brief thank you and same reason i gave him at that time i said judge if five people are accused of beating somebody up just because for them pled out and took a deal that doesn't mean that the fifth person supposed to be able to walk away for nothing and i say that you and i tell you why this is relevant because i noticed in the brief several times the defendant took i'm sorry the appellee i took great pleasure in my opinion in noticing zach now much would settle this case for with those defendants martin you know is an appropriate and when it goes to being there and i think it's designed to try and remove us from what is posed to be the point here and that is what was done wrong in this case yes or thank you they received custody of my client who was innocent at the time and relatedness when they dismissed the charges against him and just simply put the police agency to rest my client because i honestly had a lot of documented evidence against police chief who didn't sorry i'm close to mesa newport beach doesn't matter they all see these people and they take in the orange county and that's what they did in this case and they had said some things to the deputies about my client which were not true to allow them to if you will view him far worse than he needed to in any regard and as a result but their position as i understand it or your position that that they have a policy in general what are the higher client was not allowed in telephone calls can find it i haven't seen it i don't know whether or not i've read that statement a brief but it's not cited in anything so whether they have it or not i don't know but at least in this case they certainly you know said they had a policy that says that they won't allow anyone who goes to the medical center because of the excessive force used against them to make any phone calls and the county of orange county yes ma'am no that would depend on there being a policy i'm sorry for the county of our niche to be mindful that we have to be a p that's mom standing unless they are ratifying the conduct of the individual officers so that they have a on written or unspoken policy which if you will could be just to create a defens however again the reason why i thought this was so important is because one of the defenses that they're currently using is saying well since we did not actually arrest the person therefore under the statute as you well know we cannot be held liable for in the hands of a person who this daschle designed to enforce against other words they should not be allowed to determine for themselves whether they have to follow or not no criminal should be allowed to interpret their own statute and this is a criminal statute what am i saying they're saying well because we may have been afraid or because he may have been dangerous or because he may call people come down and get him out we don't have to follow the statute what's interesting about that is a first of all mr miller is a former police officer second of all he has no danger whatsoever of his even in threatening anybody wasn't arrested for any type of violence whatsoever but most importantly you could make that accusation against anybody arrested who comes in your care and say that will never allow them have a phone call and isn't that the one time when you're gone in a hospital to be in the know that you should have the access to the phone the most for the following reason if there has to be a decision by a family as to whether or not you should receive certain medical care are things the ones the family who are most in thailand know where you're at so that the government just can't come and snatch your body your home and take you someplace like no one knows you had you can't receive any type of medical care you can't let your loved ones know what's going on they shouldn't be allowed to create this perfect way through argue with the next one server is that if we're going to say that there are limitations on the world which i think is fair i think that those limitations should have some type of scrutiny that is fair and equitable and is based on facts as opposed to accusations and in this case you don't have any of that in just a simple blanket well we were afraid and they said the most important thing could have le you know hurting a witness says they can't testify if those are true why even have a phone in the jail at all i mean they could be going to transfer to the jail so they don't go to western med and they can get on the phone again they can call and try and arrange for a prison break in the ask a factual is that when he did get to orange county jail he requested that he be placed in protective custody because of his status as a former police officer went from protective custody you don't get phone calls that was in issue that wasn't fully developed in the trial court because the concern was more what happened at the hospital but again in my mind he confirmed i think it's the hope again this was not completely developed in the record but the point being that you're protective custody for a reason because you don't want people to know that you were in that jail so therefore you're you're  argument every for their effect i believe so i think the entire tenor of our argument is that where where did you make that argument every it's really the point language argument that because there is a problem i think it's a question where in your brief did you argue that the county should be off the  exceptions in subjection a is except where physically impossible compliance with this statute was physically impossible by the county of orange because when they received custody of them the rights that are provided by that set you had already been violated again by the found our police department who the point being that the statute has a time period inserted within this plan language that says within three hours of unrest the county wants to custody of mr manley nine and a half hours after his address as the well i think as the district court states the right had already been to the right provided by section if you do one point five have already been violated before the county laurens ever even the game ball now i think the other thing that has to be pointed out is that arrested him then it would have been their obligation to provide those phone calls and in a given circumstance you'd like to hope that they would have the point is the founder of police officers told the county of warrant officer that received him in a custody night and a half hour later that he had been given the phone call there's a perform if he has not been given however many one calls he wants to up to three within three hours and if there's no physical impossibility that it's used in the us as soon as three hours of a lapse no one is under any obligation have additional complication of having changed from one custody to another but let's assume that we have the same custody and for the period relevant period for the purposes of this question during three hour during the first three hours after rest there is no physical impossibility he is not given any phone calls after three hours plus one minute is there any obligation under the statute to allow one call if it's the original agency i guess i'd have to say yes because the statute does require the phone agency your honor again i mean there is there is this issue of the settlement without valid and that's in the financial mess legally irrelevant to the question now in front of us is not i don't believe so because i want to what possible legal relevance does it have because those people are out