know when you're ready you can call them excuse me thirteen thirty one thirty two if you were andy hayward aaron hayward versus cleveland clinic foundation at all the hands of the cleveland clinic police officers in response they filed a lawsuit claiming that therefore the men arrested in violated an additional state law claims the district court dismissed those cases across the board based upon an accurate and erroneous police officers yes they are they operate under a memorandum of understanding with the city of cleveland and that memorandum of understanding is limited to enforcement of traffic which is further adds to the viewer the just the unreasonable miss of this action you've got police officers who been hired and paid by the cleveland clinic pursuant to a memorandum understanding to enforce traffic laws in turn entering a family's home with the use of tasers without the family's consent the family called the police they were so concerned about and yet these these these private officers are entering the home tasing individuals breaking down doors using excessive force and then you know ultimately arresting aaron heyward i do want to just one procedural issue defendants argue in there are responsible that the issue of illegal entry is not properly claims on the merits from the second complaint so any argument as to the legitimacy of the illegal entry claims on behalf of the plaintiffs is is without merit moving to the subject of aspects of this case this quarter reversed the district court resisting arrest now in ohio assisting arrest has an element of a lawful arrest and the district court believed and ruled that a lawful arrest necessarily means that the fourth amendment is not violated so that if you've got a lawful arrest under resisting arrest therefore the fourth amendment cannot have been violated but ohio state cases clearly and routinely hold that a fourth amendment illegal entry violation can occur at the same time an individual is convicted for resisting happened in this case as i mentioned the proper remedy for an illegal entry violation is is the exclusionary rule so you exclude the evidence but it does not mandate dismissal of the charge of resisting arrest in this happens amendment legal entry had occurred so in that case the court essentially said we've decided that there was a fourth minute legal entry claim here we're going to suppress the evidence that was used to potentially get a conviction for resisting arrest but this case is going to be remanded back down to decide the matter of whether the your resisting arrest actually occurred for the district court in this case would would have told otherwise would have to rule that the resisting arrest necessarily and automatically invalidated the fourth mi when there is still an unreasonable entry to the home so clearly under ohio law as the ohio state courts apply it a fourth minute violation for illegal entry can occur at the same time a resisting arrest offense has been found and a conviction has been reached  were not charged they were not convicted they had no role in any criminal action against them as a result of this incident heck of course bars any claims that wouldn't validate a plaintiff's underlying criminal conviction clearly any essex they were don't have any underlying criminal conviction that could be invalidated by their claims for a fourth amendment illegal entry into their home and then the entry i don't know if i've described it with particularly but it was it was brutal the police arrived at the door after an exodus car they knocked on it they asked for consent to come in the haywards explicitly said no you need to have a warrant the cops then broke down the glass door the security reached around unlocked the metal security door then work together to break down a source of a fourth amendment violation because aaron haywood had been convicted of resisting arrest and that resisting arrest conviction necessarily meant that the arrest was lawful in the end therefore he was precluded from bringing a fourth minute violation and as i described earlier however is not a prisoner a former prisoner and a successful litigation would not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against pars thus nothing in heck contemplates extending the bar against civil damages actions to third parties like powers whose prior criminal judgments are not at issue and the exception i'm saying that i don't as far as that case goes i do not believe that this court reached that issue nevertheless i think that i don't know of any indication anywhere where a third part constitutional rights their ability to actually get a federal forum to seek redress for the violation of their constitutional rights has been denied completely because of a different person's criminal conviction of it under the exception to you know the it clearly i guess is the right word though the argument that we abandon those claims is an interesting one because the what happened was when this when the district court dismissed the second amended complaint he says and i think it's doc fifty eight he indicates that we tried to amend to add in more claims he said in that we actually tried to amend it re add these claims into the case because to a certain extent we believe that we hadn't necessarily made these illegal entry claims on behalf of any ethics as clearly as we should have so we attempted to amend and eventually the court indicated that we cannot amend to add those claims back in because he'd already dismissed them on the merits so the reason we were precluded from adding them back in was because the court had believed and interpreted it our complaint as raising those issues to which he had then dismissed them so that dismissal on the merits as indicated by the district court judge gives us the right to bring this case right here there was no there was no abandoning the claims at least according to the district cour court my name is jim william from cleveland i represent the cleveland clinic and to the defendant police officers the record i would submit to this court below is a it is a bit confusing with the multiple amendments and the attempted amendments but it contains one clear fact which we submit points to the correctness of the result in the district court and that's this fact based on the events of january twenty third two thousand and eleven a very brief chain of events of over matter of minutes that provide the basis for the claims brought here  mr hayward anthony hayward represented by counsel same counsel in this case made a knowing and voluntary decision to plead guilty to waive his rights to fleeing the police and also to resisting a lawful arrest by those police not a no