machinations about being in and out of particular rooms are whether you know where the bars is apart in the whole establishment or is it does it just mean the room where the where the physical bar is where the selling drinks part of all of that what is it what isn't there probable cause as to jim nneka who was the bartender that if there is a person in there drinking underage that he was responsible for  it and even if there was another another bartender there but there wasn't there may have been some confusion on that and the question why isn't as opposed to geneva why wasn't there average probable cause that's to her was the only bartender according to if i had the money that was crowded when geneva were supposed to be identified giving the circumstances no reasonable officer would think the only way for someone to get out of my i'm a bartender are that unique if i've been behind the bar without more does not supply argue the probable cause and say here's a mature or are you saying that the same probable cause exists or doesn't exist with respect to both of these two defendants  position is that martinez didn't know at the time he made this arrest that she was the only person behind the bar but let's assume for the moment that she a she was which is what we we apparently do know now on the full record and b that the officer had some reason to think that it didn't have any cases or does the new york court of appeals or anybody have any cases saying that it's not probable cause for an officer who finds an underage person in a bar with alcohol to think that the bartender is the one who sold it to course it's of course knowledge or participation is required the question is whether there's a reasonable basis to think that the person who's in charge of selling alcohol in the establishment at the time is the one who sold the alcohol to this particular person now it's one question one question is do you know do i think that is probable cause or should we hold that that is or is not probable cause but there's a separate question as to whether it's clearly established law that there is no probable cause in those circumstances so that's why i'm asking you about prior precedent here on this part as it needed the hound that catches me you have one more minute  season with that group without more and i would be part and you're not not in association with the group it's not like oh i see this fellow standing over in the corner i know he works as a bartender so he must be the one who sold it it's the fact it's selling alcohol in that establishment at that time it's not like bartenders are suspicious characters inherently so they must be doing something wrong it's a question of is the person who is serving in a particular function that is the function that's in charge of giving out alcohol is that a reasonable basis to think that that is the person who sold the alcohol now again i understand that you may argue and it makes some sense to me that those of us who have been under one time in new york are aware of young people getting others to buy who are of age to buy alcohol for them so there's a question in my mind as to whether that is probable cause but is there any any clear law that says it's that the alcoholic obtained by any other means the facts supplied probable cause for the arrest plaintiff's version of the event that the police officer for a known reasons arrested him and then fabricated evidence to support the arrest is completely unsupported that point it was him right so is it a reasonable inference that he could point out who was at the bar or was it really based on the fact that the officer went in and so the pulls that you've got to go he says you have to ask him why of course you wouldn't have to ask him to find out what andy saw or didn't see and there was no follow up but even putting all that aside  is if there were a trial which n d testified in person with all is instead exactly what he said in his deposition which granted has many contradictions and he's obviously trying to walk  line saying i never read anyone but the police didn't make me read on anyone but still this is not really what i said it's a very perplexing testimony but couldn't a draw from his testimony the conclusion that he never really did identify anyone it couldn't agree find that if they heard him say all the things he said i that position i think a jury perhaps drawn the conclusion that d n a did not went yes janine so that would mean that if they believed that that would mean they believe that officer d martinez was making up at least andy's identification and now you've got and now you've got a b's identification and let's assume that a b is unavailable to either side since he apparently is not a united states citizen does not live here and as far as we know is some kind of coach and may still be there at the time of the trial you think that a jury could not that's what he says yes he denied that he pointed out anyway well it's just it's his if that testimony is believed and i realize that there could be a lot of cross examination of him because he says a lot of inconsistent things but he never wavers from the fact that he did not point anyone out now if he did not point anyone out at all d and officer martinez who was standing next to him says he did you either believe martinez or you believe andy don't you i mean how could you think b that would contradict what martinez says about what a d t did that no reasonable jury who heard andy's testimony could find that officer martinez was  the question i have here are we clearly are we are we now trying to decide what the truth here is or are we to take this motion summary judgment and decided according to summary judgment standards where is where to them but they don't make it they don't and they can't just decide that nobody can get them out because they didn't see the identification and so there is there is nothing in the record dispute about that is there now but there is a dispute as to geneva who you see was not the other bartender in the bar that he says the other teenager pointed to you nor did he ever remember the details of those identification different additional question while you're you're up is is there any other defendant in this case at this point besides officer martin as you know we don't know what the other  ok so so with respect to the lack of fair trial claim and to any argument that the affidavit that were taken at the police station were the false evidence that was made up by the police is there any evidence that officer martinez played any role in what happened at the police station when he is assume the worst with this this activity and i'm asking is there anything that you can point to where anyone says or any reasonable inference can be drawn that officer martinez was involved in the interrogations