strip searching them in violation of federal law and without reasonable suspicion hope about nation of the fourth amendment  six three nine three five at night three seven that's specifically state that the officer has to have a belief that a crime had been committed then it's that for that you have to have a specific crime that has been committed and then it went over whether then person asian was sufficient for that to support the probable cause so yes the questions are officers don't have to know what the specific crime unit is necessarily at the time they can be wrong as long as somebody comes along later injures yes but there was probable cause for arrest that's correct and that's not a dispute but the problem here is that there's no specific crime with their argument is that there was a crime period we don't know what it is surely there was some criminal activity that we just don't have an idea that's insufficient to support probable cause you have to have thing to do in that community and they've also decided that they have a good and proper to search people strip search them with out reasonable suspicion in violation of the fourth member so their policy is that because they think that there is some underlying good to violate the constitutional rights of people that they should be able to do it and actually it has just the opposite effect because they inform the people in the community that the police cannot be counted on to protect their right let me a break this down just a little bit so there's the claim by the against the officers and then the claim against the city and county at this particular station this is what they had arranged with the housing authority and these officers were just doing what right had been cured never under the circumstances you know they should be in town one thing to me well what's your response to that  it is true that it is the policy but because there is a constant unconstitutional policy that doesn't relieve the individual officers from their obligation to follow clearly established law and it is clearly established that you cannot rest a person for six o two now e m without the specific provision or part evidence that the person has been there for over a week two days this was perfectly with intent to dispose of this they have an obligation under the law to follow that further they have the obligation under the the law to not summary judgment on them and they'll claim that is correct and we believe that was incorrect because the testimony of the officers is that the as well the sergeant is that their immediate sergeant depending sheriff as well as the other sergeants as well as the higher ups the captains and lieutenants in the commanders have for seventeen years indicated that that's how long officer cough had been lowered by the department or practiced that's been going on for seventeen years and it's inforced and by the command staff the lieutenant in for your acquiescence in the whole constitutional problems that are complained of in this particular case sheriff he states that he won that would have prevented it but he acquiesced in it and the this is a strain for the this the search is even stronger for the scripts are he was was he involved in the strips and the thirty of the penal code has the responsibility under penalty of criminal prosecution to ensure that his men do not strip search people without  this wouldn't happen here action or in action was a cause of the constitutional violations complained that because he allowed he had a duty while forty thirty of the pinnacle clearly stated that the officer was who they acknowledge is the duty supervisor and as a duty supervisor would have these statutory obligations to make sure that you have reasonable strip search prior to determining whether the person is going to be released from custody or placed in the general housing population that type of search the unconstitutionality of it provided to judge allison at the summary judgment hearing regarding a policy of any kind there simply just is no evidence in the record on which to judge also with this court and say there was a policy and that it was unconstitutional and somewhere was there a declaration or something of sheriff himself saying that his policy going and your honor has to shift was represented by mr kelly i mean i would have to beyond a summary judgment i don't know i don't think so but i don't know as to the eyes of the probable cause issue here i i want to make clear that the city and the police the there was a lot of discussion in the trial court both as a rule fifty motion and during the motion for new trial where appellant argue they could have but they didn't because as the officer stated here they knew the plaintiff had been arrested in this area for selling controlled substances or possession with intent to sell that he'd been arrested in the past for trespass because of those arrests that they were knowledgeable about they thought there might be a stay away order related to this person which is why they had to do further investigation it turns out there was no such they avoid order and getting back to a judge also did it in which is in accordance with law he into i mean somebody has to open a gate to get in there are there are gates at certain parts around the perimeter that are supposed to be locked but are not because the locks are broken this is also part of the trial testimony at those entrances are where the signs are posted about no trespassing and what people are found which i think is is is is is relevant those other statutes could apply and their general intent crimes and and under alford behavior which was maybe the law at the pointed out even if they were wrong under these circumstances they would have been entitle to qualified immunity because of any sort of and anything unclear about the constitutionality of that type of  how much time before you before you have the podium i