wasn't the process and thank you and you explained how so if we agree with you that officer right made a false statement can you explain how you're showing that he had the necessary and hands deprive your client of a constitutional right i wonder how we can tell from the allegations here that it was actually an intent rather than just an error that he made accidentally or some thank you certainly have that additionally if you look at the history of what happened i certainly have that it does explain a lot more how he how we know that yeah i think that if the for example we've got two primary issues st of all the report it infers that there's something in those text messages that illustrate the evidence required by the statute but in fact those three words though a lot of the reports is me those text messages were never attached so we have this going in the inference combined with the officers personal experience with the judge that would give i think any reasonable judge the impression that there must be something in these text messages that the reports refer well the same time omitting those that were and so you know from my perspective i don't see how this is different from what happened in frames and ian davis where the officer  policy is what created that whole mess to begin us you know we talk to you about the mel version of it but not not the other two officers right that's correct yes yes no we're not asserting that the other the report down to the judge after they reviewed it to make sure there was probable cause in the report because the judge just wanted somebody right there in front of them with this affidavit and the person that provided that every affidavit had to be the person that was handing it to the that someone else investigated so where do we have the idea that they were encouraged to lie well because they knew i think they clearly knew when the judges had told them that they wanted the person with personal knowledge bas to be there and the president a personal appearance means something and so sending an officer there or what's the point of having him personally appear if it's not to represent that he has some kind of personal knowledge in fact you know he ends up varying in his affidavit that he you know the contents of his affidavit are true to the best of his knowledge well at a minimum that implies some knowledge and  and yet you know from his information he has not and so of the book itself which department knew that this was what was expected then sending an officer to the department that had no sex knowledge would certainly be an encouragement to have people go that didn't have that information i mean they knew they didn't have information no i agree with the judge friedlander they could have done things differently but as was stated multiple times in the record this was truth here you know saying that he wasn't the one who conducted the interview in this particular case collectively information is fine it's just when you're going to have ask a judge to levi on that collected information you need to appropriately identify that you know from a sleep can't say i did an investigation or i did a report you know were they you know i reviewed documents that you haven't reviewed and again the problem that we have is  mean i think of course not just the women but i don't really know and i don't believe that anyone we will say that but clearly if you're saying what this officer did was spying and you read the report know i don't see how those two things are not connected you know if the thirty six representative of the city says the what he did was spying which incorporated included all of the material misrepresentations and the fact that he said he had  there question i'm sorry i just i don't remember i know it's like i'm sorry i don't remember a question like this is a false statement is that fine that's correct i did not ask  i just think that the connection is there for some years they had done this and by the way you know it gets a little bit tricky but i think the fact that officer daniels of knowledge that they ha depart and the police officer went to arrest and there was and there wasn't anything more i was just unfortunate your client had with her wrist that was existing and i understand that race but there was just this moment momentary stopping her from moving back that that is is there anything more to it than that you know with respect i don't believe those are the facts if you mr farmer's deposition she was speaking to the police officers and suddenly without warning so she wasn't retreating suddenly without warning officer bloxham reached into her house all things they have to show the arrest warrant and under the federal rules it's kind of shortening the argument under the federal if they don't have the warrant they can do it later and i don't know lots preclude that they're required to prese that's a bit of a complicated argument and so i didn't go into it deeply but frankly i i believe that if you look at having contacts the in in di ricci what happened was that the court found war and i think if we look at her diary i don't understand the the district court's reasoning on this as i think just as we and her diary was pretty clear even gave an example of circumstances in arman and she broke out of her brass well if that's the case if there's a seizure then at that point the quest be times was the st most minimal force necessary to accomplish the purpose grabbing a medically prescribe race record would show according to her sort of facts they knew or had you know existed there and they yanked on it to hold her out of her house even if there had been about it warrant was in violation of the different deputies were police officers bald in the investigation i might not involve myself in actually conducting any of those interviews but if i'm reviewing every one of those activities i think it's fair for individual independent determination as to whether or not exist made that determination that in fact i was exhausted and thereby issued the arrest warrant well i think with regard to the defendant in this case your honor you get around to it by no other means the fact that they were proceeding with what they believed was a valid arrest warrant and that they were actually trying to argue that there really was probable cause so how do you explain how there really was probable cause not what they thought but how we should decide who there really is probable cause based on these text messages that are to a different person against herman correctly finding that no prosecution occurred with respect to the use complaint and that probable cause in fact did exist with regard to  other question whether the complaint alleges malicious prosecution is that paragraph one hundred and twelve dollars where it developed acted under color of state law including but not limited to prosecuting this apartment with malice and without probable cause action no independent prosecutor made that decision and certainly you cannot say i wish any malice or bad faith on his part because all he was doing rather than by himself officer and so he there's no misrepresentation to the magistrate as to what who had prepared the report and information that was being provided to the to the court for the purposes of determining case contrary to representation by counsel that any facts were construed in law and a law that was less favorable to the planes on that page that experts or  officers didn't pursue or into the hole she went upstairs called her attorney came back down and of the phone through her husband and went back upstairs and went to no time and here is no individual come to the and under i don't rule criminal rule for you're not required to show a warrant for your arrest and individual and we cited that information in our in our record clearly we ha responded any other questions the court might have and i have no questions thank you first of all what they judge is nice said he did it in the standard he recognized as they asked the different than what he actually did for example the excerpt that mr hall referred to where the judge said there is no evidence of the records or harman that actually has an accurate and to save time i would just simply point you to our briefing on that point where we identified a significant amount of information test more that was provided to the court that in fact good  deal with the case for our horror united states vote versus hernandez which says that if someone is essentially tackled and gets away they're still not arrested so so the main difference washington and where the person was trapped in an apartment or a bus it's the same thing here you know he grabbed her and if you want to say getting away i think that's an inference that actually adopts their version of ran away threw his gun away and then you know disappeared arm and was stuck in a position just like you know on a bus or in an apartment as you know in washington and the other cases counsel on both sides of the case for their strong excellent advocacy both of you make me reminiscent of being in private practice as an advocate instead of wearing the black robes and i just want to know if there's something in pocatello like in the water that makes people know how to be advocates because we're called back more than thirty years ago i have to take roll with now