i have a question about that certainly the details of this are fairly unusual and the briefing is pretty scattershot but it seems to me principle in those two cases i believe it's a clear is that was lawful or investigated detentions which is what terry versus ohio applies to my i would submit that when it comes to call about immunity that for doing so and quote so and so i don't i don't understand why that principle doesn't apply to  whether we call in is that what was the justification that you know all of her for the conduct undertaken by the office the justification was to document the injuries after a significant use spectrum of the case law out there that could possibly apply to this case because there are cases that justify officers viewing underneath the suspects clothes including finding the viewing their their  shipyard there was probable cause for this person's arrest and in the officers went to the hospital as part of that investigation and then your earlier answer to me was it doesn't make any sense because you started by saying terry only applies if someone's  business now you tell us that they are there as part of our criminal investigation that right there i was trying to expand myself your honor to answer your question they went there the according to their decorations to follow up with the suspect if they were able and if in and document the injuries from the use of force they got to the hospital they were able to fog them so they they would be documented the use of force i'm having a little honors difficulty understanding that statement in conjunction with your argument now well that i would that's the point of the use of force investigation that did the injuries that potential injuries could be lost if they were documented at the time but isn't that what the hospital is doing the hospital records they're documenting it for medical purposes well i don't did not have a right to do what they did didn't either they'd like to do it or they typically do it is not really well is relevant because of course for profit immunity is what every officer know what they did was unconstitutional that's that's part of the analysis well maybe but the fact that they do it a lot doesn't make it right if every if every officer in a police department decides they can beat a confession out of someone it doesn't make it permissible that's not what happened but my my point is judgment of land the individual would have become conscious or are what the period of time would be who are his or mark such as these to disappear no no no medical evidence the basis for a statement as i said is the declaration of the opposite as in the cities experts that it's best practice to go to the hospital to document injuries and that kind of something that the police do all the time for car accidents that but that  say that they're not sure whether they were moved to where the hospital staff moved it for them but it in any case it was done at their direction and because they wanted it moved so either way it's the police you think is the strongest for you in terms of your claim of clearly established law well actually there are cases all of their strip search cases are manipulate a person's clothing as part of a search without having a reasonable suspicion or some other recognized just huge well that's exactly it all of the ca bright line requiring reasonable suspicion there is no case law there is no history of case law that makes an exception for in police investigation that isn't criminal they say they can do they she has the right to say no and she was conscious and that's something they came up with a case with the traffic pattern that's unique but what they did is they took i don't use or it's their military analogies so i'm going to refund something they took a broken down car that wouldn't start dressed it up with a bunch of fancy electronics and said look this is something brand new but the core law hasn't changed you have to have a room you have to have probable cause or reasonable suspicion there's no contraband and the reason for the reasonable suspicion is for officer safety and that's what revealing of strips or revealing of undergarments in a it is searching is not necessarily the least intrusive and can be an invasion of privacy including for men and the other thing wasn't describing this situation and he wasn't on the scene and he doesn't work for this department he doesn't actually know what their common practice is other than what they tell him in addition mr brady conceded that none of those other searches that are common practice happened while the the subject was unconscious i mean that in itself is a bright line that should be a red flag warning of we have to be as to both criminals are in continuation b and then that occurred about apartment and then there's also some suggestion that it's really well the city had not rape is the idea that it was a criminal search until this morning st of all secondly the crime that she was a very actually accused of and was  up until now that this was an administrative search for the purposes of documenting injury in case she so of them and they said that repeatedly and as part of their internal use of force investigation internal meaning not her with a game of department she can consent to refuse to participate but it was briefly administrative and there is no case law and there is never been that allows a search in an administrative non criminal context and the whole purpose of the th amendment is to protect the police protect the public for the police walking up to someone and deciding they feel like searching them for their own internal purposes i mean that's the difference between a police state and a democracy is that they can't do that they have to actually have a criminal nexus to do a search and there wasn't one here at all and they did it three hours later she was in the hospital for three hours while they went and did other things it's not like it was in the continuous motion from the time and she wasn't handcuff she wasn't placed under arrest they didn't transport her she was never arrested when she was in consciousness and was deemed to be physically able to she was released and two by the hospital and went home they say they serve there by citation a week later thank you counsel your time has expired unless either my palmer cases that allowed in found sort of undergarments abusing them was reasonable was communicated taking there's this dollar versus wolf is cases that analyze whether a search was reasonable or not and none of those cases have found a search in this context was unreasonable it was hospital room searches that were observed have been found reasonable so the defense point is worse dr which one of those doctors applied when these officers walked into the hospital room and the answer is it's not clear which doctrine applied the court this record applied terry with but that doesn't apply and it's facts so because it's not clearly established these officers aren't aliquot and unity thank you thank you counsel we appreciate the arguments from both of you and