and spinners argument on appeal that you didn't state a cause of action in connection to your claims regarding the nd amendment documents no i am not i think the morning your honor my name's lorraine jonica i am counsel for franklin county and also for probation officers spinner and jada the st thing that i would like to point out obviously there's there's two sort of whether this question really turns on whether the function is subject to the procedural safeguards of the judicial process and that's really the crux of determining whether or not absolute immunity versus qualified immunity applies and as when a counsel had stated before it's not the important thing to emphasize here is that it is not official or the government official job title or that it such as whether or not they are a complaining witness defendant whatever they may be the  the status and their title is just not relevant to the determination of whether or not absolute immunity applies it's the function that these probation officers had in each and at the time and i think that your honour's has had mentioned before that with respect to spin or statement during the in chambers conference you really can not get as far as a probation officer's action submitted had the have the probation or revocation or process been commenced at that time absolutely your honor it was actually commence so the probation department initially filed  doctoring it does with respect to again getting back to if there were these procedural safeguards in place at the time that the probation officer had engaged or on that affidavit even before it was filed the real the real a significant part to that is that there's no question that the probation violation proceeding had been marijuana which is not being contested on this appeal finally on august th two thousand and fifteen after the probation department was able to  get in communication with the tupper lake police department who was also who assisted in the plaintiff the rest had done a field test confirming that there was in fact methamphetamine and discovered at the planets residence on the venture you i'm saying that it was there's there's no argument that these procedural safeguards were in clay and that it was an adversarial proceeding at the time that truth say all kinds of things that are turned out not to be accurate with respect to a defendant and then say well you know protected by absolute  immunity it's a judicial proceeding are you basically asking for a blank check  no your honor also what i wanted to emphasize in regard to that is that when you're really looking at the absolute immunity question of law it has effort and apart from the actual action as long as these procedural safeguards were put in place not a consideration here i'm not really talking about motives some just talking about empirically where somebody defense and the defendant had were given an opportunity to review the p s o are the defendant to challenge the accuracy of the report and require the government to prove declined to even put the statements on the record well i think that in response to your question then a nerve that we had touched on it a little bit before there's really no doubt that he was provided his due process protection here his former criminal defense attorney within that room right before that and thing was put on the record and at that point everyone knew what the allegations were everyone knew what the charges were and they still made the voluntary decision to plead guilty not not to the charge in the nd amended affidavit but to multiple other charges regardless of what the content was it's really undisputed that was provided to profit protection here multiple times and can i ask a question i mean the right and i think that i understand what you're saying that getting back to the point where it's so important to determine whether the function or whether the action that was engaged in was engaged in at the time that the procedural  safeguards were in place that was what the lower you slice sale and i was bored either you saying that that if they weren't there that absolute immunity in this case depends on whether there saying that if the if there were no checks here as a matter of fact then there would not be absolute immunity i think it also i think it depends on the function of the law was pretty clear that it's sort of what point put in place and there's no doubt that they were in the state that this parole violation proceeding had already been initiated i think that that and on top of the fact that when you're just be absolute or qualified immunity what point those actions were engaged in i think that that really serves to sort of sort of finalize that does not happen that it is not a blank check but you're so you're i mean you would d well i think again i not as a broad proposition but i think again it just really turns on the specific function at the time that it was engaged in here there's there's really no question about it that obviously in another case an arrest warrant or you know something that had occurred prior to the negotiation of the proceeding then it would be more in line with a qualified immunity but again as even plaintiffs had mentioned just just previously they applies thank you thank you your honor we will now hear two minutes