morning ladies and gentlemen our st case for argument this morning is call again chicago ms nichol terry far from a petty indignity a static risk is a serious intrusion on the sanctity of the person which may inflict great indignity and around strong resentment thus the th amendment demands proper limitations be authority in the context of carry status and terry itself stated that one of the hallmarks of improper staff is a requirement of individualized suspicion and the city's policy simply doesn't weigh with the requirement of individualized suspicion the district court's decision and the city's program of foreign checks countenances a per se rule that detaining a citizen for the purpose of running their name through a law enforcement database is always proper during every stop so long as it was justified when it is and yes it's not a person a rule if you have the clause as long as it's reasonable to do it and surely that's a correct statement of well lol i therefore wonder in what sense you say there is a bad policy or is it that your in your view it is never permissible to run a warrant check no it is never been plaintiff's position and it's not our position today that it's not permissible under any circumstance so you don't say it's never permission chicago doesn't say it's always permissible and then we have this middle ground it's permissible when it's reasonable the magic word in the th amendment what's the problem with that well that it's not with the city's policy has been the city's training instructs officers that running a citizen's name through law enforcement databases for warrants is a proper stop part of every terry stop if you look at the city's training video the officers take the citizen's i d take it back to the car and the voiceover you will run the person's name so are you challenging whether or not it's reasonable to run a warrant check whenever there's probable cause or reasonable suspicion to pull somebody over so what's the scope of what you're arguing is a reasonable that it is a per se rule here that the police department has decided that it's permissible to run a warrant checked or every single stereotype terry stop so long as it is justified acts and  so you're challenging whether or not they can run a warrant check as long as they have reasonable suspicion of probable cause you still think in some cases there's a problem with that yes exactly and it is your argument and it is your argument ms nichols that the more a check has to somehow be related to the reason they're pulled over or is your argument something different than that's one circumstance under which you could certainly be justified if someone is pulled over for a traffic stop i think the law is pretty clear that a name check a check of the person's license status can be run as part of ensuring that the person is lawfully authorized to operate a  vehicle so you're not saying that in order to run a warrant check there has to be some reasonable suspicion that the plaintiff is wanted or has a warrant outstanding are you that could be a reason why it was justified but you're not arguing that that should be the floor for it or that should be what reasonable miss is type two are you i think that the warrant check has to be tied to something individualized so the city for example has made a lot of  officer safety justification and a particular stop may arouse suspicions that do justify an warrant check based on officer safety considerations and if that is the circumstance then running could be reasonable to run a name check during those circumstances but what happens here is that the police believe it is an authorized part of every single terry stop no matter what the circumstances are to find out whether the person is wanted on any warrants there are many examples in the record of how this extends the detention of people on reasonably for example if the police observe someone panhandling in a manner that they believe may be obstructing are certainly justified in going over to the person and saying don't block the sidewalk move over but that interaction takes seconds ten seconds or less so is your challenge though to the front end the running of it in the st place or is your challenge to the back end that it extends the time period that there ceased it's the nd which is that if the police take the person's identification and just look at their name or ask them what their name is that's probably a permissible step on in almost every interaction between police and citizens where there is some reason i think stands for that but it's an entirely different investigation if you then take the person's i card go back to the car type in their information and run their names through various law enforcement databases to find out what their status is and whether they may be wanted on a warrant so where should the line be drawn if your basis is the time of detention where should the line be drawn a term sustainable for a terry stop where you're not questioning the stop itself it is whether the additional investigation is reasonably related to confirming or dispelling the reasonable suspicion that the officer had asked and the problem with the city's policies as they currently stand is that they've done away with any requirement of individualized suspicion in order to conduct this separate investigation  given the officers observe a group of people one of whom is drinking a beverage that is in a paper bag officer believes the person may be drinking an alcoholic beverage on the public way broaches them and the person says it's coca cola and then the is our contention that thanks to an reasonable to ten chance well it's a matter there if the person willingly turned over his id i think that there are certainly circumstances under which voluntary encounter can be permissible i mean the police are allowed to ask questions so long as the person is not compelled to stay however i think all of the plaintiffs testified that it was never may i see your id it was s testified to in their depositions is that they did not feel free to refuse the officers demands for their identification on and they were seized and could not even till after the officers returned identification and said you are  mr hall is observed holding out a cop asking for money on the bridge advised not to walk but yesterday in traffic name check where mr gardner was approached because he appeared to be homeless and the weather was cold he told the officer i'll be returning home to my mother's house later tonight take his id name check clear on so under those circumstances it seems that the police are under the impression that running a name track a permissible part of any interaction with the citizen no matter what the cause for its initiation no matter what the purpose of the investigation is and no matter whether they've already dispelled  and the plane the district court said that according to the cards that the police officers prepare these checks are done in approximately two thirds cases not all what are we to make of that while there are several things one is that the city does not have a policy requiring police officers to document when they conduct a name track so all we have was our statisticians analysis of when it was actually recorded so we have millions of instances during which name checks were recorded at but we really don't have a way of knowing whether they were conducted more often than that i would also say that the two thirds estimate is  likely an underestimate because we used a conservative methodology to analyze the data base our expert witness analyzed a smaller sample of three hundred dollars randomly chosen cards and saw that in seventy eight percent of those cases there was a name check indicated and in only whether it's sixty seven percent or seventy eight percent it is not all and a good deal of your argument supposes that these are do all the time i'm asking is the significance of the fact i take it in the stablish fact in this record that they're not done all the time