What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
Eugene A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ESTATE of Mark A. LACCHEO, and James Overstreet, Defendants-Appellants, City of Eastlake, Defendant.
No. 90-3694.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued March 29, 1991.
Decided June 5, 1991.
Brooke F. Kocab, Albert L. Purola (argued), Wiles & Richards, Willoughby, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellee.
Vincent A. Feudo, William F. Schmitz (argued), Kitchen, Messner & Deery, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants-appellants.
Before GUY and RYAN, Circuit Judges, and JOINER, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable Charles W. Joiner, Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
RYAN, Circuit Judge.
Defendants, two police officers from Eastlake, Ohio, Mark A. Laccheo and James Overstreet, appeal the district court’s denial of their claim for qualified good faith immunity in this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1985, 1988, alleging unreasonable seizure, prosecution without probable cause, and unlawful detention. The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in deciding that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. For the following reasons, we reverse.
I.
On November 25, 1986, plaintiff, Eugene A. Johnson, while acting in his capacity as a security guard at Eastlake’s Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (“CEI”), admitted an employee to the plant premises through a security gate. A police car with flashing lights followed. The police officer driving the car, Overstreet, stopped and identified himself to Johnson and explained that he was pursuing the car that had just entered the gate in order to issue the driver a traffic citation. Although the gate was open, Johnson told Overstreet that he could not admit him.
Officer Laccheo arrived in a second police car after being called by Overstreet. Upon Laccheo’s arrival, Johnson permitted Overstreet to enter the plant, whereupon Overstreet issued the traffic citation to the CEI employee. Laccheo then requested Johnson’s identification. Johnson provided Laccheo with his Ohio State Security Guard registration card, but Laccheo rejected this identification stating that it “was not good enough.” Johnson then gave Laccheo his driver’s license. Thereafter, Laccheo placed Johnson under arrest for obstructing official business. Johnson was taken to the Eastlake Police Station where he was questioned, fingerprinted, and photographed. Johnson was prosecuted for obstructing official business under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2921.31. However, the charges were dismissed in July 1987.
Johnson brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1988 against defendants in October 1987, charging deprivation of his First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights claiming unreasonable seizure of his person, prosecution without probable cause, and unlawful detention. Johnson also asserted pendent state claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and assault and battery. In August 1988, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment claiming, in part, that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court overruled defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that an issue of fact existed as to whether defendants had probable cause to arrest Johnson. Defendants appeal.
II.
Defendants claim the district court should have granted them summary judgment because of the qualified good faith immunity of police officers. They claim they did not violate any “clearly established” law when they arrested Johnson and, if they did, the arrest was nevertheless objectively reasonable. In response, Johnson alleges that his arrest by defendants was without probable cause and that defendants violated clearly established law when arresting him because he was arrested for an expression of his opinion, in violation of the First Amendment.
Because the issue of defendants' qualified immunity defense is “purely a legal question to be determined by the trial judge prior to trial,” we apply a de novo standard of review. See Arrington v. McDonald, 808 F.2d 466, 467 (6th Cir.1986).
Generally, government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity. This immunity shields them from civil damages liability provided their actions “could reasonably have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). “Whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” Id. at 639, 107 S.Ct. at 3038 (citations omitted). The contours of the clearly established right “must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. at 640, 107 S.Ct. at 3039. Thus, the unlawfulness must be apparent in light of preexisting law. Id.
In Anderson, the Court recognized that “it is inevitable that law enforcement officials will in some cases reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause is present, and ... in such cases those officials — like other officials who act in ways they reasonably believe to be lawful— should not be held personally liable.” 483 U.S. at 641, 107 S.Ct. at 3039-40. See also Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 196, 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3020, 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984).
Therefore, before granting defendants qualified immunity, we must decide: 1) whether Johnson has identified a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and, 2) whether a reasonable police officer in either defendants’ position should have known that the conduct at issue was undertaken in violation of that right. See Guercio v. Brody, 911 F.2d 1179, 1184 (6th Cir.1990) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)).
Johnson claims his First Amendment right of free speech was clearly established and violated by his arrest and detention. Johnson maintains that he should not have been punished for saying “no” to Overstreet when asked for permission to enter CEI’s premises.
Although free speech is a clearly established right, Johnson was not arrested for his speech. By saying “no” to Overstreet when asked to enter the complex, Johnson merely communicated to Overstreet his decision to forbid Overstreet permission to enter CEFs premises in order to pursue the traffic violator. Johnson admits that he: 1) refused Overstreet permission to pass through the gate; 2) had control over the mechanical gate itself; and 3) had the physical means to prevent entry. We conclude that Johnson was not arrested for his speech but, rather, the act of preventing Overstreet from pursuing the traffic violator. Thus, there is no clearly established right which has been violated.
But even if there had been a violation of a clearly established right, the district court erred in not determining whether a reasonable police officer could have reasonably believed that Johnson’s arrest was lawful. Rather, the court denied defendants qualified immunity merely because material issues of fact existed as to probable cause for the arrest. This is contrary to the holding in Anderson which assures qualified immunity to a police officer who reasonably believes that an arrest is lawful. 483 U.S. at 641, 107 S.Ct. at 3039.
The proper analysis for determining whether a reasonable police officer would believe that Johnson was violating Ohio Rev.Code § 2921.31 when he prevented Overstreet from entering CEFs complex begins with an examination of section 2921.31. The statute provides:
Obstructing official business
(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within his official capacity, shall do any act which hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of his lawful duties.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of obstructing official business, a misdemeanor of the second degree.
The facts demonstrate that: 1) Overstreet was proceeding with flashing lights in pursuit of a traffic violator; 2) Johnson permitted the traffic violator through the security gate; 3) Johnson did not give Over-street permission to enter the same security gate; 4) Overstreet was not permitted to enter until after Laccheo arrived; and, 5) Overstreet could not fulfill his official duties until given permission by Johnson. We find that these facts are sufficient to justify a reasonable police officer in believing that Johnson, by refusing to permit Overstreet entry into CEFs facility, intentionally tried to hamper or impede, or “prevent, obstruct, or delay” the issuance of a traffic ticket in violation of Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2921.31.
To summarize, defendants are entitled to a qualified immunity defense because they did not violate a clearly established law when arresting Johnson; and, even if such law were violated, a reasonable police officer in like circumstances could have reasonably believed that Johnson’s arrest was lawful.
Accordingly, we REVERSE.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0