williams deserves his day in court because the record establishes that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of mr williams separate separate apart from the video in this case which was the focus of the district court's decision comprehensible understand in terms of context to that of this is this individual this is a successful businessman that hasn't had you know unless there were that's worse right he should know better if he's a successful businessman rather than thin that that the battery that was committed in this case was committed by officer brooks on mr williams not by mr williams an officer perks in police officers are permitted to are permitted to put him back in the car and then once he was in the car he he's approached him and had a colloquy with him and then he said i want to pull you out because you're not getting what's going on here works that effect and at that point mr williams who had nothing to drink he  had and i think it's important to context of a situation of mr williams coming home late at night in a working late on a project he was tired and hungry and in that context he pulled them out and said in the officer said i want to get run you through field sobriety tests at that point talking about that i'm talking about when he got up and walked away from the car yes from his car i don't understand that well perhaps a better practice could have should have been everybody and the notion that you walk away from the car when the police officers trying to write a ticket or write a warning or something like that specially for  towel to wipe off some dirt that was on the mirror and you understand that's why williams was concerned like you said your guy was tired he had a really long day i mean to get out that is very when the police stop he did get out and leave the car you agree that certain then and then he has to tell him seven times to get back so he's thinking he's not tracking very well you attribute it to being tired but you understand why the officer could could do tributed to someone who maybe has a but you certainly understand where there could be the basis for probable cause perhaps yes so that's the basis for probable cause then we moved to was eerie any kind of abuse once the guy got back when he asked him to get back out but of course  they get back out because he wants to get the feels right and when he gets a back up the mr williams says hey i will take a p v t i'll take a portable breath test and i will because i know that i haven't had anything to drink and at that point that's when the officer lays hands on him in the escalates and the police officers can do more than do the portable breath test or even ask them by the blocker in judging your to their nose all of that stuff that's all reasonable yes and i think that that's part of the those other field sobriety tests methods perhaps but but the issue here is there was no explanation by the officer to mr williams saying well i can't do that or can it in terms of that's not the better practice he just immediately police hands he is believe the police officers approximately five feet ten inches tall and this really is about six foot it but the the focus of the district court's decision in in this case was on the video and i think that you have an eye witness that says hate i wouldn't want that done on me i thought that it was excessive and you also have a state criminal court judge that looks at it as well in comes to the same conclusion well if the police order you back into the car and you refuse what are they supposed to police car and carry him off to police station in a chip point for if he would have been the more you see the better practice would have been to hold him at a taser point until officer physical abuse and you know what if he still to comply with the he was a problem with the taste and his hands i think it's important judge in terms of the his hands were up in the taser when he was  lining him up i think the district court overlooked the fact that that there was a guttural groan of pain of time that he for the last instance where he propel them against the mirror in that is you know thank you this was going to be an ordinary traffic stop i don't think there's any dispute that there is a lane violation and also a fare to signal before turning on to greenfield avenue the officer pulled him over there in a gas station parking lot the officer checked his criminal history everything checked out he's going to give him a warning so he gets outside of his car has the warning in hand it had all been over by then but that's when things change which is when mr williams got out of the car inexplicably and walked somewhere i think he presumed that mr brooks would know he was a good citizen but mr brooks said plenty of training and knows that you can't judge a book by its cover so when someone gets out of their car during a traffic stop you have to protect yourself and you have to fear for your safety and the safety of others that's why after the seventh command to get back in the car says get back in the car or i will tase you finally gets back in the car after that all bets are off it's a legitimate concern on brooks's part that this guy may not necessarily be intoxicated but he may be insane he may be on drugs or something like that he's only cracked his window maybe two or three inches he's got something to hide and the attitude is apparent throughout the video he orders him out of the car does a pat down as he's entitled to do and when he attempts to pass when he orders him to turn around he doesn't turn around so mr brook gently helps him turn around by grabbing his right wrist and facing him toward the car it would have been nice if mr williams  had conceded that and then mr brooks could have searched his pockets and check things out in a field sobriety but it never got to that point so if somebody refuses a pat down refuses  officer search then maybe they do have a gun mr williams didn't look like the kind who carried a handgun spitz particularly a illegal handgun or that he was a criminal but mr  every reason to be concerned for his own safety the reason there are these laws and that the district court cited a great case bring one versus california the officer has to have complete command of the situation when in a typical traffic stop that's why you're not allowed to get out of your car there's it's there's a statute in the traffic code in the state of indiana nine dash twenty one covers all the moving violations in the if every violation you can imagine but there's an extra met subject and it ties in with this bridge in one case and the idea that the officer has to have complete control of the situation in terms of excessive force i saw very little the most important thing in the briefing in this case is that i suppose from a defense standpoint our alamo is the qualified immunity argument the district court didn't reach that point and we don't feel it's necessary either but let's let's start there the plaintiff mr williams has to come for four  wall that it's clearly established that a couple pushes of the guy's abdomen against the car when he's refusing to submit to a pat down or otherwise refusing any of the officers instructions stopped there are ready at greenfield avenue ok so so the actual i just want to clarify yeah the actual moving violation is not on not on camera but anyway if you look at it if you look at th the the case and if you look at the video there there are no cases that exist that match this case specifically there's no case that shows that it is clearly established that shoving a guy a couple times against the car is a constitutional violation this guy had no injuries he complained of back pain he had no treatment he complained a little bit about the handcuffs but that claim has been waived because it was officer kill who handcuffed him and there is no excessive force claim against made against officer calles so so that's out the window in less or any other time and that he was running through through the tests in this court has has with respect to the the force issue this court has said repeatedly in terms of excessive force can apply in the context officers know that they're not applied more force than necessary in this context you have an officer that right from the beginning of the inception of the traffic stop says are you are you cop an attitude with me or words that effect are you having an attitude with me williams explains no i'm not just trying to get home and so from that standpoint that colors and gives context to to a stop and i think i think that should not be removed from the situation in terms