you you should be aware that we've read all of the paper receipt in the case that we're familiar with all of that you don't have to repeat anything more you'd like to say to us that we just want salem good morning everybody and is on basically on but officer and then he does own investigation by contacting hudson county should shift apartment and during that point you know i was arrested and the charge was drawn up as a probation and stay in new jersey or transferred to new york that was october tenth two thousand two thousand and twelve that and appendix page twenty two page twenty twenty three and that would have been add the morning may please the court my name is cheryl alterman i'm representing the defendant officer or a suit here in his office or darby first would like to explain to the court that officer did have probable cause to effectuate the arrest back on april fifteenth of two thousand and fifteen when the plaintiff went through customs and it was his passport had popped for an out of warrant the u s customs officer was the first agency to investigate whether or not there was an active warrant for the arrest which was corroborated by hudson county sheriff's office then that information was relayed to port authority police at j f k airport who in turn conducted their own independent investigation did a search a criminal history background of the plaintiff to find out whether or not there were any open and active warrants in new jersey to confirm the informations that was received from customs and hauled the hudson county sheriff's office who faxed to port authority police at j f k airport that there was an act of war for plaintiffs arrest on the date back in april two thousand and fifteen and they were seeking to extradite plaintiff based on that open warrant so once that information was learned by the officer he did effectuate the arrest and everything when in accordance with the paperwork and the investigation that was had nothing to do the port authority at that point he was in queens central booking and he was out of the port authorities controlling custody when the port authority kept him during the entire period of time the port authority had him in custody there was an open warr the warrant did not get vacated by the state of new jersey until the plaintiffs contacted his attorney mr elisa and he had to go to court and have the warrant vacated at that point in time he was out of the port authority custody control he was in queens central booking and the port authority had nothing to do with it millennium right and the port authority is an independent agency from that a complaint was filed and the district court to a spondee dismissed the claims against the port authority defendant the agency the city of new york the department of corrections and the district attorney and the only person who had to appear answer in this case was officer dover a who we filed a motion to dismiss on his behalf and now and with respect to the appeal we're also representing port authority as an agency with respect to the argument whether or not an amendment would have been if you teil it's our position that it would have been because it would not have negated the probable cause for the arrest and just to point out which was addressed in our papers that amending the complaint was never brought up during the district court at any point in time after we filed our letter motion to dismiss in plaintiff's opposition to our letter motion to dismiss he never asked for an opportunity to amend the complaint and the law in this court is very clear that the court does not have to act as a pro se litigants counsel there is no requirement t court had to require him to seek leave to amend the complaint there was never an argument below that he would like to amend the complaint for the stated reasons and was not given the opportunity to do even but even if this court were to entertain that argument it would not have changed the result that there was probable cause for the arrest there by granting officer qualified immunity for his actions that  day and with respect to the other claims against the port authority defendants those were also properly dispossessed sue a spontaneous in the september seventeenth two thousand and fifteen decision by the district court because the only claims against the port authority defendant was under section one thousand nine hundred three and there was not any evidence of deliberate indifference for failure to train officer deliberate and in fact his actions show that he acted reasonably and that he did his own due diligence and conducted an independent investigation as to whether there was an open warrant and and did not just rely on the custom search and investigation that was done but when above and beyond and conducted his own investigation to confirm that there was an open morn and that hudson county was seeking extradition for the plaintiff on the date that the port authority had him in custody and control thank officer can rely on information that comes from another police officer even if it's a mistake and as long as the relying more on the surprising no doubt and thinks that it is in fact valid so it thank you very much we'll take this matter and your advice when and try and get your decision as soon as we can well here