appellee knowledge is this it says here we are unable to locate precedent case law with facts that exactly match the facts in this we are unable to locate an eleventh circuit case where plaintiffs upper deprivation of her liberty due to  officers ignoring overwhelming evidence that the detainees was an american born american citizen and yet held in anticipation of an ice hold the exact facts of this case might be a case of first impression for this or the district court in the plaintiff utilize it's different it cuts against me however it was not decided until after the the incident in this case anyway so it would not be of much use on a qualified immunity base after the fact well unless let me say then the question becomes was there probable cause and i think if there's an ice to terror there's at least arguable probable cause but here we don't actually have a nice day we have this strange sheet of paper which says it's not based on said i'm not sure that i agree with the court that that the fourth amendment governs as opposed to the fourteenth that it's an interesting issue and i don't know that there's any particular clarity there or not that does  in this case because she asserted both fourth and fourteenth amendment claims it's not like if she put on the fourth and you're arguing it's fourteenth and so she loses because she brought the wrong name she brought them all standard is the standard is a little more difficult to go to the fourteenth and then with the deliberate a different standard is going to be different with regard to the probable call it analysis under the fourth amendment but here again putting aside the individual well because i think with regard to even supreme court precedent back of arson mcmullen the folks at the jail don't don't have the obligation to resolve whether or not there's enough there for a conversion because they was you may be correct about that but because the the language of the the other language that that was within the document from ice it indicated that the subject appeared not to be in the country illegally and may be subject to remov proceedings that was what that was what prompted we can assume miss kirkman to make the decision that she did but i would get back to the reason it wouldn't wouldn't create a travel issue here is because  that and she said she spoke to folks at the jail it was they were female so she didn't speak out of state and then the sister she came after ashley mills left that is seven o'clock she was there three thirty when she was processed and the sister did not come back until the next day and so the defend it in this case was ms mills there the next day or no no ms mills left at seven o'clock and she did not work the next day and the stating was not they are but the booking documents there is a notation in there attributing a statement to captain state in two if they don't get information from us to release her by certain time that's what is because the the document to say that that led to this from us does provide some evidence at least of a reason to believe that the person is in the country illegally it turns out that certainly not the case but i would say that this was similar to in some regards a hold for another jurisdiction that from time to time when they call and say tax them based on their charges and it would be similar to that not that it i don't know that there's any binding decision on this but  i understand what judge hall says about about the riverside case and that certainly forty eight hours is not a is it deals with whether a probable cause determination m but fundamentally i have a problem with and understanding not your question judge rosen mom but as judge help it when the second arrest occurred that he refers to and i don't see that there is this second arrest here judge paul referred to it as a second arrest and and what it looks like to me is that with regard to these types of cases whether it's the fourth or fourteenth and i understand what the court says that may not automatically matter but as to which applies is that judge how clearly family were probable cause for an initial rich she was not in there illegally which all of these other cases that seem to say and most recently the manual versus city of do it case involve claims that there was no probable cause ever to start with to hold and therefore there was not a a citation of the fourth amendment claim at that point i think this is different where she's clearly i think it matters because of the problems that we mentioned from the individualized assessment of each defendant where i think judge paul got it most wrong was where he repeatedly used the term defendants and there was no particular detaining officer and what was her role and what was required of her definitely there's a lot of information about mills he does talk about state and later wrong about how he sort of ratified mills's decision and how he could have been a time stop this whole thing so maybe some of the details are not provided individually but i believe that when he was doing some assessment there he was lumping them together because both of them were responsible for the same duties and i think that's how he got to that so i think we're actually ok on that but if this court finds not we are absolutely she needed to investigate at least a little bit of that there was information practically slapping her in the face telling her that this is an american born american citizen the only not determinative correct and the appellant's never made any accusation that that driver's license was faked or fraudulent in any way in fact officers norman and muncie identified her clyde's store with that driver's license and was satisfied with that identification even though on the record it was technically suspended not return and the next day was when ms hynie osa came right with the records miss in a in a ho so was there that evening protesting but she had not have the records on that this detainer was there arguable probable cause we're talking about a fax document that actually says this is not a detainer that was their first clue the law says that even if ice wants to hold someone they must have probable cause in which to do so they did not have probable cause they they knew that they didn't have the appellant's