over sixty eight percent of hugh was households who unequivocal have formed a special relationship with a non human counterpart in fact with over eighty nine point seven million dogs alone here  district court's decision plainly contradicted the record under first it was the fourth amendment for failure to state of cause of action which even if it is the complaint was in or for not in our fully drafted there was enough facts there to state a cause of action under the fourth amendment why was it on reasonable that we're talking about unreasonable seizures right why is it reasonable ye fire officials as i understand it tempers they have an affirmative duty your honor it's part of their work they were on notice the front door the back door fire on the premises was still under criminal investigation wasn't crip if the if there's a human in the house a child or someone that is that you've got your beloved two that is part of your family i mean when when the stafford act was amend it congress spoke with one voice that animals a pouch whole pets are family members are considered part of the family all the courts across the country have known that there's a special bond that exists between humans and non humans is in the papers brief to both the district court and with this court there's a list of loss there you know where your fireman a policeman whatever you are you not above the law when it comes to an animal that need that needs care that that in the merchant see situation and you just look the other way or even worse throw furniture on them and kick them to the side because they were garbage that's on reasonable your honor they have noticed too i mean not only was the whole the home posting but i was there clamoring for their lives not interfering with them as as it's being alleged now when i was taken when i ran and i said my babies my babies and they say up there dead how do they even know their da y i asked them that i said have you brought them out for air anything when i arrived the fire had been completely out they were putting the things away and out of twenty odd so many fire men's you going to tell me i'm not going to bring  dogs so at least you can give them to if you don't want to do it give it at least to their own or the guardian to go ahead and do the work although that's not the standard generally and most fire places i live now in the middle of nowhere by summit and richmond hill and even then they will call the emergency room at the at the animal care say ok this is dog is approximately so much weight how much would i give them you know to bring them back up to open up their lines so it is in today's age your honor we have a different expectation ask you a question like to ask your question about your medical and your deliberate indifference to your medical needs and i've looked at the amended complaint i wonder if you could clarify what it is that you said to the police officers about your traumatic brain injury the record there was nothing there to justify a better way to we can get to that afterwards but to address your question your honor when i was taken into this room it was it was a  recovering from a brain injury from the press that was about almost that was that april almost six months or so roommate whatever the case and i said to them i do not feel well  then they they also go ahead and they ask this these lists of questions about health and i did all that but the problem is is that i continued to deteriorate and i kept letting them know i am not feeling well i've been known to pass out i'm dizzy i am shaking and i was insist cicle mental torture over my animals being laughed of their complete it as of they were garbage or and outright device as a district court compared with the cases as a means of property i cannot even describe to you it's no different than having wish i'd have human children i've raised a family and it's you the torment of in your mind knowing that that that someone is hurting in danger and nothing is being done it i haven't done anything ok i was told was going to have six minutes you've already yes you've already had five minutes ok all right well if you read the word that there was case law that i did put there that they did have they did have notice wasn't here waiting and only because they wanted to do some booking as why they did in the case was very specific that is insufficient and it's intolerable to let someone deteriorate so much to the point that then i suffered please the court michael murphy representing the city of schenectady and individual defendants matteis dollar and far step your honor in response to your question with respect to deliberate indifference i think one thing needs to be made clear from the record both in the brief filed by ms bruno and her her argument here before the court she's talking about a series of events that took place after the individual named defendants in this case he still had any contact with her whatsoever these are a series of events took place inside the police station in which she's alleging that john and jane doe's may have engaged in deliberate indifference to her needs and violated the constitutional rights but that's not part of this case those people are not defendants that is not something that's before this court the question is whether there was you're saying a deliberate indifference question is not before this court i don't believe that the deliberate indifference real issue with respect to the events as described by ms bruno is before the court i would also say that with respect to the force that was used at the scene that as judge cited he found it was very clear from the cannot say that i have a working knowledge of the decision so that that decision at least could be read to overruling that part of that that's a we held that the supreme court had overruled that part of chaos on mandated that we use an objective standard that is whether a reasonable person would appreciate the risk to whether the detain perhaps you and your all sides may want to see if how darnell or whether darnell versus pineiro eight four nine f third seventeen second circuit two thousand is about up and with that i will refer to my brief and to the complete record for further arguments for the court thank you good morning your honor as if it may please the court counsel mark walberg on behalf of the county schenectady pelleas and individual defendants rudolf's and in law of all that important distinction is made between the claims that have been brought against the other parties in the county  not present during the fall out fire in order to have any personnel that was involved whatsoever significantly and as indicated in our papers there are no arguments made in any of the briefs that ms bruna has submitted before the court making any arguments against the county about appellants and i submit for that reason and based on the applicable case law cited that she's abandon those claims to the extent that the court wants to entertain those issues there is kind of an intertwining between some of the issues that she kind of conflicts between the various defendants in essence she asserts that the county failed to implement proper policies customs and practices to aid citizens in their animal companions inherent in that discussion is the case law that deals with how fire police emergency personnel deal with emergency situations to enact such a provision would in essence require the police to make decisions that could place them the people that they work with in very serious danger most significantly firemen and police officers are put in predicaments in emergencies have to make this question any decisions at the time of fire so while we're sympathetic and obviously saddened by the loss of the dogs it doesn't rise to the level of the establishment of a standing issue a constitutional due process violation sad as it is that she lost her companions it didn't rise to the level necessary and i think the district court for that reason was correct when it found that there was no standing and in particular as it relates to the who were not even present during the fire she cites to the stafford act and she uses that as a basic premise to somehow morph into this standing issue and as this court i'm sure is aware of the staff has set forth in our papers does not set forth a private cause of action it was an acted to create emergency disaster assistance but not necessarily a private right and there is no statute or federal constitutional issue that has been brought into play  specially as it relates to the county of pelleas all that said the same thing applies to the individual county appellate defendants mr lawful at lawful and rudolf and they owed no duty to her they weren't present there was no policy and there was no policy because as i indicated it would create a very on and tenable and quite difficult standard in duty that would place fire police and emergency personnel in a very serious situation for that reason i obviously will defer to my papers unless the court has any questions my believe that the district court properly ruled that the county pelleas were not proper that this failed to state a claim for the reason set forth and more importantly and for the same reasons the court properly ruled that the entitle me to amend the complaint was also probably granted tha where an officer has notice or they should be able to tell you no one medical assistance is needed at anywhere i thought i'd bring this one this case  up because they should have i mean actually when you even look at the rocker of the major on that time that was on duty actually even want to go get help you cigarettes failure to state a cause of action under the fourth amendment goes against the weight of the record and the allegations were made and under the summary judgment standard when it comes to the medical records thinking that that everything that i have suffered and what the medical records indicate where it's a doctor opinion that it that counts not of judges and attorneys or anyone else's but when