against the caseworkers who removed the children and dismissed all of the claims against the police officer that was there on the scene when the children were removed we've appealed the dismissal of the claims against the police officer officer plan i'd like to focus on the wrongful removal aspect of the case police officers entitle to qualified immunity if you can establish that you did not violate any clearly can only be removed from their parents with a court order or in existing circumstances they have to have an exit exit in circumstances means that you have to have evidence or belief that the children are going to be harmed or abused in the time it would take you to obtain it court ordered in this case officer when arrived at the home there was a stalemate between the caseworkers and parents about the remo was an exchange officer phlegm tells them to be quiet or he's going to take them to jail for interrupting the caseworkers doing their job he tells them to stop being silly right off the bat v the case being search and seizure cases you understood he knew he testified he admitted it he knew that there was no court order the arrears told him there was no court order he understood it he didn't  he knew that he admitted that he knew there was no court order and he admitted that he knew there were noises of circumstances all he had to do was say to those caseworkers do you have a court order and they would have said no and he said well what's your basis and then he would have to explain what it was in assures the case the police officers at the scene the police officers at the scene were involved in a conversation between the workers and parents where the caseworkers explained exactly what the basis was case where police officers assisted in the removal of special needs children from the parents and they talk about the surest case in the district court noting that it is well established that law enforcement officers and agencies are entitled to rely on one another to a certain extent the court found that the officers did not act blindly at the instruction of the h s but instead had knowledge of the key details that informed just the determination so they're witness the parents refused to allow the officials to meet with or speak with the children and knew that a warrant could not be obtained or at least thirty six hours under such circumstances the court included that the officers reliance on v h s instruction was subject that's how we read this year's case exactly the same the the officers there have a reason to understand what the caseworkers are doing the minute goes on it says contrary to been a suggestion sure so it does not stand for the proposition that understanding that the police officer had been there before the day before when one of the children had fallen in the hole and that one of the children who was autistic i think w running around at the time without any clothes on and this officer did not actually go into the house and the children are all those things that is correct  now doesn't that make a difference here they give the officer some reason to believe that there were problems problems does not justify removal he still stuck with federal law that says  of circumstances one of the key points that the trial judge made with respect to the caseworkers clothes that the caseworkers all testify that they were concerned about muhammad the oldest child because he's very and have i notice child he's he's i mean he has challenges he's he is very difficult that's where their concern was they testified that they were concerned about the parents ability to control mom basis to move each child they have to do a step or an analysis for each child why they are risking parents custody so even if even if the officer plan had some reason to think well he can't control moment that doesn't clearly has that story authority to conduct investigations and to remove children from their homes if that adequate basis to they are the ones who made the decision to remove the prayer children in this circumstance that i dangerous a parent might do something that otherwise they might not do plus as it gets the call to be dispatched to the house he's been told the prayers are competition but there are a system but they're not cooperating with the d c s employee when he gets there  or thank you thank you mr reeves mr black hearse for the bickley interest participant rule i think officer flam clearly was an integral participant nothing had happened before he wasn't warranted what are you expecting him to do if the c s decides to go ahead and remove the children is he simply to abandon them even if the even if there's escalating anger  if someone's trying to come into my house and there's a police officer there and there's no justification for it i try to put myself in the bear's position what are they supposed to do they tell the big ask the police officer  mr reid rightfully talks about how emotional this is i have five children i don't know what i would do in that situation but out i certainly would feel that i was justified to go in my house  he's part of that he's part of the system he's got to be held responsible and be expected to understand what the what the law provided for the lowest case in the wallace case the police officers got a call from child protective services and were told that there was of court order to remove the children because he was going to sacrifice them to see father was sacrificed they went remove the children they were he was not those police officers were not granted immunity under that circumstances they didn't do anything to check that's what our situation is here maybe he's off the hook if you just as a what do you do what do you do if you don't have a court order and then he then they call they call the county thank you so much thank you counsel on both sides we appreciate it the case is about it thank you