just want to point out one thing about the statute forty thirty that's come up in the course of this appeal that statute was never in play this complaint he never put anyone  three specifically it was only in post trial motions where the first was carefully mentioned as a as a as a basis for a violation that first came up forty three does not apply to these situations where someone is being held in  and a holding cell at a precinct station the terms of the statute in the statutory scheme of forty thirty explicitly apply to the county jail facility that is going to process three a contemplates those people who are going to be held in custody or not cited the statute does not apply in this case and i do want to bring one case of the court's attention that was not listed and that is a relief somebody you can go ahead and the the boxers the boxer shorts first of all i don't think modern sure but not not  disagree i think the statute is saying if we three applies in the situation which it does not even if it does this was not a search contemplated by forty forty thirty by the terms of forty thirty and i would i would was such a policy and i don't believe that there is such a test in any such testimony there were only at the summary judgment phase there are only four depositions that have taken place in that case at that time the plaintiffs the two arresting officers and sergeant shift and it forms the basis of not only the reasons why summary judgment was proper in my client's favor but also the attorney's fees motion and also the motions for reconsideration and sanctions motions that followed judge also specifically held that the summary judgment record was undisputed that ship had not directly participated in the arrest or search he did not make policy for the police department shift only trained officers in the sense that quote if an officer asked me questions i provide the answers that i can or the resources where to get those answers and he's allegedly deprived of his fourth amendment rights shifted didn't even know of the arrest or search until after the fact finally there was no evidence that schiff was required to train and supervised and then failed to do so th probable cause whether or not it was a strip search the only contact he ever had with this entire matter was after the arrest after the search after a background check to determine whether or not there were any outstanding warrants officer sergeant schiff and said we're recommending we site and release this person and he signed off on it and that's why he got sued well he my office is obviously have some idea of what  effect and let me let me say if it was a strip search sergeant shift still can't possibly have any liability in this case why because he was not told in advance that they were doing a search he didn't know it was going on i think if he's made if even if that inference was made by the jury my client sergeant shift cannot be held responsible for it because what you're talking about is is a an alleged potential policy of the police department oh and my client is not in a policy making  fact there is no evidence to say to support that and also you said a critical thing that his way of running the police station where he's not running the police station he has levels of bureaucracy above him and there was testimony that went through above him or lieutenants above them or captains there's commanders then there's the chiefs and the policy making the way that things are done right or wrong are is directed by people that are far above sergeant shift in the food chain and that is precisely why judge arrest system was one that somebody in the county had authorized as a policy and the only testimony from schiff about the trespass issue was that the people that lived at this particular housing apartment complex had been concerned about drug dealing and that they wanted trespassers arrested and they had told that to the department and the department had tried to be careful to monitor the situation and there and arrest people for trespass and there's nothing nothing about a policy of just willy nilly arresting people when they want to and there's no testimony to that effect that is that it is a misrepresentation of the record and and i would i would encourage the court to look at the actual deposition testimony that's attached to the policy for arresting people without probable cause and i think in the record there is one final point i'd like to make because it was an issue that was raised in a reply brief and that was about our second motion for sanctions  judge also made his award granting our second motion for sanctions we had two motions for sanctions one both of which came from what judge also found to be frivolous motions for reconsideration and the second motion for sanction been here each captain has personally make contact with the managers and then they go and say they need to have him arrested he states them to get a record citation that ok he captain's directions mr kelly with respect to six o two well mr haines year with respect six those who will answer yes yes i have but i need to qualify that qualify that as i'm the supervisor ok it's very likely that if i came in contact with them i would instruct an officer to do it or do it jointly he's a lawful search with regard to the statute he's not even aware that you have to have reasonable suspicion to have person lower his pants so he is in it in action action with regard to this matter has allowed both for the arrest and the the the search and he was the duty sergeant at the time that's why he approved the arrest and and he had no problem with the search  and just touch up what some points if you look at exhibit one in the case that he refers to six o two cow third three six four in it refers to six will two point five and again that is if you go into somebody's house and you have is a different circumstance even going to anybody's house