a fifty four year old african american woman who has lived her entire life in the small down state community of centralia community with a population of less than thirteen thousand dollars she worked for about two decades for the state of illinois emerged of elemental sin of providing care to developmentally disabled i'd like to focus in on the the statement that was made the word thirsty tom yes can you elaborate on that well yes you are i would characterize my what my client i believe  that she believed michael peoples was overzealous she said in her deposition transcript she met hungry i would i would characterize that as being overzealous and mr archer people steps to fight what he thought she meant was that he was arresting people who shouldn't be arrested so in other words overly aggressive in arresting individuals thank you i wonder if you could focus on the question whether officer peoples when he filled out the complaint was acting under color of state law or if if you would like to direct our attention to anything else he might have done that was under color of state law you are i should say these relevant facebook posts to officer peoples while he was driving home after he had just completed his shift officer peoples to call marion county assistant state's attorney melissa duran  melissa duran about the facebook posts indicated that he believed that my client had actually physically threatened harm to his children and that that's the sort of incomplete sentence where the facebook post says that this so and so if you don't believe that what comes around goes around and when you've got kids of your own period so it seems it is that last phrase caused his or peoples to think that there was some threat to his children yes your honor but i would i would say that officer peoples read things into the f post that weren't there there but that doesn't answer my question which is i mean rightly or wrongly maybe grossly overreacted to it but rightly or wrongly you were starting to answer the question what did he do that qualifies as quote duran but any any private citizen could make a report to the police department you know to be an officer that is correct your honor but i believe that he officer james was influenced somewhat by who paid extra attention to that to write that is that is correct your honor so wrecked and all right so he knew that but i'm not sure that what officer peoples does is he fills out the officer harvard comes over and takes his statement right yes to see to anything else that causes this eventually dropped prosecution against your client while you're on or off for people's did that he heard yelling that while he was resting albert gardner and job on taste sense now i realize part of your theory seems to be and this seems also to be part of your mo nel theory that the city hasn't done adequate job training its officers to realize that they just have to have a thick skin when it comes to obscenity is that some paraphrasing but you know you can't arrest somebody just because they're yelling obscenity is that you yes and the reason is part of the claim is because officer james testify the part of the reason that ms barnes was arrested was because she actually she allegedly called people's the mother after word and also i believe that in its  arresting officers testimony that he did not have adequate training to realize that yelling profanities the police officer alone alone is within the confines of free protected free speech right now that's certainly true in and alone wouldn't be enough for intimidation but if if this had been a more direct threat to his children surely it would have satisfied the elements of the intimidation offen under illinois law right had there been an a a threat to his children yes i do not believe my client intended any threat to his children what my son in a public face but was it with their privacy settings on his facebook account  your honor there were not but i would yet argue that the intention of my client was that these facebook posts were to be read by a friends and her not setting her facebook page to be only viewable by her friends was not by design so i think there's there may be an issue with people right but it's a sad commentary on realism in the digital age i guess and with regard to the facebook post is not beyond being criticised for what he does in his duties and ultimately i believe my coin believes that officer people's demeanor may be overly aggressive with the public he did testify of deposition that he had used the f word in dealing with the public so those sorts of behavior certainly may be why mike my client has an issue with them and she also was frustrated that it's i don't you still haven't gotten beyond my st question you know officer people's files a complaint any citizen could file a complaint we have case law to say that is not an action under color of law i think the question of probable cause to arrest in this case is a much closer one that's another alternate ground that the district court gave because certainly if there'd been probable cause then both the federal and the state claims i think drop away maybe probable cause is thin but there's a qualified immunity claim here as well which takes a sort of one step back into arguable probable cause so that really fundamentally linking it to him is is what i'm having the most trouble doing she's not suing estimony is clearly these officers knew my client oxer james testified he had known her for years talked with her many occasions he had known her to be helpful he liked her but i believe he was persuaded by officer peoples opposite people said she threatened my children a conclusion restatement that the jury may clearly say no we don't believe more likely than not that this statement was a threat to us children ok but if you want to save just  summarized as follows st the district court correctly held that officer peoples was not acting under cover the color of law at the time of this incident would that argument dispose of the address all the nine hundred and eighty three based arguments that's exactly right your honor if this court holds and agrees with the district court that officer peoples was not acting under color of law that would be dispositive of  citizen felt that he or she was a victim of a crime the sequence of events started with officer people's arresting two members of a violent gang called the rude boys later that day there's a facebook post it suggests a threat towards officer peoples at least he felt like that and he goes forward and he eventually has a conversation with another officer from his department that it does the predicate matter at all i mean that the ordinary citizen isn't going to have a chat with a different police officer and then another chat with an assistant state's attorney before filing a complaint is that make any difference in your view it does not and i would say that an ordinary citizen can reach out to a state's attorney as long as that particular governmental entity has that contact in agreement information many do and likewise an ordinary citizen can call the police department and report that they are concerned about a threat the important analysis here is is what officer peoples did and comparing that to what other state actors did here there's a clear separation officer peoples did gave his statement to officer james officer james then decided to conduct an investigation which included sending another officer to officer people's house off duty in taking a statement that's where officer