case i need to raise the fact that the plaintiffs ran away after he was caught on july seventeenth ninety ninety eight that is something that no lawyer and certainly no judge would like the fact that he ran away however i argue that in this case it didn't make any difference because there are disputed issues of material fact with respect to whether or not defendant respect to whether or not there was a battery on a police officer that held that it didn't matter anyhow because there was reasonable that there was  in making himself a person of interest to this policeman and there's nothing about race that distinguishes him from anyone else with distinguishes him from anyone else prior criminal record no excuse me there's a there is a mark with the policeman a couple of times i think part and he was smart with the policeman a couple of times that tends to be how they define problem makers as i understand it policemen don't prosecute all they are is complaining witnesses right and it's like the victim of a crime who's the complaining witness and then the jury thinks that the victim lied to the victim misidentified criminal victim wide about some critical element of that whether that made it a crime or not since policeman doesn't have the power to prosecute for a crime and is merely complaining witness how do you to address first whether there was a constitutional right location and that's how this was being analyzed was in their mind in unity i believe that the order is that there was no constitutional violation i'm just puzzled by archer the courts slid right past the issue that i raised it looks as though nobody raised it so they just assumed that when a policeman submitted a false report that leads to an unfounded prosecution that the policeman initiated prosecution even though it's just not how prosecution's going to shit but they seem assume and i'm wondering if there's some other there are a lot of cases where a criminal prosecution falls apart for one reason or another and it looks as though the complaining witness lied and that they virtually never in my experience supreme court has pointed out that the same danger exists in the case of potential liability for police officer witnesses and it was disgusting the falsely to create a false report that causes a person to stand trial when they otherwise wouldn't and there's a distinction in the case law between that  of ation as a constitutional right and perjury oneself on the stand i understand that there's probably absolute and unity for lying on the witness stand that not for propositions number one that it's not initiation of a prosecution for the policeman to make a false report to the prosecutor and number two for the proposition that it's not a favorable terminations on all material facts are from his deposition testimony we are not attempting to dispute any fact he admits he was there after change even if he was in a group of people that looked like they were under age and he admits that he was asked to me not so i'm not that something that if he was being targeted an officer doesn't say move along get home to somebody that he believes is underage he admits that he was walked across the street that he ran after he was walking across the on the militias prosecution claim section one hundred eighty three which is prosecution claimed requires that the state law elements of malicious prosecution be play and there as well be a violation of some federal right i say yes or i thing though i thought prosecutors that the same thing with policemen surely do but nevertheless police officers cause the initiation of a prosecution by coming into a prosecutor if they come up with something with legal proposition that a police officer can't be sued for malicious prosecution because it's legally impossible for a police officer to initiate their case that focuses then answers that question where the question was raised i'm not  malice and longer is required because it's subjective component and you can have you're not required to have or can have a subjective component but let me get back to the initiation the reason it's troubling me is that the complaining witness in that case subject to a malicious prosecution sure sure whether or not it could ever be won i doubt it because it's much closer and it's got to do with people's perceptions believes somebody had there been a love and one verdict that was in this case the jury decided eleven to one to acquit the plaintiff the judge heard all the testimony and then based on what the judge h versus catch analysis there are three things you go through one is a constitutional violation pled or serious truth was laure clearly established at the role of in time of course it was and three could a reasonable police officer have believed that she or he was doing that which was right and wasn't doing that which was wrong no reasonable police officer could believe the trump facts and telling lies would be correct i think for the