contest plea and  mayors corridor or municipal court but but a counseled informed decision to plead guilty to quote recklessly or by force resisting or interfering with a lawful arrest of himself and during the course of that interference or resistance causing physical injury to officer parks the effect of that plea that plea event which is mentioned nowhere in the multiple pleadings filed by the plane to follow in their claims is that mr hayward is acknowledged and it's been established in a ruling that has not been sort of applies to third parties you just say that claim was superseded by yeah i can get to that we don't make that our your honor because you know the parents the whole sort of issue preclusion thing can't really i don't think you know properly applied to someone who wasn't party but i think sort of the rationale behind hack and some of the things that are there sort of get us to the same result we're going to parents and i'll get to that was that they're not i don't think it does but i do think it would be an odd result indeed there are three residents of a are no no the i'm arguing that that he that it's been established that the arrest was lawful with respect to one person is not totally irrelevant to the inquiry but it certainly doesn't bar the parents the parents could bring  with respect to the parents your honor and the judge ludington you raise the issue of what was the status of their claims below and this is where i think the record got a little a little unclear you know and i will say i don't think  in that what they alleged is that they had been effectively arrested during the proceeding and they mr aaron here were changed his complaint to only post arrest forced so they changed their theory they  the judge had ruled i'll give you a chance to amend and start over or i'm going to dismiss your pre arrest claims and they decide to amend and start over and said what we were effectively arrested that's what we briefed before judge bolster if you look at his decision on jett july eleventh there's all sorts of discussion about this idea that innocent bystanders may be so restrained during the course of a lawful arrest that they in fact are effectively arrested themselves that's the claim that he dismissed out of the that all the claims are potentially there well they are they are potentially there you're out or you're on and that's a good point but so they have a complaint and the judge says i'm going to dismiss this complaint you can amend or you can let me just missed and then you can appeal illegal entry claim they say we're going to amend we're going to start over where they start over so the first it's gone it's done where they start over as they say what happened to us that day was not that our house was illegally entered that's not in the complaint  that what happened is that we were effectively arrested and we were told to freeze shut up don't move all these things and that's an effective arrest of us without probable cause that's what we briefed on the merits y confusion has created some difficulties and it did below it was a little hard to understand why it was so confusing there was a very brief event they had three live witnesses to the prefer event and the theories kept changing in multiple iterations of the complaint and  ultimately the only play by the parents we briefed on the merits below on the merits was the idea that they were effectively arrested and they did not appeal that claim that that you know but but you know getting you know setting aside because we searched your point that the parents never led on the lawful entry claim in the initial complaint they did they did yet and then the judge said if you'd like i will dismiss that and you can go down to cincinnati and talk about that like those claims so they amended the complaint but they never but the the parents never relinquished the claim the soviet so are are that bad decision is whether they had to a court but they don't lose the right to appeal when they've never waved to relinquish the claims i don't disagree with the proposition all your honor i think that what i would disagree with is that that analysis here they had that claim in their initial pleading and the judge said i'm going to dismiss that claim you can now go to state court and do your steak or cames or you can go to the sixth circuit or you can start over starting over starting over by their own choice drafting their own complaint and the new complaint says we were arrested and so that's what we proved but you know if in the time that i have left because you know arguing about whether it's preserved or not and whether it's and we certainly you know to back to your point judge rogers they weren't arrested i mean they weren't parties so no heck wouldn't stop them from complaining about a constitutional torch and no collateral stoppel would not stop them no i'll just be clear about that right  it strikes me as somewhat unusual to think that a very brief limited entry into a home could be lawful as to one person was arrested and on lawful as the other two but that but so i don't think it's irrelevant all right but to the whole body of substantive law regarding this area here sort of the hot pursuit you know we start with santana the police may enter a home to in effect an arrest if it's a hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect santana says you can do it with someone who you believe dismissed on judgment motion for judgment on the pleadings and what that what they did with which made that actually not not as problematic as it might otherwise be they wrote tomes in their complaint detailed factual allegations of this event detail factual allegations of everything and we accepted those all is true about a twelve minute event involving someone who was being pursued by the police and they describe it as a very violent heated angry pursuit that was over in a matter of minutes with him being pulled out of the door of his house they describe a hot pursuit they describe an entry which was limited to pulling him out of the house there's no other sort of going through the house and rummaging the house or ransacking the house they describe it so they describe in fact something on the record which is clearly a very hot pursuit with the limited intrusion of war listen true to get someone who  person is driving a car and is violating speeding going very fast right whether the police could have done this better maybe but he's going very fast he refuses to pull over the police officer gets out of the car outside his hou pulls a car not registered to him into a house and behind the house to the right then walks out going into the house on the left they don't know who he is