are five minutes this is a fairly straightforward case in which the central legal issue is that of illegal entry into a private home a private home hot pursuit of a felon destruction of evidence to prevent a scape danger to the police or others or to assist a person who may begin jered or ill inside the home none of those elements appear in this case and therefore presumptively given the authority of the sanctity of the home under the th amendment which we cited in our brief entry under those circumstances no your honor it's not mere speculation he hadn't threatened anybody he hadn't threatened the officers he will hadn't indicated that he was hostile to them he will or individuals making forty movements or movements that the officer might reasonably believe our efforts to get a weapon are something that's enough to put us in peer of his personal safety and if that could be said was that this fellow far a b b gun to protect his daughter or his own home in his own home from a feral cat that is at most an ordinance violation did the officer the receive the information that the weapon used with a b b gun we don't know and he didn't investigate he didn't ask he was told at the door that that was the case and there was no controvert in evidence and therefore if he assumed that it was a different type weapon he did so without any objective basis is theirs as are state laws that makes it a violation to kill an animal there are two there's a state statute and there's a and there's a local ordinance but the elements for that are pretty severe you have to torture abuse wound and cause an actual injury we set out both the statute and the local ordinance in our brief and conclusively demonstrated that number one the elements here weren't met and that number two they never investigated there was no her cat no cat was even shot with a b gun they simply made an assumption that he had killed a cat they did that on the basis of the local cat lady ms porter when he said that  he kill a cat i know she didn't do that he didn't do it he went down after he fired at the trampoline and scared the cattle off which was what he intended to do still with the b b gun in his hand went down to miss porter the lady who said federal cats and drew up to forty of them into her yard and said the next time a cat comes into my yard and injures much out it's going to be a dead care that's a conditional threat that had nothing to do with what actually happened that day ok i thought that she had said subsequent to that that he bragged about killing  she did say that it's not in anything that i know of she when she was called to court after they brought the charges of animal abuse against him which were dismissed she refused to testify and so i never said anything or expected anything like this and the charges were dismissed but when she when she called the police initially didn't she report to the police that he had shot a cat in the hand of something that that effect i think she did ok that that's a report from an anonymous person that they don't know what i said and she reported that she reported that they didn't investigate that they officer van the primary defendant here somehow or another based on the claim of killing a cat this incident drew the attention of the entire lincoln park police department they went there and in some way or another based on a shooting and the death of an animal they had in their minds develop those into oak was a barricaded gunman you know scenario and officer van at the door basically said just show are sure id you're not arrest we'll leave that's reasonable mr barton wouldn't come out he had his mother in law hand his identification out but it was a ruse when she opened the screen to hand his identification out that's when van burst through the door rushed into the house and slammed him into the cabinet injuring him in his own police can lie police can lie to try to get confessions but police can't lie to enter all home without a warrant and that's what happened here and that's why the intruder home was basically illegal it was a ruse and it was a ruse which have no basis in fact and resulted in injury and that's another reason why the central confrontational claim in the case is illegal entry secondarily will argue about the severity of the injuries the district court in our view misconstrued the necessity of a severe injury or medical treatment or a permanent and that he alleged they threw him down the i guess the porch steps and that quick cost while he was handcuffed and that caused it further injury is that correct that's where the did he complain to the police about the handcuffs being too tight he did in the police car he didn't so far as i know on the record but what he told them was and he tried to tell them that he couldn't put his arms behind his back mr barton is a factory  a preexisting injury and condition to his right shoulder and to this day he needs fruited rick of surgery so when he tried to tell them that my arms will go behind their back and vans i'll make them go behind your back and did and then not only force the arms back but tighten hanke us to the point to where the there were marks left days later this court available to the officers to determine that exigent circumstances existed and would you again if our the particular exit st of all you heard from mr davis go through the various there was several pieces of information your honor which were available to the officers prior to the time the actual entry into the home took place there had been a nine hundred and eleven call made by the neighbor to the dispatcher and that call stated that her neighbor whom she identified had admitted shooting a cat