i think the problem is that the city's policies and training and way of doing business has authorized police officers to do it all the time and in fact the police officers testimony was that they are authorized to conduct a name check every time they conduct a terry stop or even a well being  on an individual so police officers are given the misimpression that they are authorized to detain individuals for the sole purpose of investigating whether they are wanted on that's what the problem is here the city of chicago continues to use training materials that have been in use for almost twenty years now they give that exact impression all of the police officers who are deployed in this case testified that they had never been questioned about name checks they were conducting during their terry stops and so when you look at the whole universe of information that the police are getting both from their supervisors from the top brass the departments from the written in video training materials they entirely across the board testified to no more than officers approaching them asking whether they had identification the plaintiff saying yes and handing it to the officer dossers conducting a name checked and then returning the identification with a name check with the supreme court's decision makes clear that asking a person for identification even where the person is told that he was not told that he may refuse is not a th amendment seizure rather the test for a seizure is an objective one and asked whether a reasonable person would believe that he was free to refuse the of force to compel them to comply again they merely testified the officers asked whether they had identification whether they could see it and the plaintiff complied and gave it to the officer and even with c p t documents do show that officer was briefly sees plain in some cases those records also establish that there was probable cause or reasonable suspicion for the seizures were officers observed players violating the panhandling ordinance or other laws they have probable cause in those cases to cite plaintiffs or to arrest them and in such cases those are not investigatory stop pursuant to terry and do not have to end as quickly as possible but even where the officers only have a reasonable suspicion to investigate the plaintiffs the supreme court this court and other courts across the country of all hel that the th amendment generally allows officers to kentucky name checks during a legitimate terry stop these courts have concluded the name checks during stops are recently brief and minimally intrusive and that they help to ensure officers as a matter of law the those that situation we've had we know for example that police can use a drug detection dog provided it doesn't take too long and i'm worried that your are going into trucks are always permissible no matter correct on a reasonably prolonged strike and here i can certainly imagine these structures unduly prolonging stops it's possible your honor or two but the problem for these plaintiffs is that they have to see no evidence of any such occurrence in any of their stops none of them testified to the name check itself having extended the stop for a reasonable period of time or certainly not beyond the point at which reasonable suspicion a dissipated in their cases or something you know is that's money where should we draw the line when to sit become but i think that unfortunately that's a as with many things under the th amendment that if a case by case determination based on the tally of the facts and so you have to look at the fact of each encounter and again players can remember the facts of most of their encounters and in the ones that they did remember for the most part they didn't contest it there was reasonable suspicion they didn't allege that the name check was being it was the reason the officers ever extended any of theirs there you know encounters for a prolonged period for that reason these players simply failed on their evidentiary burden to carry their claims here there was one plaintiff i believe testified that the encounter took team to twenty minutes the entire encounter to but the plane that plane is also said that the name check itself took a few minutes of that time and didn't say that the name check was the reason that the encounter extended that long in fact the plane could remember the reasons why that encounter occurred what the officer said to him why the officers approach them what the officers did during that time other than running check or how long any of those other activities took so again there was simply no evidence that it was the name check that extended that what do we have any any of the play tips allegations man the supreme court's pattern of the officer say ok i've got all the information i need and oh by the way now i'm going to run this  and when they did they did not testify to anything along those lines and again that leaves only a handful of well being checks the plaintiffs allege and during which officers ran name checks to ensure the welfare of the plaintiffs who appeared homeless on the streets and nothing in the evidence to dispute the documents that said the author stopped or encounter these plaintiffs and asked them for or had an interview them and ran their names in order to ensure that they had shelter or had a place to stay were not missing from the hospital or otherwise that disappeared place policymaker claims also fail because every also testified that he was never directed to conduct name checks during every stop and in any event the th amendment general allows name checks to race off as long as they do not where there is extended for any reason of reasonable suspicion has dissipated please ignore all the voluminous recruit and in service training on this issue instead focus on a single hypothetical within a video that was designed to train officers on how to establish reason training that stops may not extend beyond just the patient resembles this and as far as what's in those training materials player services allege that those train materials show that officers should conduct name checks after reasonable suspicion is dissipated but all this with regard to plaintiff's mo now theories of liability policies the training the supervisory guidance and the practices throughout the department are intertwined here and what they added up to was a message being given to chicago police officers that it is permissible and appropriate to conduct a name check during every terry stop without regard to whether it extends the length of time the person with regard to the plaintiff testimony and evidence it is true that the plaintiffs could not identify particular dates during their depositions but their memories of what happened during their encounters with the chicago police during which they were name checked were quite clear which is that the police would demand they hand over their identification card they would do sell and then the police would walk away with their id card and either call over a radio or type information into a computer and they were not free to leave until the officer gave back their i and said they were clear and far from the officers testifying that they checked the plaintiff's names to check on their well being the officers consistently testified that they did not know why they ran the plate and i think there's a reason for that which is that this was so and it was being done thousands of times a week the police officers whom we deposed oftentimes testified that they did this during every stock they made that it was the team practice so really what we have is a jury question look at the testimony the officers who gave the testimony the plaintiffs gave and all of the surrounding evidence including the documents the city of chicago produce show the circumstances of these stops and when you put this all together you have a question about whether the city's practices are reasonable and whether the plaintiffs rights were violated so we're asking for