ok may it please the court i my random car i represent the plaintiffs in this appeal this case involves an illegal stop and detention of three young black men by three white chicago police officers on september twenty third two thousand and fourteen so event that happens dozens of time times every day and to chicago that officers created no police reports gave me no contact cards this was considered by the friend officer so in consequential so and so trivial they don't even remember it happening in the original complaint we district court judge gave them short shrift they admitted they do not know why they may have suspected plaintiffs who were involved in criminal activity they do not know what they knew about a prior shooting incident they do not remember any of the scripture of suspects this area but then in his deposition when i asked him to tell me about what you knew he couldn't come up with any information and in their nutritional admissions they say in this is the this is supposed to on this rule thirty six it is pretty important i think if the if a party says this is where i am i don't recall anything and i can't give you any information at all they are bound by the and they cannot controver so that defendants are doing well if we say we don't remember something it's nothing it's neither here nor there it's not admission of anything but if you have no recollection the brown versus cook county case says parties admitting that the party could not the night be there were gardeners you got a different argument on the jewish admissions potentially if they didn't exist but with the video saying that king knew there was a shooting doesn't that put the different category i don't think so because when the traditional admissions were made the video existed in the defendants knew about it when they gave their deposition testimony and said we don't recall what they what we saw the plane of still we don't even know why we stopped them when they said they had they knew about the video just asking the depositions whether or not they had seen the video yes yes i had the seen the video yes so their responses in the deposition were exclusive of their viewing of the video right now even with seeing the video they said who don't remember this thing happening that there's a baby oh you've got a video where they were in the video but we don't remember what happened and it's really important even if it to sergeant king knows about a shooting incident he has to have some reason to connect a at incident to what he is doing with the plaintiffs four hours later half a mile away and it and he says i don't remember any description i don't know anything about anything now what the defendants did in their most for s not saying it refresh our recollection what all the said in their motion or summary judgment is what these reports contain is what we must have known back then it's pure here said they're not using the lawyer during the depositions whether or not were any other stops related to the shooting and if so were those my the benji a graphic which i don't think we asked about other stops and at the time did you see why i'm asking the question with the video we've got this that at least is a subtext of a possible pretext you began your argument with the points about the race of the officers and the race of the individuals and if we're going to discern some attempted pretext we've got figure out why the op why these officers stopping these individuals what the facts given were related to the shooting the color of the car color of the act of race of the occupants and then geographic location an so these are the connectors the officers are making for purposes the reason suspicion determination if we knew more about what was happening that morning then perhaps we could make a determination with regard to the preacher there any argument you have to offer us on all he says is there was a shooting event the put the argument is made that that's the reason for the reasonable suspicion also a gray car also three african american young males within a half mile of the shooting location and within four hours that's what i understand the government or the city to be arguing with regard to the basis for the stop with regard to that we've got the two videos right we've got thirty minute video of the one minute video when there's a there's an overlap with regard to them so we're able to get a little bit of view into what was going on that if the argument is that the stop itself was pretext and therefore you know doesn't reach reasonable suspicion if we knew more about what else was happening that morning that might be helpful is there anything in the record that would tell us the context beyond the videos i'm not sure how we could obtain that information the officers themselves said they didn't remember anything at all that morning they don't remember what they were doing all we know is she didn't remember he was investigating the shooting and i'm not sure he wasn't asking the shooting how did that come into the picture then i don't know i don't know if it it's not an answer report that simply says this and this was put in look at the report i got a copy of it here it's it's numbers at letters and you have to know how to read this and this was just submitted a motion for summary judgment without any sponsoring witness at all but what it says is that eleven twenty it says assist and then it's eleven twenty preemptive which means taken off the job and then says eleven twenty change of location it doesn't say he actually went to the scene it doesn't say he did anything at the scene it doesn't say anything and so for him to say ok i'm going to look at this report and they see look this is this is what what i must have done and and this