then take a short recess before hearing the final two cases we begin with johnson versus tiptoes city mr ta i submit that there are really any facts in dispute between the parties in this we read the briefs we will discover that both the plaintiffs and the defendants pretty much are in agreement about of the essential facts of this case on the evening of october thirteenth two thousand things are for young men and women were sitting on the porch of a house  and one of the mothers asked their daughter to go the store which is right around the corner for their run and they all just they were talking and all of them just piled into the car and drove around to the store o'clock in the evening i've driven and looked in the cars in the evening i swear i cannot recognize anybody but apparently she recognized him and he recognized her and pulled him  over she stopped at a seafood outlet store seafood store that was on the way back home and long story short the officer back in her she got out the and then a slew of police officers show up the other passengers three of them are still sitting in the car on the defendant's claim that they were trying to get out the car but there are videos of the police officers turned on their video at the point of of them taking the woman out the car but they didn't know that the establishment had a video on the top of their  business that captured the entire scene from the time of the stop of the truck and the police officers arriving so you see everything that happened there's clients were charged with criminal proceedings where they convicted what happened no they were not ok and what that would do that just tugs is just dropped or they were dropped they were not charged with a new criminal proceedings and my client said that they told the officers a they didn't have that indication one of them said my mother i can call my mother she can bring my id the elements that she gave him that idea and i think that if you look at the video carefully you can see the passenger which is mrs johnson but hein the passenger seat actually i think giving somebody the identification but somebody and passengers remaining not in any association with the arrest of the driver not incident to the ressa to drive but slowly for the purpose of passengers they admit that they have what they have admitted is a policy of the typical police department and if you read their expert testimony it's apparently a policy that extends enough for parish area running from assumption back to terrible in paris let's call stop and identify and they have described it as a policy where police officers have the right if they stop anonyma below for good reason bad reason no reason at all that they have a right to demand identification of the passengers in that car and not only identification but but and i don't think anybody was thinking about terribly ohio special police officers who should have been thinking about it the persons even if they had refuse they said they didn't refuse but even if they had refused to give the officers their their idea of a cation they have a constitutional right to refuse they're committed no crime the officers did not say that they had violated any probable cause in any they didn't have any problem calls a reasonable suspicion been over they complied with the officers they did not resist the officers the officers not say they resisted them just plain old terry law and plain terry law well known brown v texas well the policy nobody is able to deny that it was a policy so if it's a policy that's testified to by all the officers in the transcript it's the policy and there should be visible liability in this case up i would hope that there's enough evidence in this record that the policy is clearly established on the facts and the testimony of the witnesses the defendants themselves including their supervisor there no dispute about the facts of anywhere so i would i would hope that this court would declare that the evidence to establish this clearly that there is a policy then we have the problem of the expert testimony of mr seen that oh who is an author predicts surgeon who examines two years later and more or less declares that  they have suffered no injury at all i don't see how you can look at the recording of what happened out of it either the a recording of the seafood outlet or the recording of the police officers and declare there was no injury certainly there was injury they testified to the injury and if you look at the transcript of their supervisor deposition of thirty six in the record he says there were injuries two of these persons that they were treated for scars and scrapes mr taylor let me go back to one of the other issues i mean you you you present unlawfully you did not plead that as to the city you play it only a city policy regarding excessive force so it seems to me that you may not be able to assert your claim on the city we didn't pleaded in the beginning maybe you may be correct and so you're saying if it was in the pretrial i'm not putting words in your mouth but you're saying if it was in the pretrial order it was tried back and sent yes  arises out of the facts of this case facts are presented and what arises out of the facts ought to be before the court and whether or not we are able to articulate at the beginning pleadings all of the issues of law that arise may not be the case i think the rules say that that were entitle a plaintiff is entirely a partisan title to the relief to which they were entitle were not you'd usually you're required to plead it with enough specificity that the defending party knows what it's being charged with and i had i don't believe it's in your complaint of course will study that carefully but i don't believe you you have played that sort of arm your honor if it arises out of the facts and i would hope that the court would allow us  o it's an important issue that arises out of the facts and one of the other things that we we hope and that i said and the reason for asking for this oral argument is the point out of the court there are so many things that arise about this case one of the things i've asked the court to simply look at is a process of trial rule one promises quick and speedy reach drug this trial out is a poor people i represent them this trial went all the way to a jury in new orleans with folks from tippett oh i don't think that the issue of  important issue this is one of first