the complaint and in this case mrs dean allen did not provide the police with probable cause to arrest her basic statement to police was that she had engaged my client and admitted licensed real estate broker which defendants admitted in the fifty six point one to try to locate her an apartment that several apartments were shown to this woman that ultimately while my client was showing miss allen's boyfriend and apartment pictures were sent to miss allen she loved the apartment my client in her routine practice told miss allen ok provide me with one month's rent let's go to the meeting with the landlord and let's negotiate the terms of the lease prior to the execution of that lease miss  allen and the landlord's representative decided that miss miller miss miller's services were no longer needed that miss allen called my kline and said i don't need you here anymore i want my money back or words to that effect the meeting as far as my client was concerned was not held and then the complaint comes to the police that my client is somehow stealing miss miss allen's money it's absurd absurd to think for the district court to think that this somehow constituted probable cause to arrest at best and what my client even insisted to the police as they came to apartment was that this is a civil matter this was a dispute about who had a better a better access to who had a better claim to the funds defense defendants claimed that well since there's now proof that mr allen did not read the apartment that the monies were owing back to miss allen and i submit to the court that even if it were shown that mr allen didn't rent the apartment which was not known to the officers at the time of the arrest because the  officer admittedly never contacted anybody except miss allen and my client that still would not constitute probable cause it would again simply constitute a low a debt possibly a debt just as the same way as an overdue library book the city is arguing that well we don't have to show intent we don't have to show we just have to show the wrongful withholding of property that doesn't belong to you just as they would not have to show intent with an overdue library book if somebody went to the library took out a book did it retorted on time is that a crime obviously not there it is true that in new york there is no duty to investigate however that only applies once probable cause is a stablished why wouldn't the officer of these get qualified immunity because he had a reasonable belief that he had probable cause mr detective years was the was the main defendant in the case investigating and she is not entitled to qualified immunity due to two reasons one there was clearly no basis for probable cause in this case and it's been clearly established by this circuit in the supreme court that in order to effectuate in arrest probable cause must be established well that's always set in the context of motions to suppress not in the context of suits against the police officer for damages qualified immunity requires a clearly established law and what we're arguing is that detective you violated clearly established law because there was clearly no probable cause to really could say that about any particular officer but what i argued in my papers is that because detective you brought the plaintiff to the precinct sattar down and said if you bring in and that qualified immunity would not apply and i think that in order for the defendants to be able to establish qualified immunity would have to go to trial there have to be stipulated facts to the to the jury about exactly what the parameters of the information known to detective year at the time of the arrest i would also point out in their summary judgment motion they barely touched upon qualified immunity in arguing it just and the judge itself below said there is qualified immunity without explaining any basis for it so it's a it's a case it's an it's a defense that you could use in any case and on any ground and it simply is i think subject to interpretation and i think that the jury below would have to decide what specifically was known to the officer in order to provide her with qualified immunity what we're arguing is that she had almost no information on this case and she basically admits that her deposition she did not she didn't know if she spoke to miss allen or my client first she did not know miss allen alleged broadly that my  think that it's easy for me to say or for you to say the opposite that a reasonable officer could take this belief or not but i think that's really subject to the what the jury would believe the facts are  provide probable cause the one thing that i think you could suggest that is that miss allen according to the complaint according to the paperwork said that my client was in cahoots with the owner of the price of the property now what exactly does that mean in the context of a licensed real estate broker who is showing apartments to her client and the owner of the property that they're in cahoots while my client i don't know what that meant the detectives she did not explore what she meant by that but it's clearly put forward in the paperwork she also said my client had no authority to show the apartment which again is in big us what is it me now i'm not going i can't sit here and say that i think miss dean allen was a liar but i think that what she what she did provide to the police was not enough substance to crew to arrest a licensed real estate broker for doing her job that the appellate conceded here or argument that they are not arguing that there was any reason to doubt alan's account and as the panel well knows under under the circuit's law probable cause exists when police serve a crime by a punitive victim miss allen this case was the victim she told two different police officers a very very similar count first hand account of the first when she told detective barnett  that she had engaged miss miller to find her own apartment that she found out that ms miller did not have the authority to do so she asked for the money to be returned and miss miller did not return the money the second time she spoke to  as detailed in the district court's opinion she miss allen told detective either that they had agreed that miller would get seven hundred dollars in exchange for help for renting an apartment allen direct directly deposited that amount into miller's bank account and when allen asked for the money back because she did not rent the apartment miller refused to do so that establishes the basic elements for larceny in this case and i haven't heard anything that the appellant has said other than that critical concession that changes in any way the analysis here officers were entitled to credit miss allen's response accounts and they were not required to investigate any further whether or not especially with there were no reasons to doubt miss allen's account so unless there are any further questions we asked this court to a from the district court's  prearrangement detention issue this court should still affirm because what happened was officer ye went to went to miller's apartment residents and said please come with me she agreed there was no handcuffs she was put in a marker they took her to the precinct and according to miss miller herself she waited there for a couple hours because presumably they were doing something else so there was no contact with her she was just sitting there and when they when they finally did speak to her about this issue detectives and i believe one other detective sat down and interviewed her and throughout that and in that interview he said there is a way to resolve this matter without processing you and that would we would void the  and that option was if you simply hand over the seven thousand nine hundred in dispute all this we would void the rest and there is no need to stay any further so it wasn't it isn't an act of coersion and in fact as the district court  analyzed its object viewed objective really it was a situation where the officers detention of miller was motivated by a desire to secure a resolution of the complaint against the plaintiffs without mr allen pressing charges because even if she had refused to hand over the money she would have been processed she would have to wait for an arraignment so it was in a situation where she would automatically gone free and critically officer he testified in her deposition that every step she believed that she had probable prosecution and settle the case i don't think it would put it that way i think it was a recognition that she had understood from this alan that is if the money was returned to her she would not press charges and there w need for her to go through the formal process of arrest and again in this case miller agreed to drop the case not that the police would drop the case i think there was an understanding that person out of jail right she while she had probable cause to arrest i understand that your argument right and that starts a criminal case and now she's saying that all in this criminal case if you  well she would not be process or arraigned and have to go through the process if she simply settled the matter with the complaint and you freeman clarify a few misstatements by counsel my client was handcuffed my client did not agree to go to the precinct my client will testify that she was detained inside the cell my client testif that she told the officer i will not bring money to this precinct i refused to do so detective ye said ok you can sit here and you can wait and i asked her at the position how long did you wait this is page seventy seven of her deposition she said a long time the idea here is in i think your honor picked up on this very clearly is that all of this officer detective ito to usurp her role as an officer by not just collecting my client and bring you're in front of a judge by b being judge jury and setting the damages in the case meaning how much money to bring to the precinct this type of case is extremely dangerous because it allows officers the belief that they can now bring people to custody and demand money from them at the precinct and any amount that they choose irony is real with you the next time an officer would get the message i better not release or i'd better go ahead with the case that's exactly what this officer should have done that really you would have rather had the prosecution in the trial and maybe dodge i guarantee you i can almost guarantee you based on my experience that this would not have been a prosecution this would have been a decline to prosecutors  it may not be thrilled with your guarantee i have a lot of experience with this that no prosecutor would have prosecuted this case and it officers have a duty not to demand money from arrestees this creates a dangerous