than some but then we have to apply the question first what did they do that was in violation of the constitution and then in doing that would they have known that their acts were lawful in other words qualified immunity so they only have to look at each one separately and say ok well what did they do and how did that violate the constitution if you have the hearing officer you say the hearing officer not that you could say knowingly violated the constitution by not of having enough evidence and finding you're guilty but how they are like take that a trial would be a waste of time that she she could a reasonable jury could possibly saving everything the life most favorable to her prevail let her prevail and so what is it i just don't understand what evidence you have that at the point when she presented specific it's cold it's very evidence demonstrating that false positives were frequent occurrence at that point the prison officials had a responsibility to respond to that question with specific inculpatory evidence and all they responded with was evidence of general mean that the national laboratory who is from who does this on an everyday basis tests on every day basis had never heard of major and causing a false positive and so therefore there's no evidence that that's c false positive you are if if the defendant has spoken into a on if they had provided any other statement besides that they are not aware that they don't know whether causes false positives their burden so put that into the record now the question as to whether or not a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that i am not aware constitutes anything other than i don't know is a factual issue for trial and as your scrapes and is noted and zimmerman being asked to review the record through judicial speculation is asking this court operate in the dark without them getting back to crawford merely said the words looking through this in the warden reads that and says well that means they're the lab that does all this counseling and they have never heard of it therefore you know i think this is some evidence that she's actually used drugs your honor i agree that things were not done perfectly however the case law is quite clear that some lapses in chain of custody or other irregularities in the process are not sufficient in the prison disciplinary context for it to be a violation of due process lab test results under two different testing methods testing methods that courts around the country have found to be adequate particularly the unit test is rigged as there are lots of cases that talk about yes that's enough but even when a case discusses the possibility that well you know maybe we should really do more than that the example that they give of what may be more should be done are the chromatography types of test which was that here and as judge it could have mentioned have found that type of test of you extremely accurate so even in the absence of for example this needs declaration which was not before the hearing officer but was before the district court even in the absence of that the declaration saying you know i run shows that there is some reliable evidence even if you were i might just agree that and even if you were i might think well you know i want to see what was the point of having this hearing to allow her to present evidence for example u going through that hearing process allowed him to show evidence that the sample wasn't his not of not no relevant evidence of his jets and so in some instances there may be a utilit i don't recall when there was a change over at the prison your honor however in support of the some of the original summary judgment motion brought by the defendants in the foulest declaration and supplemental excerpts of record ninety two just want to address very briefly the issue that i think gets overlooked to a great extent here with the focus on the drug test and what happened at the disciplinary hearing officer level this is a business case this is a case against individuals even if the court were to find that there was a due process violation here the court would also have to find that the violation it was clearly established by law at the time that this was taking place and at the time that this was taking place there was discussed the reliability and accuracy of the tests that were done here he didn't talk about whether they had done specific tests to check on your friend given this particular case but he did talk about the exceptional reliability of the presidents other to the teacher at the university of washington