next case on the calendar miers rhesus city or new york clerk's office called yesterday just to confirm to confirm that and spoke with counsel mr mccann yes may please the court max mccann on behalf of appellants reasonable city officials could believe that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs when they were fused to comply with an order to leave zuccotti park that was made by police officers using loudspeakers the district courts qualified immunity  was deeply flawed and cannot be reconciled with several district court and new york county supreme court decisions that condoned either the exact conduct in question or conduct that's identical you  are is it your view that arguable probable cause as opposed to probable cause is to is sufficient absolutely your honor for qualified immunity that's all that's required and that  was and that was not done that analysis was not performed in this case that's correct the district court failed to consider arguable probable cause among several other flaws was that something that we should be doing now absolutely on a it's a prohibit the plaintiff's conduct that's paragraphs thirty two and paragraph four of the complaint the plaintiffs were those allegations as they referenced the rules that the demonstrators were alleged to be filing and then they say that the defendants in the park owners modified the rules but failed to confirm approval from the city planning commission prior to doing so so the to be clear the validity of the rules is the only thing that's challenged and that's a legal issue that's an issue that this court can decide the plaintiffs don't dispute the existence of the rules they only dispute whether they were valid and we know that they were valid because the district court itself rejected the plaintiff's argument that the owners have to get approval from the planning commission that was the plaintiffs theory and the district court rejected it but still declined to find probable probable cause or qualified immunity and qualified immunity our objective standard so the district court erred when it overly relied on the subjective beliefs of the protesters second of all the fact that there's a dispersal order here makes it reasonable for any  license they had to remain was unequivocal plea revoked by the orders to disperse that were issued by the police officers no reasonable protester could have believed at that point that they still had a right to remain but more importantly no reasonable city official would know that it was clearly unlawful to effectuate an arrest of a protester an hour after they refused to comply with those orders several courts have found that police officers can enforce the park rules in the exact park here and the exact conduct in question for example the new york county supreme court the very morning of the plaintiff's arrest considering the exact police operation that's in question here just a stallman found in waller that the city's enforcement of the park rules quote appears reasonable again and carvalho judge castille found that quote a dispersal order reasonably calculated to enforce lawful park rules is itself lawful within the meaning of the disorderly conduct statute now those let me ask you this yes around under under new york penal law section one forty a person i quote remains in or upon premises which are at the time open to the public does so with a license and privilege unless he defies a lawful order not to enter to or remain personally communicated to him by the owner of such premises or other authorized persons why are the the officials who ordered the plaintiffs to vacate zuccotti park quote unquote authorized persons within the meaning of one for d it has to do with the nature of the park as a privately owned public space as justice forrest found in that the mesh decision that because of the status of zuccotti park as a pops it's called a a decision when one is ordered to leave by police and does not such conduct can compromise a trespass but again we're talking to the court's question seems to suggest whether the plaintiffs could be found guilty of trespass and again we're only dealing with whether reasonable city officials could believe that there was probable cause to arrest these plaintiffs and given that several district court decisions and  new york county supreme court decision have found the exact conduct in question here to be lawful qualified immunity cannot be denied on these facts you know let's say that only to a first amendment claim if this court found that arguable probable cause was lacking then that might not be sufficient but the unclear nature of that alone that question alone suggests the qualified immunity should be granted as to a first amendment claim even if probable cause is lacking so it's sensually it's not clear but that still supports a finding of qualified immunity now the district court even denied qualified immunity on the plaintiff's claim of unlawfully fiction that's a claim that the plaintiffs couldn't even defend in this appeal and in order to deny qualified immunity the right has to be so clearly established that every city official would know that they were violating  right the plaintiffs can't even defend that claim here because it's so contrived and yet the district court denied qualified immunity on this alleged theory that in order to remove the protesters they had to get any fiction order from the hous court there's no basis for the denial of qualified immunity on that claim cert certainly now we've we've covered the rules of the park we've covered the dispersal order the only issue is as far as i see is whether reasonable city officials could believe that there was probable cause to arrest plaintiffs who refused to comply with that dispersal order and on that will simply refer this court to the decision  city of new york in this court's decision where protesters were fused to comply with an order to disperse that alone as long as the order is legitimate which we've already discussed when they refused to comply with that order there's probable cause to arrest for o j that's and that's probable cause that's not that's not even getting to qualified immunity which is a much more relaxed standard so unless the court has any more questions we will submit that the court should reverse the