you raised well grounds you didn't either require proof correct that's correct and you've only you've only brought a claim against the municipality the no individual event is here that's correct ok and so what's your best case  moving force was prevalent for basic throughout this jail and if you look at the facts that are very fact intensive you will see that there is a complete disregard your say that your argument to think that the the sign is the policy but i do believe that this jail was so fish was there were so melody line with what a proper running jail should be the only daily that the final final policymaker the chief police in the responses afterward directly reflected what it was before in other words their attitudes own expert moore who frazier states if you have a person that is not checked for three hours i got to assume that somewhere in there is going to be more the chief of police themselves also indicated photos of all these of the area looky here in and out of the prison a jail or show that there was no jail check because when you blow up that photo you can see at nine fifty or ten thirty whatever time it was well when you look at the actual cell footage well the inside self put it don't put it are you disputing that the cell footage that distance is focused on the jailers they actually do get up and leave in about eighteen well that's where his testimony changes in his deposition he told the texas rangers in transcript under oath that he had laid eyes on the going into the jail cell that he actually talked to you know that he was check in you know him out about what he can do to to get a room you know to have to assume you're innocent this was a situation where it just didn't happen for those realities when they should have but they didn't even come in to make those two so when you say three hours that requires you to embrace officer  looking at the cameras correct it's not as if the two dealers doing the signs were there for three hours working on signs right they arrive at eight then there's the disputed question of whether they actually checked through the window or many in any ten and then  danger but not suicide and not and then he may or may not of related that conversation the booking camera video doesn't exist anymore then we have the g l as you focused on doing the signs they could just as well been reading a book but but but they haven't been told he's suicidal and neither is his friends so i guess what i'm really looking for is do you have any case that meets the deliberate indifference standard of any of these individuals had actual knowledge of his advocated the mistreatment of detainees but there's no allegation the police chief here knew of this man suicidal tendencies he may have told them read books or not but your honor it wasn't the police chief that went out to investigate jail was the fischel incurred from the intentional mistreatment of the detainees evidence by the final policy maker ordering the custom training and posting things openly advocating the mistreatment of detainees in a manner grossly consistent the only order that existed in this case really that would go to the post was the person who check order and that's on eighteen record of eighteen death or zero zero four for death point here ok but if that both both those are the clear who orders from the chief this doesn't sound like a case against the municipality right if anything you've just said that the municipality was clearly telling all these people check watch always check every hour and they didn't so where's the case against the defendant to be forced to make or it's comes from the policy maker but you just told me his policy was you will have to be checking well that's what he said but unless he wants to coming in to work so she called the police because she was concerned they might hurt each other because they were fighting she'd not mention suicide she agreed percent luis never mentioned suicide that said  record eleven sixty two sixty two and eleven sixty seven also the mother did not call this significant the mother did not call him a gym or for treatment suicide treatment that's at six o nine she was aware when i asked her in a deposition she agreed that all the police can do is arrested if the police ever have any reason to believe that under arrest he has some kind of issue ties in with the chiefs general approach to having a wrist is there which is if they're happy and quiet they're not my problem they'll be somebody else's problem later maybe over jail but they're only here for a short period of time so i'm going to do whatever i can to make them happy if they want all the number of phone calls they want they can have them if they want water burger i will get him what a burger granted his style may be unorthodox but he did not have any actions or procedures or policies or rules or regulations that would have constituted a violation of anybody's rights now i don't mean this offensively but i think what the mother wanted was a babysitter the police are not babysitters the police chief wanted somebody to come get him take him somewhere else where he could dry out and he's not going to get in fight with brother mother did not say she wanted any kind of specific any concern about suicide she said i'm afraid he might hurt himself or his brother now sheetrock on drugs are just on drugs or both they found he's on drugs he's drinking he's fighting the mother says i'm worried about him being in danger then when he gets there he goes unchecked for three hours actually that's not accurate but the me finish i'm just putting the full assembly in i'm wondering why this wouldn't be actual knowledge of a suicide and see if the allegation is he goes unchecked three hours well in and and it's undisputed he's banging frantically loudly but but it turns out in stead the officers that might respond to a frantic