time i didn't  it's being offered to show that there was a shooting it's the truth of the matter asserted it's not even if there wasn't a shooting if he had thought there was a shooting i mean if that was part of the circumstances that the police knew then they would have reasonable suspicion to stop even if in fact no shooting had ever happened if that if the police was misinformed right it depends on our code reasonable it is if there's a mistake how reasonable it is and i think that this is just going to be here's a question yeah i agree you know if there is no i outlandish to think that a shooting happened then than not but if the report is being introduced to show what the officers know and it's not being offered for the truth of the matter certain which is that the shooting actually happened and that it was actually committed by three african american males driving a great car s u v you're not right well in their judicial emissions they say that they do not know if they stop towards vehicle because of a shooting at six forty somewhere but this is raised to create the in france that they were on right there saying we can't we can't remember right we can't remember but here is i was on duty in this area here's a call that shows that this was reported therefore i must have been on notice that stunned that here's that they can import all the information why they can't they can't say i must know that that's what that's the collective knowledge doctor that we said you know you just put somebody in the police the part that's different than the hearsay point they cannot say we knew this if they don't know that they knew it they cannot repeat look at a report and say we must have known everything in this report right but that's not hearsay so you're arguing about the inferences that one can reasonably draw from the report but not about whether the report is actually admissible because they look at these other pieces these these documents and they will show what we knew at the time that is pure hearsay that is looking at something else and say you look at this and this is what you this is what you'll see are you arguing that if they never let let's imagine that you go to trial and they never can under oath say that they remember any detail about the stuff are you saying you when i say yes i am saying because they they would have to they if they wan refresh my recollection how can that be right if if an honest police officer who really did have reasonable suspicion at the time so let's say not this case that's imagine a case take it outside of the context of this case at an honest officer has reasonable suspicion performs a stat you know doesn't arrest and then is later sued but can't remember the incident he's automatically liable in one thousand nine hundred three i would say yes that's why we have contact cards that's why we have police report the police officers are supposed to document what they do and they if they don't do what they have is a shocking claim that he's he's a liable for acting unconstitutionally and you don't have to prove that he acted unconstitutionally doesn't have any memory and you have no evidence that he's lying about it that we have the point of testimony plaintiff's testimony is we were doing anything we weren't acting suspicious we went to an auto parts store and then we came back and we got stopped but that doesn't mean that the officer didn't have the fact that you remember the officer doesn't have to be right that the person committed a crime and was even a suspect whether there is reasonable suspicion or probable cause always turns on the facts and circumstances known to the us that's or who could be wrong right for the fact that the plaintiffs say we were innocent we weren't doing anything which seems to be true in this case wouldn't mean that it would automatically when well it's quite the men playing i think this is a question for the jury we have the plaintiff's story of what happened where they're they're not doing anything police cannot substantiate that they thought that they were suspicious the district court found for example the king was actively investigating the shooting you just said he didn't know he wasn't she  i think the judge was wrong i think the judge was wrong in his findings and what the judge rely down with those three documents the police reports the post dated the event the o e m c report that that is being imported  and the and the the sergeant king's affidavit you can't at the point of a motion for summary judgment bring in an affidavit and contradict what you said in your judicial missions contradict what you said your deposition that  simply said i must have been investigating this and that the district white's findings were based on the objective evidence of the video testimony that your clients had taken at the time of the scene as well as the police reports right the  idavit says i still don't remember anything so it doesn't contract kind of so much but they said you have to look at these documents but then with that what the district court did was adopt those facts in those documents and that's why we're saying you can't do it while the police officer the peace officer is or either remembers what he heard what he didn't hear he either remembers what he saw or what he didn't see and if he doesn't he can't say it this was a report prepared by the police officer and it was i plaintiffs say one thing defended say another thing and so for the jury to decide were they just going to the auto parts store that they passed by were they cruising where they were they gangbanger bears the burden of proof here and showing that the officers did not think that they had reasonable suspicion to pull over your clients it's it's a point of spur right