the police as i'd like to get into talking he cursed at the police officer know that that's what they write in their complaint we did six months of discovery that is exactly not the evidence in the case and that's and that's exactly why i think he counseled by the same lawyers pled guilty to fleeing and eluding people who he knew were police and resisting arrest from people they knew were police and then the complaint they wrote after was so dramatically at odds with the facts that led to the criminal conviction and if it had been on coun conviction and if he'd walked into municipal court and done this thing i would have a different view of that but to have the same lawyers walk through and understand exactly what happened and having face these i mean the police  knock a hole in the door and punch police officer in the face when they said we don't know who you are i don't want to belabor this was certainly the traffic that was ringing in the looting and i was i was just trying to determine what the what was the  that if we if we have to address this this matter on the merits the facts you know we have lots of deposition testimony that supports exactly what was going on the the first physical touching between these people a punch to the face a police officer who broke his tooth which is a significant blow and that's what happened and and could the police have perhaps done things a different way i think the guy we would never defend the event is a perfect police  discussions of all these things in front of judge bolster long consideration of everything that was involved and the application of hack saying to these things in the app the idea that the parent the entry to the home was legal and to my point your honor it's just you know the whole thing behind heck of consistent and final judgments it would be you can't say it's it's a final judgment of the parents but it would be i would submit to this court since it's one entry three people that have the same level of expectation of privacy questions if not we believe that the judge carefully considered everything that's been briefed here reconsider it more than ever gets considered in judgments motions for judgment on the pleadings because you kept giving him a chance to remand come back explain it to me again explain it to me again explain it to me again we think heck is very clear we think there was no independent constant or constitutional for committing to the parents and i thank you for your time thank you  thank you your honors just to clear up the issue the procedural issue was the house was correct that there was there was this attempt to as i mentioned earlier to sort of clarify in our second amended complaint that  two separate occasions the judge references that plaintiffs are once again misguided on their focus on the manner in which the officers entered the home in light of conviction the entry into the home cannot form the basis of his parents claim so clearly the judge is contemplating or having  raised claims based upon the home entry because his dismissal of those claims based upon conviction is it is indicated in his ruling secondarily when we did try and amended third time to ensure that the illegal entry arrest while researching the fourth amendment unreasonable entry claim of fairness parents which latter claim the court has already dismissed on the merits then go a little further down because the court has already dismissed the haywards fourth amendment unreasonable on the merits of this court all construe the proposed third amended complaint as being only aaron's excessive force claim so i think it's clear the spite any confusion on the before corners of that second complaint it's clear that the district court believed and believe it had dismissed on the merits the illegal entry claim and i think that that establishes the ability to be before you arguing about how his dismissal on the merits was improper and again that improper this is because he dismissed it based upon the resisting arrest conviction and as i've argued at length earlier resisting arrest convictions do require a lawful arrest but a lawful arrest under ohio is judge one that has probable cause it has nothing to do with whether or not a fourth amendment illegal entry and illegal entry had occurred at any point in time during the incident that led to the resisting arrest conviction so you can have a fourth minute violation and a resisting arrest conviction in the state of ohio state will help criminal courts make that clear over and over and over again with regard to the discussion about the pursuit that's an issue that the court didn't even get to the court essentially has always relied on this very basic simple straightforward hack argument that we believe is erroneous and that is that aaron's conviction was a lawful one therefore the fourth amendment violations cannot co exist and as i've argued at length that's just not the case i think that the hot pursuit issue is not probably before this court and moreover i think that we've briefed extensively below the opposition we also believe to the to a certain extent before before this court and of argument in the in the the the reluctance at best of allowing pub loose officers in circumstances like this where there's a minor traffic violation you don't use as blinker he drove two tenths of a mile between when the police officer first saw him and he got to his house that's a that's a that's a good there was a punch we don't know i don't know we don't know i mean it was there's some test there's some indication that the taser was fired through the security door prior to the punch being thrown and i think that that's that's up in the air it's a little bit unclear the door but potentially subsequent to a taser being fired into the home but again there's differing you know deposition testimony has different there's different facts you know there's disputes there  i would least i would think i would argue so again i think that ultimately the discourse should reverse the district because its application of heck was improper and finally just like to say that the court also didn't give any particular li factual investigation to determine whether or not aaron's excessive force necessarily invalidated his conviction and i think that that's something that the court also failed to do because clearly when determining whether the facts for resisting arrest necessarily invalidate use of excessive force it requires sort of a comparison and contrast it doesn't i think this blanket application of if there's excessive force there cannot be resisting arrest conviction and vice versa is is is inappropriate so i see my time is finished with them for the question thank you