well here the next case in the calendar mackintosh versus city of new york being assaulted by a much larger boyfriend and his credibility is entirely vitiated the shoots probable cause the only cause that the only facts that the officers had to go on based on doing  but that was after my client's informant that's what brought the officers to the to the residence right yes to restaurant is true but that is was the shed light of all of the facts are that he alleged at scene saying that my client was drunk which is not proof which is not considerable under the curley vs village of suffering case of believe the second circuit case in two thousand and the only things that the officers had to go on with  was slamming her onto the ground and trying to get her to quiet down and they witnessed an assault in light of that the they decided to side with the boyfriend anyway he said he didn't have any weapons at the scene he said that he did not that she did there officers taylor who was the main officer involved in the investigation in the search he even admitted that he believed that my client looked at the premises she had keys or premises her son's bed was a but was bed was in the apartment and the and he said he didn't have any weapon there weapons in plain view there was a scoped rifle against when was he arrested he was arrested after was your ah yes after my client you mean but during this during this visit by the police not days after director and this was a by the police after my client was taken away in the ambulance the ambulance he said that he did not attack my client meanwhile my client had a for assaulting my client my client starts assaulting him and that was the issue was whether the police had probable cause to arrest my client there were plenty of facts that the she has probably cause such as the  scene he said they were his in light of this officer taylor in the in this submissions to the complaint the arrest complaint he noted that he there were no weapons found at the scene despite these weapons being planned under the couch the whole thing is that these these facts my client conveyed to them that she was in fear of her life and it means to us in these kind of situations we have a law that the decisions also support that when the circumstances arise that undermine the complaining witness is credibility that probable cause is vitiated and that in a certain circumstances this is one of those circumstances and i'd like to a the the allegations of the complaining witness that this would basically subject any spouse and in deter them from from complaining of domestic violence because they can be arrested as well and we need to protect those people we need to protect not deter complete victims misting violence to come forward and to be told how can the credibility be totally undermined when you have when you have each person each side making statements that made a nine one one call to ask for assistance while the right of that is exactly the issue would in this situation most situations it would be the officers job to you know you are probably cause it would stand if there was nothing point your client was in police custody for about thirty six hours just to run during which time her leg wound was treated in an ambulance and she was twice taken to the hospital right for a treatment so where is where is the difference maybe disagreement about what kind of treatment it was call for but that doesn't rise to a constitutional claim as though it was due respect the fact that they took her without the physicians this in discharging discharging her and she was being she had shortness of breath and she had complaints due to her the assault upon her the officers decided they'd actually lied to my client and said that the they just need to see you in the morning if you don't if you don't come now you're going to be here for for significantly longer and they took her the proprietor of the center booking actually twice in two different occasions central booking told the officers from the precinct come back and get her she needs medical attention and they the first time she to they did and they arrested him and they actually arrested him to answer your honor's question for assault in the second degree which is a higher charge than the count that they arrested her for which is assault in the third degree so again this is not a situation where the assess the circumstances and simply arrested her without handling her counts of assault they did arrest him they process both people for assault in different degrees and  mcintosh makes much of the claim that there is not any evidence that she was drunk the issue isn't whether she was in fact was drunk the issue was whether or not the officers who both of them said that they believed she was any rate it confirmed they gave her ring of truth to what vecchio was saying which is that she in a drunken state had attacked him he also makes much of the fact that mr vecchio is a larger person we don't dispute that but just because you are a larger person doesn't mean you're automatically a liar it doesn't mean that you also cannot have been a victim in something that we all agree to this day there is no objective evidence what exactly happened in the apartment so no amount of investigation which is what mcintosh seems to be asking the officers to do what have to do to definitively determine what happened and officers as this core knows are are not under responsibility to find out to assess credibility and get to the bottom  of the cross complaints at the scene of the crime he also talks about the larger implications i don't think if you're on as we're to affirm this case there's going to be any larger implications other than the fact that if this court were to reverse it would he would effectively force officers to engage in a more probing analysis which would go against this court's precedent on the substantive due process claim leas understand it it's based upon the mackintoshes belief that arresting defendants created false evidence against her which they forwarded to prosecutors in the queens d office and this was described as a claim for a denial of the right to a fair trial based on fabrication of evidence and district court dismissed this  cause of action because it had found that there was probable cause to arrest macintosh but don't we have case law that that says that  prosecutors that that can stand even if the officers had probable cause under section one thousand nine hundred three yes your honor well it's true the dischord had dismissed that claim on that basis but as this as that claim was briefed here in the city you knowledge that probable cause dispose of the false arrest claim the malicious prosecution came and that piece of process so both sides analyzed the substantive due process ok but yes it's true the district court didn't go through the analysis but but this court can still affirm on the fact that mcintosh cannot show how the officers deliberately fabricate evidence that it would have been likely that anything that they fabricated allegedly would have been likely even to influence a jury's verdict particularly because i think the reply brief makes very clear that what mackintosh is complaining about are statement on her domestic incidents report which was used to support the charge against her boyfriend then boyfriend vecchio so it doesn't even implicate her right to a fair trial that's sort of an overall defect with the problem and the various statements she either failed to show that taylor actually knew that this was in her words fabricated or false or she has failed to show that it would have been likely to influence