yes but all the evidence i am referring to is with the plaintiffs now at the time rights of the plaintiff still have to explain why there was no reasonable suspicion and sometimes the officers know well we we brought the motion for summary judgment and that their point we had the traditional missions and the position testimony which was a complete washout i mean they said we don't remember anything we car they they searched a visit visually they searched the car they didn't go into the car and the on the search of the person was going into the going into the waistband we thought that those were the more met mind of claims in prison we just want to get up in front of you on on what we thought were the major claims which is you know why were they stopped and why were they detained and for the police to say you are in custody i think m p s you're in your custody so this is this is the police officers cannot just stop on a hunch they have to have something more than they have and even specify earlier questions if it was if we're trying to get at why the police officers who were stopping your clients who are in the back of the gallery here the courtroom why we would want to know what are what are the things the police officers were doing that morning who else they stop where they stopped and why they stopped and in response might or the questions you didn't get those questions when asked we tried did we ask for something called the b query and that is a query of the activity of the beat that day the only activity during time they signed on with their computers for this was for a traffic stop so and  for and yes for the for the traffic stop in for it they said that they were doing a change change location you know that that morning for such a resurgent change but we couldn't find out what they did and they had no recollection t recollection of this event and that they didn't record you know recollect anything else so if police officers are not going to make reports and nothing to do contact cards they can they can stop a hundred people and you're never going to be able to trace what they did that morning and that's what that's the problem here i s it's a it's a problem that is is is present in chicago and it and it affects a lot of young black men where they get stopped for no reason and at least one thing you probably know noticed from the  video is quite upsetting to some to marcus torrey that this happened he said it keeps on happening to me you know it in the end you can go to another parts store and and not be stopped so if i were to go your way what is your damages also the possibility of punitive damages so you know that these we think would be things we'd be bringing up two to the jury but i guess i want to make sure that the trainer doesn't think this is a trivial case because yes it's you know it there no one got shot no one got tasered no one got me but it's so reported that the police to be able to articulate that i think stop people and not just do it and then afterwards try to piece it together or don't even care afterwards the police officer ordered them into the ordered him into the car he got into the car and then they proceeded to follow marcus tori's car in we describe what happened they turned off the the dash camera in the said we're going to mess with him morning your honour's please the court your honors everything the officers did in this case was reasonable they stopped plaintiffs because they matched the description of suspects in a shooting that occurred that morning just four blocks away because they appeared to be casing manl high school they detain plaintiffs for less than thirteen minutes to ask for their identification run warrant checks and question them they place tori in the patrol car for only eight minutes because they reasonably believe that he may be armed show exactly so the plaintiff's point is that the officers had no memory of this and it is obviously true that stopping black men is a problem right right so you know i think the plaintiffs are absolutely right to want this practice to stop but the question in this case is whether they can carry their burden of proof against these officers you know we don't know exactly what happened here so given that the officers had no memory of what happened tell me w exactly what the evidence was that showed there was reasonable suspicion sure exhibit and i think is the sure so starting with the video so we do have the two videos and you recognize the longer one which is the more can response this was the immediate location of the shooting this morning or in particular he says you were seen cruising the street around the school it's a safe passage zone and it's in the immediate location of the shooting this morning then we have this office of emergency management and communications event which i do want to know was properly admitted and authenticated by supporting affidavit from sergeant king and that was it was also well was  the information in that document and players had an opportunity to address and i disagree j we have an opportunity and they did in fact address that particular document which the court can had an opportunity to consider on both motions for summary judgment in that o e m see event it contains all the details of the shooting that occurred and washed an avenue that morning it indicates that there was a shooting at the it was around eight thirty nine am it also indicates that sergeant king responded as an assisted vehicle at eight forty six am that morning to that shooting it indicates that at eight fifty one am sergeant king changed location to the victim's address on i think this floor and i ave and it was at this time that the witness or the victim reported that the suspects were described as three