please the court my name is no a blackman i am counsel for the six in wall officer defendants palin's at this point i'd like to reserve about three minutes for a bottle time this is a unique arrest related case we have a prolong of numerous officers involved with this individual who was subject to arrest or is determined each of these officers were involved at different times use different force options and important occurred in an enclosed space in this enclosed area so we believe that this mandates qualified immunity for these six officers under either of the two prongs really there's two distinct events the court should be aware of here we have the arrest incident and then the post handcuffing treatment by to the officers so really the timing is key in terms of the court's nonces i believe that the court your honors believe in their jurisdiction to hear this appeal so unless your owners have a question about that i'm going to move on to the substance of i do have one question about that and in so far a i don't believe that's exactly how the state of the record your honor for each of the officers it's rather undisputed as to the involvement of each of the officers and i can go through that in detail as well so even taking the pla jurisdiction to hear this because it turns on purely legal issues the key fact for your honour's are this gentleman was st seized in the kitchen is when the st time officers were able to put their hands on him stop his forward movement if you will so really the focus of the case has to do with the events in the kitchen we have the st two officers follow him into the kitchen after numerous commands for him to stop those type of things and then there's a struggle with officers may he glasper in the kitchen that lasts for approximately seventy five seconds until the next officer then is called in when officer significant application of force beyond just i am talking correct your honor but because this gentleman was subject to arrest officers under grammar entitle to use some force to effect that arrest so  force when each of those officers entered in the kitchen if you will so for example the plaintiffs don't even contend that oscar weight used any unreasonable force you can see that in their chart they don't have him doing indicated in the don't bow case going back to the boyd case integra participant only attaches the officers aware of the other decision to violate the law did not object and participated in some meaningful way so i understand judge raise you're talking about the issue about whether makiya choked mr martinez office or wait is not aware of the status of what is occurring ahead of this gentleman whether there's a pressure being applied to his neck whether officer is only holding down his upper body what's occurring so we believe that the court cut a lot of corners the district court in wanting all the officers together and then i think your honor points it would go a little bit more towards  qualified immunity argument whether waite knew that or write it was being attempted or not when as the white sprinkler case said officer wait is intitled to assume that the procedures and the tactics of officers that occurred before he arrived were appropriate so he's entitled to breathing room for his limited involvement in trying to arrest him he can come this gentleman so i think to the court's point that would go handcuffs out to get this gentleman in yes awesome officer glasper is still giving him commands to stop resisting to give up as he and an officer glasper is at some point striking him with approved law enforcement tactics but officer wait cannot be imputed officer glasper force simply because officer weight is assisting in trying to in cause of this arrestable subject that's where i think correct that officer wade believed that officer me he was attempting a carotid let's say then we can still assume that fact for the purposes of this and still provide officer w with qualified immunity because there's no case that was cited by the district court or really the plaintiffs that would have put officer weight an officer in his position at that point in time on sufficient notice that he can't assist in trying to handcuff this gentleman while other officers are doing the same thing and i think when you take the analysis further your honour's with the last three arriving officers they are arriving  about two minutes and fifteen seconds into this struggle really about the last twenty seconds of the struggle essentially last thirty percent of the struggle in those officers don't know what occurred in the prior two minutes fifteen seconds they get in there they know that it's been reported on the radio there was a physical in this house it was reported a nd time that there was a physical struggle they get in there and they see these three officers still did not have this large gentleman under control so they they are at that point are entitled to use force options and indeed the combination of force from those three officers officer palm simply grabbing and trying to m p uncomfy this gentleman elmore comes in uses commands and also also does every distraction strikes and bernie and decisively uses the taser striking mr martinez in the left hip and the combination of that ford with those officers and the other officers were finally able to get this gentleman on his stomach and finally get him handcuffed there's no evidence in this record that after this gym was here there was any good to this force other force other than palma and elmore trying to maintain some control over this previously aggressively combative you see them but which they did by all invalid and putting some amount of weight on them right i mean that but that i buy my point being that that that that is a or at least  entirely distinguishable had to do with force used on a gentleman