about whether june th two thousand and sixteen sergeant valentino of the city of chicago police department contain consent to enter miss one sees home from two identified young males nd issue is that on and sixteen defendants should not be protected by qualified immunity because they did not reasonably rely upon the city of chicago building inspectors when entering the home and determining that there were accidents circumstances the difficulty much is that the material you know the totality of circumstances lead a jury to incur that proper consent was not provided this is based on the fact that sergeant valentino did not obtain the names of the two individuals that he claims to have obtained consent from the illinois the rodriguez case states the type of inquiries that an officer should be expected to perform the core of that is st determining who it is that is giving consent the officer in that case where do you argue this in your preferred this is in the reply brief your honor i don't see it ends up being about issue of these two unidentified identified males and that provided additional legal support in our reply brief for why that is not sufficient consent the disk the challenge we have here is the principle br one we're almost all of these two pages are directly lifted from this law review article it's not cited the the response brief goes into great detail as to the issues that the blue brief  has another root issue is there's there's a certification that will thirty s been complied with that the district court decision making was added but there is no actual compliance under the necessary inquiry that needs to be made to obtain consent and the property as for june th and that you know we've asked the court to use whatever discretion might have to to interpret our brief and that matter what about the failure to include the district court's decision but we did tatts in our defendants the court relies on the flat for case in determining that qualified immunity could lead a police officer to reasonably rely upon the city inspectors authorization to enter the property we and our reply brief to distinguish between flack for it and the and the facts present in this case in the primary difference is that the city inspector in the city of monroe or the flat for case took place on st went to a court to obtain an inspection warrant in order to enter the property and there and they found no code violations that constituted the need to come back the police officers evacuate property here there was never an inspection warrants ever issued and miss one z's affidavit clearly disputes that consent was given to the inspectors on the morning of june th allowing them to enter the property the record indicates that there was a gesture but without further facts indicating what type of gesture that was that because of the code violations so his own recognition of his alliance was not based on the basis that the court said he entered into the property but was based on another reason is disputed does not constitute an emergent circumstance for the purpose of sergeant officer curity in entering the property and that the court's stated purpose in the opinion which was that he entered the property reasonably relying upon the damage that the building could cause to tenants at the property is not his actual stated purpose his stated purpose and the property was to protect the city inspector marlene hopkins from this one season i rate the havior that issue is clearly disputed in the record this one z in her deposition an affidavit states that she was not i rage and she was in pink pajamas and had really no way of the court the district court correctly granted summary judgment to the officers st just as a preliminary matter as the court is aware we argued in our brief that is once the forfeited her appeal by failing to make a proper brief with respect to her search planes the district court correctly granted summary judgment on the claim arising from the june th encounter that day sergeant valentyn obtain consent from this once he's got to enter and that consent defeats the unreasonable search claim for that day with respect to june th the officers are entitled to qualified immunity ms once she consented to the building inspectors and three into her house and the officers in turn entered only when the inspectors asked for the officer's assistance sirin the evidence in the record from below that she did not consent to the building officers entering into the home i think counsel just said there was evidence of that from her affidavit or her deposition i didn't see that you know i refer to the parties joint statement of undisputed fact so it at that stage of summary judgment and since it's not clearly established that when an officer enters at the request of the building inspector who's lawfully present in this onesies unreasonable search claim for that day fails as well if the court has no further questions for very briefly on the issue of the gesture that was made the rising or not authorizing consent the statement of the joint statement of facts did indicate that there was a gesture but there was nothing in the statement facts indicating that there is this gesture constituted an objective consent to enter the property it's our position that a gesture could be a wave and or it could be a whole sack and there are there of video evidence in this case where you can actually see the gesture and there's no clear evidence from the video that this gesture was some type of authorization for the inspectors and property