african american males driving a grave you like plaintiff here we also have these other chicago police department supplementary case clear that this is not three times and that that would that would be a fact that would go to this allegation case if he's picking up mr goss i believe it is to get the part and then bring the purpose to the car these not only two times is there any basis in the record for the officer statement that he saw the car three times and the two times no your honor there's nothing in the record at this point to support sergeant king's statement that he believed they had passed three times and we've course don't know if he did in fact see a great vehicle passed three times thinking that it might have been the same vehicle which is certainly possible but we did admit agree with plaintiffs in our brief that it was two times that they pass  so i don't get off track with explaining what connects to be the statement on the video that there was a shooting to these particular plaintiffs as being the suspected perpetrators of the shooting so as i mentioned we have this office of emergency management communications event querrey and that was what places sergeant king at the scene of the shooting and with the victim describing those the suspects were three african experience and as as an officer and using these types of documents and his familiarity with how these documents are produced he was able to interpret the information in that document so we feel that the stock human is both admissible as a business record with that supporting affidavit properly admitted by sergeant king but also as as your honor pointed out it's also admissible it's not hearsay because it was not going to the truth of whether the shooting occurred and you're correct that we don't really need to prove that the shooting ever actually occurred we only need to show that sergeant can reasonably believe that there was a shooting and indeed this document would show that if he had responded as an assist be able to report of a shooting where the victim described the suspects as three african american males in a great vehicle it would be reasonable for him to be on the lookout for those suspects when you can't really it seems to me tricky to rely on the business record exception here because it's a police record and isn't it the case that police records are subject to different rules and treating them as business records is a little trickier here that may be your honor but i think what's important  that as you pointed out we're not using this document to show that the shooting actually did occur we're only using it to show that sergeant king had reasonable suspicion to believe that these plaintiffs may have been the perpetrators of a shooting that was reported whether that shooting actually occurred or not is irrelevant at this point we had dress the plaintiff's argument that the affidavit contradicts the judicial admissions sure your honour's and we don't believe the officers when they admitted that they didn't remember anything they were saying they had no independent recollection of either the stop or the shooting that perpetrated the stop so they're not saying that this never could have happened because we don't remember they're not saying version of the events could never have happened a certain way all they're saying is that upon and they're not even saying that the documents necessarily refresh their recollection they're just saying we don't remember this but we have a video and on the video i said i stopped these individuals because there was a shooting they're also saying we have these documents this event corey from the office of emergency management and communications we have this these supplementary reports from the chicago police department all these documents say is that there was a shooting sergeant king was responding to that shooting and was aware of the description of the suspects so they're not are saying that they haven't changed their stories so  speak they've always maintained that they don't have an independent relax recollection of the incident so they've done nothing to contradict any of their judicial admissions and they've never said anything that has could be interpreted as speculative in any way all they've done is review the evidence explain what it says based on their training experience in interpreting these documents and the documents themselves are what provide the link to the sho link between the stop in the shooting well there are other factors too there's been a spike in the you ready batteries yang in that area yes around wrecked but that's let's let's continue on this idea the reason suspicion is clear from v comes in when there are multiple different reports so there were reports from the victim there were other witnesses as well and the initial in the in the audience event corey at eight fifty one which is the time that sergeant king was changed location to the victim's address it states that the victim reported a newer model grade nissan then we have later or i should say other cars some of these don't actually have time stamps but we have other reports we have a trade a great trailblazer and we also have from the victims of the shooting this is from the victim and possibly other witnesses your honor and then we also have  and sorry that the plaintiffs matched the suspects in that shooting and that well it's been inconsistent the make in the model of the vehicle what has been consistent in the reports from the victim and witnesses is that it was  essentially the officers would have been on the lookout for a vehicle in addition to that this idea that they may have been casing the school sergeant cane saw them pass by at least twice possibly three times he may have been mistaken so