we're talking about clearly established what's not clearly established the problem is it has to be a violation of the constitution and what charter it says is merely coercive interrogation is possibly have known so how and how did they know it wasn't going to be yours you're saying that it's ok for them to engage and waterboarding i take it during the so long as they don't think it's going to be used to prosecute that what you're saying they had to know with the time of the coersion whether or not it was going to be used no it in order for them to have committed a constitutional violation they have of responses to that one i don't believe that the conduct even to the extent that your honor talked about it that you have a fourteen year old alone without a parent has been clearly established as being shocking the conscience such that it met the clearly established one the other issue which i raised in my brief is how do we review this roads compared everything to what had been approved in adult interrogations and what that points out is a lack of case law on the juvenile side and so absent guidance that they have to do that things that have been proved that would be acceptable in adult interrogations are not acceptable and juvenile in turkey why do they have juvenile courts where they have driven all proceedings rocket science to figure out that when you're translating your adult confrontations to hardened criminal fraud that you use with hardened criminals or adults who are mature and on their e youngster particularly one whose sister is just and brutally murdered and while all that may be true how are the officers supposed to know where commoners a sense are you really arguing that the officers 't really what you are hearing that's what it sounds like i know it's close to that i think the bottom line is this is not a case where they were we're asking of these officers to basically have yes in trying to determine whether or not these young men were involved in a murder why didn't they put tweet through the same third degree i'm sorry  get in the neighborhood subjected to nine eleven call i don't mean it in that sense but in terms of the general that's the case that he was a person who was appropriate to interview that take a stretcher from him they were trying the point with pointers you're saying the officers apply the standard procedures that they would have applied to an adult suspect to a trial and yet when you look at the circumstances they don't apply everything possible suspects well i don't know what you're saying council because you keep talking about you know how would the officers know that what they use on adult suspects can't be used on a child is this a unique never had a homicide investigation before with or involved a crime suspect as an adult so they suddenly have to make this all up on the spot and just so happens it's a fourteen year old that they are doing this for with all due respect i didn't even come well why are you invoking the notion of what they're doing is what they would apply to an adult you somehow say that well they wouldn't have known so are you saying that it would have been fine if you had been an adult to do this kind of thing that's what they've done in the past i think even the plaintiffs acknowledge that that all of these things that they have complained about and i apologize  here is that it's not any individual part it's the entire package that made it shocking or the totality of the circumstances and with all due respect how were the officers supposed to know that the circumstances when the individual parts are not clearly in violation of anything yes that's what he did then what happened on the other side just to refresh your recollection serves the district court opined there was enough of enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material flak for the proposition that b district court did this to fix and allies dr bloggs involvement with respect to whether he was involved in a conspiracy and concluded that there was no evidence whatsoever that dr absolutely that there was no evidence that dr browne conspired with these officers who he had never met for the purpose basically if what the conspiracy is is that they were going to course confessions from these record that contracted with the police department to create the strategy you told us that the district court concluded there was enough evidence to create a genuine issue a material fact as to his participation or a conspiracy that's right with respect the record and what the court's third in my understandings of what the courts involving the conspiracy the district court distinguished i think incorrectly and i don't have the heat in front of me but i have a good memory and i remember that what the court was was drawing a distinction between was something that he called the conspiracy and the quote larger conspiracy  air and then you were on the panel that decided the earlier case involving summer stuff and and my reading of that opinion is that the court said that there were facts that remains to be he termed because at that time i pointed out to the court that i didn't know when she'd make those statements well but i want to hire statement in context and the very end she's asked are you saying these boys did it she says no no no i'm not saying that at all well i think that the and the other parts you simply describing a lot of the evidence but she doesn't come right out and imply say or imply that the boys man if you look at that entire statement in context my position was that it is reasonably susceptible to her saying that these boys are the killers even though she said at the end well i i think they're just saying i think if you say that michael was suspected of murdering his sister because he was playing with a handheld video game and that's false he wasn't playing with a handheld video game and you're explaining that's why he suspected of murder yes i don't think that the court below was correct in saying that that's not reasonably susceptible to an