who was not a criminal suspect he was simply to be placed in custody so we can get a mental health evaluation for example are you don't you don't need a case directly on point but if you don't have anything on point then you really need a robust consensus of cases because if you look at the dish or courts order in this situation there's really no guidance to any of these officers as to what chase street or what consensus of cases clearly outlaw their behavior beyond debate when we look at this in the context of these officers trying to handcuff this large gentleman who's impervious to these pain control techniques is lashing out at officers he's biting an officer he's kicking an officer and as you can see in the video is not allowing himself to be here so all the force led up to the handcuffing and then really the force tactics stopped and i know we have sort of the nd part of the accurate that a number of officers claim basically i wasn't involved let's take opposite wait for instance that's basically what he's saying they're saying that i didn't do i don't use any force and i shouldn't be held a cop to account for what happened in my presence as an integral defendant's basically admit that the integral participation standard is a standard is a doctrine of the th circuit there's nothing that's not clearly established to out so they don't like it but it is clearly establish law and the plaintiffs here have been able to show that these facts meet that clearly established we don't standard and one of the things that you know you have to have to look at any use of force under the ground analysis  versus conner and one of the st things you look at is what was the severity of the crime that issue and this particular crime as any reasonable officer would know was one of the lowest possible crimes it was an infraction a fix it ticket for having a two week old expired registration on his car and then he fled for them for about two hundred yards according to officer wait it wasn't much of us for a flight but technically that could have been a misdemeanor violation of vehicle code two thousand eight hundred then he ran from them that technically could have been a misdemeanor maybe a misdemeanor one hundred and forty eight dollars under california law so those are the although the universe of crimes that he could have been arrested for when he ran back into the house from which they saw him come originally the officers had no legal basis to go into that house so a jury can find that their whole use of force or whole attempt to arrest him was tainted from the beginning because you can't engage in hot pursuit for a misdemeanor and that was all they had this is the admission of at least two of the defendants this is we have nothing more than misdemeanors and even their police chief after review said i don't believe anything rose to the level of felony so they shouldn't have even been in that house in the st place and i think that the illegality of the entry of the house is a factor to consider in whether their arrest was legitimate and the use of force for legitimate so now going out into the force the defendants would like to to suggest that interval participation standard requires something more than just fundamental involvement or meaningful involvement at the courts said because they found on published case cabell volved which seems to suggest that the void case required more than that for instance that the officers were aware that force was about to be used were present could have stopped it and failed to stop it and boy doesn't say that boyd was describing under the facts of that particular case why those officers involvement was meaningful or had fundamental involvement it doesn't mean that in every case you have to show that they had advance notice of the planned use force that just happened to be the facts of the boy kate's the planets clearly meet the integral participation standard by showing that all of these officers were fundamentally involved and the loudly case is a really good application of that standard because that was basically a group of officers involved in a collective use of force against one person and in that situation the court said that basically any officer who physical hands on the person had integral participation in those uses of force correctly doesn't strike after that so it's not enough to make him an integral part of spent on the entire course of events or use only an interval participant when he's there so we're not saying he should be held accountable for what happened while he was in the garage so that's about the st seventy seconds or so of what happened in the kitchen but when he goes into the kitchen then he sees what's happening and i would direct the court so that the excerpts of record pages and seventeen and six hundred and eighteen those are screen shots and those show an officer holding the hancock of based on martinez and they show officer may here at the same time in the same screen shot from the officers camera else is happening but we have to look at this one of them to tally the of the circumstances as our supreme court has instructed us over and over again and if you look at all the circumstances here you have to look at what else is going on what other force is being used how many officers are being involved in this situation and what officer we must have seen as a jury can find was that at that moment officer may here was putting him in a chokehold officer glasper was repeatedly striking him with his hands his elbows his knees and as judge raise pointed out a stump as we also see a picture of in the screenshots and he's holding it down while this happens from other offices so that it not only makes him an integral participant but it also violates the well known standard in this circuit and throughout the country that officers