cases of that i've seen where you have the principal defendants a thirty six deposition and they're all a this is a policy of the city and i would hope that the court would consider that i took this case to try and stop it you know where this happen is is in the heart of the black community you know just stopping people and demanding id of them without any problem because without any reasonable suspicion of crime this something wrong with that and if that expert is correct he's testifying that this that's what they're trained to do in the academy that's what police officers are doing f terrible in paris and i hope that this case is important enough for this court to deal with that it would make a tremendous difference in how police officers conduct their what was the legal justification for prolonging the stop to ask for i d s from the non drivers well yawner as we we dispute the facts and he said the facts are in agreement they're not in agreement  and when the driver was removed from the vehicle ms roberts and she was brought over to the side at that same time to one every kept trying to get out of the vehicle she kept trying to get out of the vehicle and raised to safety concerns so from the point that robson was removed from the vehicle on every started getting out of the car cursing loud officer i'm a door had to shout several times loudly get back in the car get back in the car get back and forth so from that point on they were detained when ms robertson was questioned she was not the registered owner of the vehicle so the officer could not just turn of the vehicle to these people you had to see if any m had a license so they could drive the vehicle and so they were met with resistance pretty much right out of the gate so became a safety issue and if you look at if the officer didn't testify i mean you didn't put that in your brief the the tell me testimony abstain every officer said we do this is a matter of policy we didn't think they were about to commit a crime we didn't have probable cause to think they were going to commit a crime we do this is policy you know is there evidence in the record that any officer said this was a safety concern we were going to protective sweep any of it or if you look at the testimony of  is late at night wolf a lot fit in there the one in every is trying to get out of the vehicle the suspects or that the passengers are using cell phones to tell him to pick up the cell phones and if you watch the video there are people coming out there so it's a safety concern and it is a very vibrant scene that's happened out there on that night and officer amador does recognize his the lesser nickname she has narcotics arrest previous narcotics arrest and that's all  officers of all the safety issues that they were going through so what what do you do with the statements that judge owen referred to statements to the effect that we have this policy of asking for  the policy is a policy and you do not have to provide a photo id kelly green got out she didn't have a photo i d she gave her name and her date of birth and they were able to pull that up all right well let's let let's get back to the policy if an officer testifies that we law if you look at state versus landry ok and pennsylvania versus mims you don't need probable cause that a crime has been committed to ask someone to identify themselves when there's a valid traffic stop or vehicle stop to ask the non drivers for id automatically as a matter of policy where there is no other suspicion of criminal activity correct your honor and where this is a balancing test it is a minimal intrusion for someone to have to identify themselves as opposed to officer safety and for someone just to have to give their name and identify themselves as state versus landry's in one thousand nine hundred one supreme court decision of the state of louisiana a very passengers as well and it's not just a policy these typical police officers it is a state law as taught at the post academy peace officer standards training academy and it is part of the last eight years of landry and then you also look at fourteen yes and well that throughout the trial they were raising a stop and frisk and we were saying this is not a stop and frisk case it's all throughout the transcript of the trial and judge saying he had finally cautioned them not to bring this up again that cause you don't need reasonable suspicion to have him identified when there's a valid vehicle stop that we have here well i think what do you do with the brigham case that's an investment case did from this court two thousand and four in which we held that that the detention can't be extended beyond the time needed to arrest the driver unless there's other reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and that didn't that didn't happen here well officer amador in his report she's continued to get other vehicle very strongly it if you look at the record page thirty three ninety one point of stipulated that dr sinak was an expert in the field of orthopedic surgery and they had multiple opportunities to try to limit his testimony with motions in limine a and the court ruled against them and then it was put together in a video for a trial and they wanted another rehash all the issues again a judge saini correctly said no it is here so the neck was not able to go into any kind of talk about their past  violation of pain contract or smoking or anything like that he had to limit his testimony to the issues at hand their previous extensive medical history and old of accidents and injuries they had doctors and act testified clearly  that there were diagnostic films he saw before the incident and after the incident and he looked at the medical report after that showed no proof that there was any injury plaintiffs did not put on one item of medical evidence at trial they don't you write one piece of paper put in evidence and say this shows that they're injured they said they were injured officers testified at trial that there were no visible signs of injury on this they did not see there was some mention of scraped knees when john sutton on one of the officers tried to ask her if this was related she wouldn't even cooperate to tell him that so straight knees i don't know if that's excessive force either they did not show this with excessive force claim they did not establish that there was any kind of injury either but back to the policy which seems