that detention went through for 48 days after he became subject to legal process >> was he subject to legal process? if legal process is corrupted because there isn't, i also always understood legal process as mister wallace and our other cases, as an independent intermediary generally a judge or grand jury or someone who looks at the facts as they exist and independently makes a determination whether probable cause has happened.

if you have a corrupted legal process where what the independent adjudicator is looking at is not true because it's based on false information , how do you receive legalprocess? >> you have received proper legal process, you are correct. it's been corrupted . >> i thought if you never received it, then doesn't your time to accrue for the improper detention accrue when you are no longer detained? here is the not guilty, correct? >> correct. >> so it's not a question of when it starts, the question is when does the illegal detention finish. >> correct, correct. >> because there's been no intermediate force, no intermediary stepping in

between the causation, correct? >> correct. >> it my understanding your argument correctly? >>you are, correctly. i wish i could take credit for that . >> no, but the only way i could think of it was thinking of it in this way because you are not claiming malicious prosecution. >> right, right. talks list, because this is a larger issue of 1983 jurisdiction which is what is a proper acquittal. for a constitutional violation. >> detention without probable cause. >> right. you're not straight jacketed in a particular time in law, this provision, you have the right to fashion on that

justice says this is the one who does justice. >> i was confused, i bought there wasn't a malicious prosecution claim here . mostly because the question presented is whether individuals for the amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure continues to be on legal process so as to allow billy and illegal prosecution claim on the fourth amendment. >> yes, but that's just a label and what the court and wallace is used as a label for talking about these type of claims and in other interesting too, it's just a label to in essence distinguish thiscase from detention without legal process . >> a hypothetical, it's actually post litigate. an officer fabricates evidence in order to arrest and book the defendant. then as the cursing ring within 48 hours. evidence is still fabricated, same advocated evidence is introduced, he's held for three months. then there's a pretrial oppression hearing.

the evidence is still fabricated and he is still held for two more months and there's a trial area and if it's still fabricated and he's convicted and held for six more months and there's an appeal filed and suddenly they find out the evidences fabricated and the charges are dismissed. fourth amendment violation for the entire detention? >> we would see the fourth amendment basically in your case is thefourth amendment claim and conviction. >> okay . >> the process claim or whatever. >> why is the trial and conviction any different than the cursing hearing. >> they are both legal process, there's an inquiry, why is it the fourth amendment applies after the cursing hearing not after the conviction? >> one reason is that the bursting hearing is a non-adversarial. . what would be a grand jury proceeding while the

conviction in a sense resumes that you were held with probable cause and then you really have a process time after that. >> let's just prosecution walk in the states generally, this is a general principle. would there be a malicious prosecution claim or this fabricated evidence in the cursing case or in the pretrial position? >> i believe so. >> so then they would be over so at least there's a legal recognition that there could be a malicious prosecution in the cursing hearing? >> know, look, here's the fourth amendment claim. we are not raising. >> i'm asking if understate laws , tort law generally, you can bring a malicious prosecution claim if there's

fabricated evidence produced at the nursing claim. >> that results in your detention. >> that's why there's damage. >> right but you have to be, there has to be a favorable termination if elements of state court and malicious prosecution, you need to be ... >> terminated six weeks later. >> that would be a malicious prosecution claim under state law. >> why do you make the cut off conviction if it turns out even on haiti us that police have lied all along and there was never any basis for holding this person? why don't you have your fourth amendment claim when you are released from this unlawful custody? >> you could if you rule that way.

generally this court has ruled that after conviction there's due process, or trial rights have been violated so that has been a different one you gone on. >> it's the same right. it's the right you had since the very beginning. >> it could be the fourth amended right if you have more than one amendment covered, >> that's the same set of facts. >> there's a difference consequence to whether you determine fourth amendment right or due process right . >> we are claiming it's a fourth amendment rights. >> i know what answer in response to the question that could be both. >> yes, it could be both. usually or at least reading justice kennedy's current, it appears the due process provision, due process claim

dealt with the issue of whether the to prosecute. as opposed to this issue which is the decision to hold somebody, to pay somebody pending the decision to prosecute or trial so it's the fourth amendment really covers this rather than due process. >> but what happens to the person whose let out? are they on lockdown on your theory? >> no. >> so you're defining detention as broadly as bursting. >> in the bursting, the court did make recommendation that the tension could go beyond being released depending on the conditions of the release so it's not just, i would say it's not just justice ginsburg's concurrence, it was this court's opinion in cursing that that was a possibility. >> can you explain why even

with your theory that the unlawful detention is until he is released, why shouldn't the statute of limitation trigger when he is initially arrested. why should the statute of limitations be different if he labels this fourth amendment? >> i think there's good reason for that.they were expressed in language applies in this case also. we don't want to have carol parallel litigation, you don't want to have conflicting decisions between the states and the criminal court and you don't want to have a collateral tax . that collateral tax works to the detriment of the prosecution and the defense in the case.