with a gun that was relayed to the dispatcher  secondly the complaint was investigated by an animal control officer officer manchester who came to st talk to miss porter and again she confirmed to him that that that had taken place  at the time that the enema control officer talked to mr barton he did you at that point went to mr barton attempted to make an investigation as to the circumstances which had occurred mr barton was at that point highly the cat in an attempt to scare the can away what he had done as he had shot his gun into the leg of a trampoline and which is daughter was playing in an attempt to scare the cattle wait that was his information and he stated to him that he had shot the cat but he was unwilling to provide any further information any identification in fact he directed the officer to leave his ho a rather hostile fashion and that officer was concerned enough he was not armed with a gun he was concerned enough that he felt threatened he knew that the plaintive had used a firearm he couldn't see the firearm looking into the house and he retreated and he called for back out he no the of the opposite i mean the person use of arm was he was he relying on a report from the neighbor from the report on the neighbor and from mr martin's testimony to him he testified the statement to him statement to him yes that he had shot the cat was a valid statement that the neighbor said that justified their arresting her statement was that he had admitted to her that he shot the cat with a weapon and i thought you said he said he shot at the catch at the bottom of the travelling his testimony his just statement yes his statement was that he had  well two different things right the neighbor is saying that he admitted to her he shot the catholic officer manchester admitted that he made the same statement to officer manchester when he was investigating the complaint that he shot statement to the dispatcher was that he had shot the cat and she didn't know what the weapon was they were unaware of what weapon was being used or what's the law require  well shoot a cat is at a violation of our local lower while there is both a state statute and there is a local ordinance that prohibits cruelty to animals it prohibits not only killing or torture but it prohibits several other things disfiguring a cat so it would be possible that if that and even taking his his statement that he had shot at the trampoline rather than at the cat it would still be possible that this was a violation of the ordinance and the statute is the or does make an exception though when there is reasonable fear of bodily harm from an animal to an individual such as a child in this instance it talks about just cause the ordinance does not make that exclusion the state statute does reference just cause for killing torturing whatever but in this situation we're talking about a cat we're not talking about a lion it's not something that is going to be put someone in fear of their life and it's certainly possible if it was a feral cat the owner doesn't know whether the cat has a disease of the cat so he doesn't know as it doesn't know that but what he what he did say is that he shot at the trampoline leg still considering that there is a very pure real possibility with a bullet or if it turned out a b b gun is shot at something like that it could ricochet it could injure the animal it could potentially actually be dangerous to his daughter the officer the right to go and they investigation which was obstructed by mr barton he was not cooperating he was hostile he had demanded the officer get off his property and the officer actually felt threatened by mr martin's behavior to the extent that he went back to his vehicle and that he requested backup from additional officers of lincoln park which is how they happened to come on the scene or t shooting a gun at cats and killing cats they were aware that there where of officer manchester's indication that it had been a threatening situation to him which is he was he was not armed which had required him to retreat and to seek additional  assistance from the patrol cars but even when the other officers arrived they experienced the same lack of cooperation the same brief you to provide identification the same refusal to talk to the officers additionally noted that there was it was chaotic situation there were relatives on the porch were also yelling and screaming it was very tense so are you are you arguing that there were repeated attempts to get them to cation before mr barton produced didn't occasion through the screen there were two of the mother in law yes yes that's fairly well established in the record that there were there were several attempts to do this and that the refusal continued eventually he did i believe take out in a den of occasion and push it through the screen at that point he again retreated into the kitchen where the officers could not see him and officer the decision making at that point was that he was concerned based on the other pieces of information which indicated that firearms had been used the neighbors call to nine hundred and eleven to the dispatcher that he had killed the cat with a gun the threats to the neighbor that he would use that weapon again if a cat came into her yard officer manchester's very real concern that his safety was at issue which caused him to retreat proclaimed his property did know that he did think he knew that at some later point the indication that he didn't didn't know what initially but with the statute and we're talking about probable cause here you just there has to be a possibility a probability that that's a real suspicion that at that there has been