that goes to this idea that there may have been some further retaliation related to that shooting which again the officers testified to based on their knowledge and experience their training experience officers that that's that can be what this type of casing activity may be signaling so we have those two components of this stop to form the basis of the officers reasonable suspicion and ask a question about reasonable suspicion and birds so a big part of the plaintiff's case is the lack of independent recollection by the officers and then the risk that that would permit these kinds of unwarranted stops and the police not being held accountable for it so if there is no independent recollection and you don't have the video king saying you know there was a shooting this is a safe passage down etc who bears the burden so when i asked the plaintiffs if the officers if you had an honest officer who truly had had reasonable suspicion and then you you know bring a lawsuit saying hey you set me that reasonable suspicion you know the plaintiffs say they win what does the plaintiff have to show and tell me how you think the burden plays out here so the burden would still be on plaintiffs to prove that the officers lacked a reasonable suspicion and this court has consistently helped that and the plaintiffs could as they did here go through discovery and obtain documents trying to flesh out what actually happened that morning so we may not have had without the video a specific statement from sergeant king saying this is why i stopped you and it may be possible but even if the officers remembered the stop they might not specifically remember what their just pick a sion was the plaintiffs might not remember what the justification was to we won't always have a clear picture of what the officers had in their minds at the stop but this is why it's this court has always held that it's an objective standard so we don't need to know what was actually going on in the officers minds at the time of the shooting or am sorry at the time of the stock so all the plaintiffs would need to show would was that there was nothing that an officer in their position would have known maybe subjective but if the plaintiffs could show that king had no idea that there was a shooting even if there really had been a shooting then a reasonable officer in his position wouldn't have had reasonable suspicion so if they could show that he lacks any knowledge of the shooting of the great car the three african american males who are described that would be that would be of course different story of course you're on it right and that's why my what my point and that sort of objective standard would be is that plaintiff has stated time and again that we don't know what was in sergeant king's mind and how can we how can we allow officers to hide behind their lack of memory but all we need to know is what the documents show sergeant king or other are reasonable officers in that position would have known and we do have documents here which as plaintiffs acknowledge they did bring out through discovery which they have every avenue to do even when the officers don't remember what occurred so as long as those documents show that sergeant king or whichever officer was on the scene at that time had knowledge of criminal activity and had knowledge that the suspects of that criminal activity matched the description of or that the plaintiffs matched the description of the suspects of that criminal activity then that would be sufficient to support reasonable suspicion the under th logic he could have stopped any three black males if the casing falls away and the s u b connection falls away he can't do that they'll be completely improper it constitutionally violent right i suppose here is your question your king obviously knew that he was on the lookout for an s u v it it's quite possible that the reasonable suspicion it would be a closer question but this is a case where there wasn't a clear statement that it was an s u v we have conflicting accounts of witnesses the only consistent point was that it was a great vehicle and it so your point about the casing is well your honor indeed seeing them pass twice rather than three times does make that point on the casing a closer question and it's certainly possible without the addition of the shooting that morning or sergeant king's knowledge of the shooting the casing alone it's a closer question on whether that would support reasonable suspicion but we do have the documents showing that sergeant king was aware of that shooting had indeed responded to that shooting and that he was aware that to be on the lookout for three african american males in a gray vehicle victims quote the victims of the action being reported that the offenders were three african american males driving in a great vehicle that based on my knowledge and experience as a police officer when this information is obtained from victims it's contrary to police officers and also  said i must have known it this was on the only mc report so i must have heard it i must have heard it musta come over the dispatch and that's just a leap that they can't happen here and police officer has to say i knew it i heard it i knew what i had a description and not spike of of events on the only person who said that was officer lady he said there's been a spike of violence in the syria and at his deposition i said what are you talking about like what tell me give me one instance where there has been a aggravated battery or aggravated assault he can think of one i said is there anything you confess to gated or curdle for anything he couldn't come up with even one example so for him to say you know this is this is there's been a spike in that cases taken under advisement