district court's decision should be reversed based on insta niland qualified immunity because based on the undisputed facts there was probable cause for the plaintiff's attorneys arrest or at the very least arguable probable cause for the three criminal charges at issue st robbery in the st degree nd conspiracy to commit robbery tragically because there was a murder a def involved in connection with that mr washington was exposed to a felony murder charge so let me focus on the undisputed facts that compel the conclusion that qualified immunity was denied to the law enforcement professionals because the material facts regarding the murder of one marshal wiggins are really not in dispute there was a question regarding whether mr washington was an active willing participant in that conspiracy or whether as he contended he was forced to  will confuse by that i don't know what case you would cite for that suppose you have i'll give you a hypothetical suppose a police officer to someone pull gone pointed at another individual that individual in response that pulls out a gun and shoots them in self defense you're suggesting that a police officer could sign an affidavit before a judge establishing probable cause waiving out that the gun was killed by the other person st and just disposed to the judge i witnessed this person shooting other person you're suggesting because it's an affirmative defense it doesn't that a judge can't consider that in determining whether or not it was probable cause is that what you're suggesting no no not not all your honor but i think that example is new extreme example the fact that mr washington said that he put pointed the gun at me it was a one shot fired he pointed the gun at me told told the person to give me the glasses and then when the murder happened i fled not even all the witnesses including him as as credible so i don't you know obviously we're this is this where there's a disputed fact that's material and i'm having a hard time understanding if mr washington is believed by those facts what an immaterial probable because one there was perhaps a sheer impossibility and this is where the court made a plain error or district court in its ruling specifically noted or stated that mr washington was in the seat behind the drive to the plaintiff in his argument is that they believe them to begin with that's why they arrested a guest on based upon what he said the only thing that changes that they want to leverage because they were worried they would testify i'm your i would submit robbery but the fact that he would point to obviously that was a complete about that was the reason i didn't do that was that a gun was pointed at me and i thought i would my wife was in danger essentially in the whole city it happen obviously very rapidly but that sentence goes directly to the issue you basically are going to the judge in that sense like he could have gotten out of there and he had the glasses in his hand and his point was a gun was pointed at me and he realized i had the glasses in my hand and that well that's not actually even what mr washington state didn't state and the guns going back and forth now i wrote that i read that this morning on page eight is in ninety nine or ninety eight i went back and looked at that he specifically said the gun was pointed at me he also said every detail of every night that's i think that's a new rule and so this is a situation where a basic denial was there you're saying that i need to include more detail right ye a minimum this disputed whether or not they continue to believe from day one that his entire story was credible and when they continue to believe that throughout even when they were doing the restaurant that's a disputed fact right correct your honor i mean again certainly certainly if they thought his entire state  knowledge or involvement or your view is that it was imperative that it also say that he had an explanation for why he had the same right that there was a lot of the in that interim a what makes probable cause is because washington took the glasses he fled the shooting scene with the glasses and he threw them with in the woods to the extent that he had a defense that is something that would be in a firm that was my st question to you though to suggest i misunderstood your argument but now you're reasserting at that and a form of defense whether it be to rest self defense is not something that a judge issuing arrest warrant on the issue of probable cause to consider and therefore if we thought there's no obligation to present where you have two people who are you have a bad witness lineup or you have false statements it's not like leno where you have the withholding of exculpatory forensic information of knowledge that's why the fight immunity gives him this breathing room to me reasonable but mistaken judgments he included in the more an application all of what he deemed to be relevant and important facts and even exculpatory facts like mr washington statement that he couldn't believe what was happening he was afraid he didn't know that there was going to be a robbery he wasn't a participant he included all of that level of detail he didn't include the fact about if you're if you're preparing to offer his his testimony in a criminal trial against guest on then seems to me that it's it's odd to say that there was there was no reason offered him his testimony to convict somebody else and i'm not sure how you can say that that that there was no reason to take his credibility into account i think this is why the prosecutor   i'm willing to rely on now will reserve decision thank you both