a violation of a statute or an ordinance and in this case there there was that you know we talked earlier about the  with a gun it was left about the child in the traveling other then the plaintiff's indication that his daughter had been on the trampoline but as i mentioned even without killing or maiming those statutes provide other things including disfigur that same consideration and not this figuring an animal would would relate to not permitting an animal to disfigure a child by scratching and clawing it now i understand your issue about the but i just want to make sure that we we and analyze were talking about all the facts that might have been that available to either of the parties at the time of the think out or right well officer then of course did not know that information at the time he knew there was a weapon it had been used as reported to kill the cat officer manchester also confirmed that that he had been told by the plaintiff that he had shot a cat what you know officer am said that he feared that mr bart might have been grabbing at dawn that what are the objective facts that support that that believe what caused him to believe that he was caused to believe that by the nine hundred and eleven call from the dispatcher indicating that the he had used his weapon he had killed an animal he was also concerned by the information but he had already he already had that information when he went to the address yes he says then at the time he burst through the door that he was afraid was to board might be grabbing the gun this badger is not in the equation at that point looking at the backs that he the actions that that occurred between the arrived well he also was entitled to rely on the information he received from the animal control officer who had been there who had felt threatened who stated that manchester had admitted using a weapon again we're not stating what that weapon was and his can for his continued retreat into the kitchen where the officers could not see him given that constellation of information that he had there was real concern on his part that he dispatcher to my understanding relayed information man with gun shooting cats and the officer had asked for backup he was uncomfortable he had retreated from the porch he was being obstructed in his investigation there was a hostile tone and behavior which made him feel that it was a it was a threatening situation to him and under those circumstances with the addition of neighbors but relatives who were on the porch it was a tense they were extremely loud they were yelling at the officers he was concerned that after that many people on the porch i would i would not officers law enforcement well there were several  yelling at the officers telling them that they needed to leave it was a rather chaotic situation and his concern was that there could be a risk of danger based on the information he received from various sources particularly when the plaintiff again disappeared into the kitchen where he could not be seen by the officers thank you do i have time to discuss anything else or am i out of time for me you're out of time out of time thank you very much  ok whoever has the cell phone needs to get it shut off everybody check your cell phones make sure they're shut off or i'm filing or the st thing i would like to comment on is done anything wrong he had no duty to speak at all he had no duty to stay at the door he simply had no duty he was in his home that was it he didn't want to talk to them and there is no legal basis why he argument about clearly established i don't believe was ever made in the district court and there's been no qualified immunity if you want to appeal the district court basically out that's what this is  ruled that the actions of the officer were justified by the threat that mr barton represented to the officers and there's simply no basis for that in the record mr burton never threatened them animal control officer he never threatened the officers on his porch he never threatened anybody directly or even this border the most he did was say to her if i see a cat in my backyard hermie my daughter that's going to be a dead cat and he did that because she was the cap lady who attracted cats with regard to the warrant requirement the house was surrounded barton wasn't trying to escape if they could have gotten a war he couldn't leave they had every opportunity to do so circumstances into the home that proposition is so well established that even the even the defendants don't dispute it they rely on opportunity to do it there was no possibility of a scape here and they had the premises secured they simply didn't want to go to that trouble and they apparently had inflated the incident in their mind to where this guy represented some kind of danger based on speculation even the defendant's argument to you well when he went back into his own home they call retreated into his own home he gave me id had he walked away from the door and they interpreted that as wow one he might get a gun and then two he might use it and three we might be threatened there's on through the screen there were whatever it was if he had threatened the officers saying i want you to leave my yard and if you don't i'm going to shoot you yes but none of that happened he said i want you to leave my home i'm not talking to you i'm not going to cooperate i don't have to and i want you to leave if they thought they could see through the screen door that he had reached for god or that your arguments the matter is submitted and we will ensure our ruling in due course after we have given judge give us an opportunity to hear the tapes and consider the arguments thank you