people's conduct stopped and there's no other evidence that he did anything else in there certainly no evidence that he worked in concert or is part of the course of action that ultimately led to play of seraphs or disappears from the story actually this point as he does your honor and what i would say clearly established this delineation of events is officer james then goes back and talks to the state's attorney just like you know officer might do if they had received a complaint from a private citizen officer james is the one who's verifying the veracity of everything defendant in this lawsuit and and he is the one who did the investigation and the rest and that actually leads me to my nd point your honor officer peebles had no personal involvement in  underlying causes to shill violation that's alleged again what planet this is is bringing claims for is th amendment claims in other words illegal seizure claims officer people's was not involved in the seizure he was not involved in the arrests and making a complaint about being a potential victim of a crime does not constitute a seizure we do not have a corner of the case law vicarious liability under section one hundred and three dollars and so for that basis this court can also affirm summary judgment as to the federal claims like to move you had to the probable cause question is the fact that the state's attorney entered  really ending the prosecution affect that claim it does not or that it does not your honor because why not the reason is because the standard looks at what a reasonable officer in the position of sergeant james at the time of the arrest no the fact that a a state's attorney later decided for whatever reason that those charges would not continue does not vichy eight the probable cause that existed at the time of the russe the where is the probable cause that ms barnes has committed intimidation it's it's it's very thin although as i say you've managed a lot of the facts that you point to repeatedly in your brief don't seem to add or subtract i mean yes the rude boys is a violent gang and so on and maybe some other member of her family went to retrieve the motorbike and then we get vaguer and vaguer about some connection with the house but if she's not arrested for that to me it's the intimidation offense and i  and even the state's attorney isn't willing to say sure you've got probable cause the state's attorney says it's dicey so i i'm not sure about probable cause here which again for one hundred and three probably doesn't matter for state malicious prosecution and may matter but on the other hand on the state malicious prosecution claim i wonder what you have to say about whether a complaining witness can count under illinois law as the one who commences or continues the criminal action suit to your last point your honor it complaining witness can be responsible under state law was just prosecution however as as related to the rd point probable cause is likewise a bar to such a claim in addition to being a bar to the federal no i know that that if i if i were to think that the best you had was arguably probable cause let's say for instance for qualified immunity purposes that doesn't help in the state claim so i'm looking down at the other elements certainly she can show that the state charges were terminated in her favor if i put a question mark over probable cause i don't want to rely on that and you're saying that as a complaining witness she's the kind of person who can be pursued what about malice what evidence is there in the record of malice on the part of officer peoples i don't think there is any evidence of malice because if you actually examine what officer peoples did he he made a complaint because he felt that the facebook post was a threat to his family and i think it can reasonably be construed by an object of officer in the position of either people's or james as indeed a threat  guarding the issue or problem cause i think in this case there is a strong strong probable cause and that's that's when considering the standard cause for what i mean to arrest barnes for what for both intimidation and aggravated and already so for intimidation aggravated intimidation we've got to show that she issued a threat i mean obviously it aggravates a peace officer fine to inflict physical harm on somebody i suppose that would be if you could read the statement about the children i don't see what else there is there's there's a bunch of factors the suggest that this was a credible threat she has a very vague association with the house with which somebody else may be associated with this guy she did show up at the scene of the arrests of two rude boys that gang head had put of events that can connect the dots as to this being a credible that threat is time as a relates to the facebook post so officer of people shows up to arrest the plaintiff is undisputed leader there later on in very short and she's angry i mean she's undisputedly shouting obscenities at him so so very close time and proximity to that event she makes the threat for the facebook post and then the final rude boys she can effectuate the threat towards officer peoples and his family in certainly when considering the problem or cause standard it's a low bar but it's not a nothing bar being it is in fact it's above there are some people did testify that he not only report information to the city of central police department but he did testify unequivocally he was trying to get surely to barnes and arrested and he and equivocally testified he was trying to get prosecuted so i believe he went beyond simply reporting information what about what he said he was a just as you're posing counsel that cheery purely called is on my office and made threats and  not familiar with those those statements and i would say that officer peebles did she call to tell me about you'd still need some testimony from someone about what the content of those calls was i don't have any knowledge that she called this is it is or is what officer peoples also potentially did beyond just reporting facts to the city of subtribe police department he did it is it is disputed that my client and he in his is deposition testimony said he was not sure actually that it was my client yelling at him the mother afterword now initial in his sworn statement he said my coin yelled that to him earlier that day or that afternoon of the arrest my client was driving home from work saw two individuals being arrested albert gardner was actually one of these boys grandmothers who was yelling at officer people's officer peoples testified he really wasn't paying close attention to who was yelling at him he was focusing on the people he was rusting so it is a disputed fact that my have no knowledge of the counsel that that language i just quoted some of it came from another case so your idea was not yes i had no knowledge of that whatsoever and ultimately if my client cannot prevail on the on the color of state law claims i still believe she has shown what she needs to show that she should that the summary judgment should be reversed on the state law claim after people said clearly he was trying to get her arrested and if it certainly is the meter during that deposition was was was was a little bit malicious i would say toward my client yeah he was trying to get arrested he was trying to get prosecuted and i would argue he did just that and he called the assistant state's attorney and the assistant state's attorney texted officer james ok ok we're going to stop now thank you very much