to be a big concern  of louisiana and fourteen want to wait and it's taught at the at their cademy and well i was i don't know i don't understand what difference that makes if it if it violates the federal constitution well we're saying it doesn't because it follows  a policy of just automatically asking for i d s of passengers in a vehicle even absent suspicion of any unlawful activity yes it is a it is a law that they are taught to follow and they cademy and they do this so the answer is yes yes when they do have yes your honor and wilson says that you can make passengers exit a vehicle even if you don't think that they're committing a crime but it doesn't say you can demand from trial it's going to be in the transcript or he saying we have to look back at some other document such as a police report or what joan is asking she asking you about three times where to where will we find it ok you will find the safety concerns the safety  issues definitely and expert on brewster's report but also place off in the police report and you will find it in the police testimony that they were safety concerns with the cell phones that they were using they were calling people and the one every trying to get out of the vehicle you the other driver away and it was no longer any kind of concern and if there's no safety issue no reason to detain them they had a reason to detain that night and the specific facts   safety is a fact issue in this case just of laid aside ok what's the law ok that well when safety is and if you aside from any safety issue what is the law on no no you cannot then i'm sorry i'm having a difficult time you know when the ladies go on no it that's clear that it's no longer based to detain they could not turn the vehicle over to them the vehicle had to be towed nobody had a license that night nobody they weren't even registered owner of the vehicle but back to the safety concern absolution after she's gone if there's no other safety issue you it says as soon as the arrest has been completed that there's no further reason for detention absence especially of criminal activity isn't that right yes yes that's it's convictions well what difference does that make you can't just stop somebody on the street because you know that person has prior convictions i'm not talking about someone who's under a warrant yes yes well it was a safety issue and that's why they were id ing well now i'm a little bit worried about that because it sounds like what you're saying is that if a person has had prior arrests or convictions for narcotics or anything else that's serious that it's then ok to ask that person for i d where it might not have been ok otherwise no your honor and i that's what i thought i heard you say he better clarify that i don't mean to paint that picture that may be part of the whole picture that they were dealing with officers only have so many minutes to make decisions and it was if you if you look at that those videos you can see what the officers were were dealing with with the anger and frustration and but we had safety issues right out of the gate when that they recognized the driver robertson as have an outstanding warrant for their arrest pulled him over she gets out and then ms avery continues to try to get out of the vehicle and has to be warned several times to get back in at that point safety concern is a concern and at that point officers are entitled under state the landry to go ahead and ask for identification and ask them to get out of the vehicle so that they can make sure there's no weapons there anything of that sort and it's a very minimal intrusion i would i would put forth to have to identify themselves as opposed to officer safety well page twelve for example the appellant's brief he says the defendants repeatedly affirmed your clients over and over again that their sole reason for detaining clients was to force them to produce than for cash and without any reference whatsoever to plaintiff's involvement in criminal activity i don't agree with that that's not the sole reason  probable cause to stop somebody and pet him down but on the stop and identify you do not need it when its safety is a concern and here safety was a concern so they just asked for identification which we feel is a very minimal intrusion in in this sees you would you share his concern if the facts were as as he has represented that's what i asked i would share his concern thank you but but i do not agree with his facts so thank you for thank you mr g mr taylor you say time for about only central facts of the reasons for the stop of the sequence of events there's very little difference between what we say and what they say intell far as a concern about safety there's a judge zaini wouldn't hear anything at the end of the trial all it all of the police reports that the police reports that none of them were made in trial he got that one in because it had that that stuff in it all and if you look at the video you will see that as some point the police dogs came it has nothing to do with this case there's no safety issue if you look at the video for me getting to the end there's one  the right to great sue but i'm not prepared to argue it at this point right now if it is an issue for her in a car stop and identifies unconstitutional that right mr g suggested it's ok to do it if if this is a person who in the past has been has been charged with or convicted of some substantial crime your hon or if that is the case then if you have police officers running around stopping people because they think that passengers have committed a crime the thought of it once guilty always guilty or innocent and what about the spring course decision and stately landry the louisiana supreme court's decision if les injury says what he says is says that it it violates the constitution of the united states so it been overruled me and the city it's out there what he didn't put in his brief so i didn't i'm not prepared to comment on it but i know what terribly ohio says i know what brown v texas says and i know what a host the progeny arising out of these cases say and stop and identify as been described in their brief as described in the court and he's correct i was it  not apply this case that there was no danger of these police officers these people didn't do anything to police officers they found themselves being jerked out of a car into a ground tasered an arrest this is something unfair about