must intervene when they see other officers use excessive force in front of them he had an opportunity to intervene he could have done so virtually he could have done so physically be made no attempt to intervene so officer rates liability is multi faceted for many reasons and he's a least responsible of any of them but even he should not get off it's very clear there's many questions of fact in which a jury can hold him responsible asphyxia that's a term that the th circuit used in the drum in case when they explain exactly the process that's happening here and we're not only relying on the drum in case for what officers palm as of the time of drum and so in the plaintiff's response brief page fifty four dollars footnote five relist about eight or nine of those th circuit cases many of them are unpublished but it's still controlling law i think that we have to follow the requirement to look at these uses of force each of them under traditional th circuit and supreme court standards that is the graham analysis so we start with the seriousness of the crime as i've said it was not a very serious crime the next look to the level of resistance and once or it has explained not all resistance is is resistance that justify the high level of force there's a continuum of resistance repeated multiple times there's another case called nelson versus the city of davis which uses the same terminology for say resistance that's not particularly bellicose cannot justify a serious use of force and may cause injuries now you can argue that some of the time at least in the beginning in the kitchen it looked like mr martinez was trying not to be handcuffed pretty hard but the defendants admit you never attempted to punch or strike or kick any of them there's no evidence of that in the videos so there was no chokehold was done may he agrees it's normal it's reasonable they're trained people will squirm they'll struggle to try to breathe that's normal so the jury could find that much of mr martinez is struggling was provoked by the conduct of the officers the actual excessive force of the officers also officers are also trained about california state law which says all people in his state must submit to an arrest unless excessive force is used and then the right to self defense kicks in and individual still has the right to defend themselves from excessive force which a jury can also find was the explanation for any struggling they might have seen by mr martinez a judge miller points out eventually it's clear in the videos that mr martinez is no longer struggling before he was handcuffed he was basically not moving any more there's multiple answers around him right around that time we see on the video officer elmore punch and seven is when there is when there is no need for any force any force used can be considered excessive force and that was a situation from some certain point in the video when all five officers were present until the very end of the encounter when they finally got  i'd like to answer any questions that the court may have at this point it's that's fine then i'll just conclude when i think about what happens there based on martinez i think about what happened to eric g and george schultz and many others and for each of them as police officers beat and crushed the breath from them their last words were i can breathe now some of those very opposite views are here literally asking for you to give them some breathing room if they may have violated victims rights when they killed him defended violations of bates almightiness his rights were clearly established providing fair notice to any reasonable officer in this case to go to trial thank you fighting those type of things so by the time the struggle was really getting going in the kitchen there's a new fence mall and really it your owners this must have been just from the perspective of the officers and we can see that these officers being forced to make split nd decisions officer glasper is forced to use force stop reassess he still can't get compliance same thing with the three other arriving officers and really the main criticism participant case where the court mentions it in passing in a footnote but what i wanted to impress upon the court is that there are several th circuit decisions that do the officer by officer analysis most recently the two malo case where the court said that the officer who applied the carotid that was not in town qualified immunity but the officer who struck the plate of before was entitle to that and similarly in the  abstinent case which is unpublished but that's a case that was had to do with the post he in coughing positioning one of the officers who was involved in that also tasered gentleman several times before they got him into custody and that officer was provided with qualified immunity so the qualified immunity analysis is an officer by officer individualized analysis not a group analysis the court really did not do that  officers will about a certain tactic for example the flashbang from boyd do not object to it and then go along and assist the integra participant doctrine does not fit well at all in a case like this w you know qualified immunity is supposed to provide officers with breathing room when they're involved in very difficult situations which is what the officers were here they had split seconds to determine what type of force option to use and in fact it took six officers and more than two and a half minutes to get this gentleman in handcuffs mills significant force used on him after that we believe the disher corps failed to do the proper analysis under both problems and that the law is not clearly established as to each of these officers as to each of their involvement when they arrived on the scene and we're asking this court to take a look at those issues really look at the