and really the facts in this case are not in dispute the driver's license that we're talking about was a valid georgia driver's license from don granger only credible part of this is that mr granger got a phony driver's license or only up his private you have to find one that matched him but the printer not and then put the picture on it's absolutely true not a dispute at this point this here or here is not quite relevant so i have forgotten and i don't think i know i didn't ask for a million he was held for a couple of hours he felt that he had i have to report he knew he was going to have to report this to his superiors in georgia he wondered if he was going to spend the night in jail and be arrested i have to come back to you if you watch the video you'll see all of this and you'll see i think it's funny now but he has to enough may force accusations of criminal conduct is opposed by the home of criminal code which makes no distinctions between accusations by state employees and nine state employees that's privileged and that's what he admitted answer yes isn't this something at the birth of the exclusionary rule in other words the police the supreme court decided every kind of makes a mistake and make it rough without probable cause it's not a good public arrest which is an arrest without probable cause that's what mr lynch and that's again he moved them he he had he didn't do anything at all he basically what he testified to was i would hope the police were figured out because i couldn't i didn't want to figure out i didn't figure a specific set of facts if you hold my money and i can't go because i think i'm not going to get my money that's a false imprisonment oh come on that's what the restatement says that's exactly what happens now let's get back claimed against egypt pledge and properly granted summary judgment on grounds of sovereign immunity and i want to start by addressing something that counsel said about sovereign immunity he suggested that sovereign immunity does not come into play if the state employee has violated any state law that simply untrue and in fact makes no sense there would be no need for sovereign immunity if it didn't apply when occasionally state employees perhaps engage in some wrongdoing immunity presupposes the possibility of a legal wrong by a state employee so the fact that a state employee is alleged to have a violated state law does not in any way mean that sovereign immunity does not apply and what more furthermore as as your honor suggested it is not the case that mr granger would be without remedy at all the court of claims act provides for lawsuits damages in i'm sorry in excess of but fifty thousand dollars a compensatory damages for the the the the way in which investigations and arrests should go forward but it does not create a crime it does not define the scope of a crime if it is explained how arrests and investigations should o i'm so there there was not a violation of our he has not alleged a violation of a criminal law here sovereign immunity applies when there are three basic tests that are met and this these pieces are overlapping i'll summarize them quickly and then i'll talk a little bit about how they apply in this case first did he act beyond the scope of his authority or in that it was mr lynch alleged to act beyond the scope of authority and again that's not some allegation of wrongful conduct because that is every case involving a question of sovereign immunity involves an allegation of some kind of wrongful conduct the question is is that wrong removed from the scope of the the state of pleas of employment that it is beyond the scope of their authority second of this is the source of the duty is the duty something that is not generally old and third was the employee of the state employee engaged in normal and official functions of their job at bottom all of these point used to primary fundamental principles one is was the agent acting in the furtherance of his state employment was he doing his job perhaps allegedly making a mistake but he has was he acting in furtherance of his state employment and second would liability limit his ability to engage and lawful activities on the part of the state in the future so would somebody like agent wish to be deterred in forcing the various provisions that he is charged with with he acting for the needs of his state employment or did he act beyond the scope of his authority everything he did was within his job as a peace officer in force in the laws of the state of illinois and he looked at the truck driver's license and he believed that he had probable cause to book that this was a fraudulent license not that mr frazier wasn't who he said he was necessarily but that the license was fraudulent which in and of itself presenting such of of praja of license is a violation of i believe that's correct yes but he did not know sort of yes that he was he was absolutely actually the scope of his authority is the extent that there was a criminal violation or a possibility of a criminal violation that needed further investigation he brought in the local police who did have the power to proceed he he was involved in his interaction with mr granger lasted a total of approximately eighteen severe prejudice in there there is no but if you received instructions on probable cause it was defined in the jury rendered a decision but the reason that this was a the men one for two hundred dollars i should be policy requires harris to verify the really thing over twelve hundred dollars for tax purposes the slot host looked at the driver's license and thought it looked funny lets his picture on the card that was in the slot machine it was if they look at it they did however is there a reason for that well in hindsight it probably would have been things to do but the law does not require that the investigating officer exhaust every possible avenue available and that's not exhausting every possible area what i mean you've got a card that you've issued that's got this picture on it it would seem with the possibility that one of these id he says is altered but that's what it was it doesn't require the initial responder to be the judge and jury under a terry stop all there has to be is a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity these illinois state police authoritative arm governing riverboat casinos which they are required to do at that point they have to defer to what the i g b does  cause security personnel must pursue reasonable avenues of investigation but you only need from whole cause for a proper rus you don't need probable cause for a terrorism all you have to have it is reasonable suspicion what about jury did here is the definition of probable cause which we didn't think was pertinent because we thought it was a terrorist thing at that instruction and they also got the burden of proof instruction which is  protect state employees from not doing their job properly and to not to send a message to other state employees however what was very clearly still very very clear on both of those issues is or and that's the only thing that's correct but it doesn't apply to all ports committed by states employees if you act if the if the case was very clear such as of th right or when when you were a mental health professional and he did something which you did because which violated the the the duties of that type of mental health professional the fact that you are employed closing argument that was his argument thank you