frightened person are doing these deeply offensive signs and the last piece of the puzzle is that it seems the allegation is too critical pieces of evidence the booking video that would show how compromised was he as well as the law that would validate the claim that they actually checked the minutes before he committed suicide those two have been altered according to the allegation why is it that assembly of facts all those things however the evidence did not show that to back it up a little bit i say zero evidence show that no evidence supported since didn't support most of that let me break it down ok the ice agents arrived at eight forty nine the write so when he goes and asked the witnesses questions during the deposition is he saying look at the video it says eight eight zero eight ten and nobody's doing anything but we know that they left the room but we don't know that they actually went in and spoke because the camera doesn't show do we didn't have that camera that was not requested that was not saved for whatever reason the texas rangers came in and asked for all the documents and evidence that they want to reproduce everything that they asked for and in doing so they didn't ask for that one for whatever reason and as a result we didn't say that it didn't occur to us that nobody asked to say that when a particular before you say that one i thought was just a booking when this missing there's another was missing there's different cameras when he's in the booking and that's the one you have that's when we that was presented here there are several one that's in the jail booking room is coming in this way jails coming in this way and it would have shown an angle i don't know that it would have shown inside the jail it shows the edge of the door to the jail there i thought we absolutely do have the one that gets obscured and that one doesn't show them ever coming in the cell that that's different that one was at security inside the jail there's three or so anyway the one leading into the jail area is the one we're talking about at the eight ten more what he's asking questions to the witness he's using what the video actually says instead of backing it up to the ten more so he's getting answers that you're right it doesn't show that  what it does show is that seven seconds after the ice age is going at eight forty nine for men seven seconds later the jailer turned into the jail area from that camera from the booking area that's the one that you have and then you have the four men carry the officer and they released all the documents back the texas rangers took whatever darkness they felt were proprium and then the officer officer garza got that booking sheet went to the video checked when he went back there made a notation on the booking sheet that that was a time that he had gone back there because you could see it on the video that he's going from the booking area to the jail area it doesn't show the general area but it shows that he was going towards that area and that's where he was able to do the right that recollection at that time when we had to texas rangers at that was an appropriate way of doing that they agreed yes it was because a lot of times you don't do things in real you don't write notes of what you did in real what happened was at eight ten percent always was making noise prior to that time when they make reference to him making noise it wasn't over a three hour period and for that matter if you look at the video that was available to the dispatcher prior to that time period you see him doing something than playing with the water he had basically flooded the cell area and he had been banging on the door that happened before eight ten after you modify or just for the time of the camera that happened before eight ten at that point after you could kind of see him hanging on the bars holding on to the bars and what looks like he's talking to somebody from the inside the jail camera after that you don't see him banging anymore you don't see him doing anything before the cameras covered inside the jail cell so he's he's doing whatever he's doing but the noise and all that was what caused officer carson court not allowed to go into the cell they talked to him at that point all i thought she said she assumed a plaintiff has to show that a public officers response indicates subject intention that harm occur and then she went through one by one and said i don't see now what we're talking about is the whether the whether there was evidence of an intent to harm to establish some form of episodic act and i didn't see it i think the judge found any that there was any evidence that the judge ever shift to the alternate valid theory that you just have to no show actual knowledge of a suicidal tendency in the district or never consider the actual knowledge of what suicidal tendencies they did i think they said that in order i mean that gets back to whether you're showing that the conditions of confinement amusing i'm just asking you to tell us what is the best reason you think we should affirm this rule what's the best instead of telling me that they made a complicated argument episodic actual missions if you're talking about what any individual did you still got to show objective even if you subjectively show that the individual intended to perform you still have to show a customer a policy objective opinion that would establish liability and they found out well the disc will never reach that level never got to the municipal because they never were able to establish that there was any subjective intend to harm i suggested to you is that that is not the correct more but that's a higher standard than the supreme court and or controlling president would require all that's got to be shown by a plaintiff is that they had actual knowledge of the suicidal tendency to disregard that they don't have to