knew that ice didn't have probable cause because of the way they detain a was it or the so called detainer was worded it said it was without the benefit of fingerprints she had miss her had a social security number there were three telephone numbers on that fa document for the appellants to call and get information about to say hey this lady has given me a social security number and she claims to have been born and in south carolina can we recheck this that's just a minuscule amount of time and effort that miss mills could have taken in order to rectify this situation in addition miss mills have at length conversation with her as you can see in the deposition she was asking her about her three young children and where they were going to go when she was deported miss mr had three young children ranging in ages from six to nine at that time and they were at home crying for their mom so with regard to captain stateman captain stayton i believe was called twice according to the records in the me just go back to miss mills for one second my pundit has mentioned several times that mr officer kirk kirkland or sergeant kirkland was the one who made the decision however it's not noted in the inmate information sheet that mr kirkland had any kind of interaction regarding this situation if you'll no of well miss mills claimed in deposition that she was trained on all of her jobs and sergeant i'm sorry sheriff anderson was indicated on his deposition that ice training and immigration training was given to all of the deputies so we can assume that ashley mills knew what she was doing when she did it and that did she did not in that she had the authority to do what she did and she did not have to go herself stated in her deposition i've been trained on all of she claims in deposition not to remember miss her whatsoever that when she was shown a picture of she didn't remember her face yet she spent more than three hours with her and had a conversation about her children so we just think it was a little bit convenient that she had no memory once we got her on deposition now captain stayton was called it by the sister within an hour or two well they did not allow it to post until right before they released her they threw it in a file drawer as indicated by the inmate information sheet and they they say right sister's deposition that she spoke to the lady who said that everything was taken care of and that it was actually the bondsman that informed the sister that she was on a nice hold that he knew all of the information and was in a position to ask for more information or even a copy of the facts i'm sorry i don't recall that i'm sorry don't recall that at this point if he was asked that directly statement and didn't believe that ashley mills did anything wrong he thought that there was a detainer in there and that's fine he thinks that it's arguable probable cause that just because he got this fax document that she had every right to hold her indefinitely and in fact stayton said that she could be released on monday and this was thursday that she was being held so you know it would have been an additional forty eight hours before she was released maybe even more than forty eight hours before she was released so everyone in this scenario aside from this alex are apparently thought they were doing the right thing i think they saw that she was a spanish made the determination that of course this is ice ice knows what they're doing we're going to hold her and they really didn't give any other consideration to the facts or the information that was blatantly there for them to see had they just done a cursory investigation i see that my time is getting short what i did want to say is this morning on television i notice that the president was specifically saying that he did not want judges did not like judges didn't want it and i think that in a case like this just become all the more important especially as we determine what we're going to do about immigration if an american born american citizen can have her liberty taken from her by one simple piece of paper that's shocking and it shocks the consciousness of everyone concerned thank  ten minutes whether processing her even though and i apologize in our original brief for reasons we explain later in the perp reply brief we had the time wrong the five forty four the judge jordan mentioned it was actually around three thirty when she we corrected that in the in the reply brief it was also it's pretty clear from the deposition testimony that it was not it was not miss meals but the lady next  and other than she processed her in which took about ten minutes and that she may have gotten she may have been the one to take her fingerprints she didn't think that she was but the the plaintiff says that she took her fingerprints but the fingerprints would have been submitted to a database that goes to various law enforcement databases but she received this and what's not again not clear from the record that we have is that the document was actually a teletype this probably did not come at the same time it may have come over over a little drawn out period but when she print she did alternately print out the information that the the hitler side that they were safe from ice that said subject may be in the country illegally but it also did say this is for law enforcement for information purposes only she says she took that gave it a miss kirkman and let  if there needed to be more development of the record what should be done in the first instance i would i would submit with regard to ms mills that would be no reason to resubmit the case to the district court i'm not going to concede that it should be with regard certainly with regard to ms mills the record is conclusive as to her lack of involvement and she is certainly entitled to reversal i believe that and i would be remiss if i didn't also mention that the city of king lynn case which is relied upon by every lawyer in every case i have with law enforcement anymore and i know from a prior oral argument with you judge jordan that you were the district court judge in kingsland  to look into investigate but at some point that the expansion of kings on the way that the way that it has seemed to go was going to swallow up the rule qualified immunity so i