have a subjective intent to don't see a custom in policy in fact the plaintiffs are saying the customs who calls these who are in fact we're the ones that we wish had been bhalo wouldn't matter anyway right and what i'm saying is that what the court was looking at was there was no deliberate indifference on the part and that's why she valuated each individual's actions it was no deliberate indifference of any of those individuals which would be the first step before you get to the post where policy of the city there was no deliberate indifference of anybody because they didn't know about any  but what he was asking was what do you do and she said this is what i do now they have a glass window and the jailers are monitoring through a glass window where they can see it they didn't have it at the time when he's asking the question he's asking what do they do she says the jailers look through the windows so i'm not i don't have to be concerned with that because they're doing it it's now their job to do that at the time we didn't have that window and it was the jailers i'm sorry the dispatcher's judy to review that has their theory of municipal liability based on presence behavior been one they feel your training has that been their theory i could say he's made noises that sound like that i don't know that he's made that claim specifically but the failure to train she was trained as a dispatcher she was trained that she has to look at the camp she had they have not identified and if this effect basis to support a claim that what they did was not sufficient or that some other training was constitutionally mandated what they're want to say is there's a lot of other things that we would like them to have done but they haven't identified anything that's constitutionally mandated that we had to do the only connection they had to a possible suicide was the first officer silva with a mother said i'm afraid they might hurt each other or i'm afraid he might get hurt he never do that inference that there was a suicide risk eat and even if he did he didn't repeated twenty body else he did not indifferent to be able to get past that f he's not talking about a single incident thank you's there has been no other evidence i would refer to i think you had a question earlier about a prior instance that he had referred to the prior instance had to do with the rest of somebody  premises who also was under a i believe that person was tase he was on the ground he i think it coded for a while but then he came back he was taken to the hospital and died at the hospital i want to say three or four hours i would refer to the state of pollard which i believe wrote to the court that knowledge that even knowledge of the suicidal nature of a recent suicide attempt neglect and performing fifteen minute check is not deliberate indifference as in this case it didn't even rise to that level everything that they did here might have been ignorant might have been they didn't have enough information to be able to decide but you can't show deliberate indifference on the part of anybody necessary to get to  distinction for example it was a it involved a get a guy who was complaining about a medical condition he thought he asked for medical treatment and the guard ignored him didn't give it to him till after the end of the weekend and i think  he complained later about the injury that he had to suffer over the weekend with a court found was that the officer who did made a specific response for assistance or requests for medical treatment could be deliberately indifferent however the claim against the supervisors for failing to protect him to supervision or to misclassifying his injury were not reliable could you can show they were deliberately indifferent in other words if one person's visit had specific knowledge of a particular potential injury or risk or request for some form of medical treatment and then offer refused to give it you could argue at least even though he didn't do anything not action that he might be liable but where you don't have even that against anybody in our case i don't think you can establish deliberate indifference or the customer policy of the city that's the main distinction because in most of the other cases that are talking about what happened they're talking about specific affirmative action as opposed to non action this case is full of non action he's complaining that we didn't do something when he believes we should have done something although there's no evidence to establish we knew there was a risk of suicide  beyond the initial officer there was no indication from anyone that anybody at the jail would or should have known of a risk of suicide and without that you can't hold the city line for not taking action or developing policies where they did not know no right to a certain suicide screening or prevention protocols a supreme court case and then with the stephens county where there's no constitutional violation for failure to train for late suicidal tendencies my time s response to the discovery of this deceit and suicide attempt now that footage is your i was indicating that specifically for when he was initiated the booking process at five fifty five at the dive police department jail to six o five am was destroyed ok the booking footage video was destroyed and that came after i had requested that preservation of that footage that video within three days after this event occurred at the jail and that along with the alteration of the of that with the fact that you never put it as a lead that there was some type of a jailer's cause that was there before this event occurred which they were just completely have your go in there and talk to you no it's not present you'd meant we didn't do it and then you come back around and go contrary to what they told the rangers you know or they're just so many misrepresentation