i think justice kagan's opinion in halley illustrates the harm that could happen to the prosecution if you allow someone to collaterally attack the sophisticated attorney, to collaterally attack the decision of probable cause while the case , while the criminal is pending. it works to the detriment of the prosecution.>> why should we even get to these questions? as i understand this case, the seventh circuit says something, no other circuit does which is to say there's no fourth amended claim under section 1983 at all,.. we think that's wrong. wouldn't we just send everything else back to the seventh circuit to decide what they think the fourth amendment claim looks like. in other words,what elements it has, with approval date it has, anything they think about thefourth amendment

claim . send it back to them , having told them they are wrong about what this fourth amendment claim addresses. all this other stuff, the seventh circuit hasn't told us what they think about it. circuits are split on it and it hasn't really been briefed because the principal question has been whether there is a fourth amendment claim. why shouldn't we just send it back to them to decide? >> i would be inagreement with that . >> i thought you were arguing. >> my only response to the question, i think of the question we've raised is solely the issue of the fourth amendment cover of detentions pursuant to legal process. >> but don't we have to know ... >> without legal process. you're saying it's improper legal process. >> it's still a legal

process. it was corrupted but it was still started with ... >> don't we have to know what kind of claim it is to say whether it exists? >> yes and the starting point is the fourth amendment. if you answer the question on the fourth amendment, >> you want us to say there's some kind of fourth amendment claim but we don't know what it is but there's some kind of claim. now you go back and tell us what kind of a claim it is. >> i'm saying the court can say whether this is a fourth amendment claim . >> is for unconstitutional detention . if the statute of limitations is on that claim and what the approval. is on that claim is something we don't have to decide in order to say yes, you have a claim under the constitution or improper detention. >> correct. >> the alternative, that is argued is that it's due process and whether or not they coexist or whether the particular. you are complaining about is properly characterized as a detention without due process as opposed to a claim under

the fourth amendment would certainly be pertinent in deciding whether to say there is a fourth amendment claim. >> i think you can decide whether it's a fourth amendment claim or due process without referencing the statute of limitations. that issue is in essence for you. you can answer it. were not talking about, as i said before, we're not claiming the decision to prosecute which might be a due process claim has been violated. all we are talking about is the detention subject to the legal or corrupt legal process. that's the only claim we are asking for. >> if the detention, you've described this in various ways. is it detention without constitutional probable cause? is it a detention with no

proper legal process? where exactly is the fourth amendment violation? because in false arrest and false imprisonment claims, according to wallace, as soon as you get legal process, there's been an intervening and then to the false imprisonment because someone else is imprisoned here. what we mean in this case, how do we define the constitutional violation? >> i reserve time after the question. i think this is a fourth amendment claim that you can decide it as being corrupted by the bursting hearing, it's a claim that prolonged detention, beginning at legal process the way connie riverside or rodriguez would extend, the traffic stop was extended for seven minutes and to a search and this court found that it was

seizure and an improper seizure. this is exactly what happened here. the seizure was extended improperly. because of the fabrication by the police. >> counsel. >> ... mister chief justice, may it please the court? we think this court should locate the constitutional right at issue in the fourth amendment for the reason that the fourth amendment does apply to pretrial detention at this court has long held. the fourth amendment requires long-term detention supported by one valid determination of probable cause and at the outset of that, the seventh circuit error here as defined that the fourth amended stop operation once criminal

charges are filed. and this court has long recognized as well there's a variety of ways to make that probable cause determination including the same procedure used to bring the criminal charge itself. >> it's a close question of probable cause, no fabricated evidence, just about the information available to the police sufficient to make the arrest and the court wrongly determined there was probable cause and he held for six weeks. fourth amendmentviolation? >> it may be a fourth amendment violation but there may be no one to fear of those circumstances .>> if it's close than the decision was reasonable. >> of course your honor. i took justice kennedy's hypothetical to presume whether it was wrong and unreasonable. >> i don't was wrong but unreasonable. >> no, i don't think it would be a fourth amendment violation. >> why?he's being detained?

it's a violation of the fourth amendment. >> your honor because ... >> that seems to me there's a good argument we shouldn't be talking about malicious prosecution, not the fourth amendment. >> your honor i think the fourth amendment does afford reasonable mistakes of loss in that matter and the law of willing to be detained so it's not that, in fact the probable cause standard allows for factual errors in the determination. but here is an allegation that mister manwell is saying that he was detained on trump charges that relied entirely on fabricated evidence and we think that is a claim of detention without probable cause under the fourth amendment. >> and the defendant wouldn't have qualified immunity but it'snot corrupt , there's nothing malicious about it. would that be a claim? >> your honor, i think it depends on what the causation would be in terms of the officer's role in bringing the chart so if the officer puts forth and is pressing to

bring a charge that is not reasonable, objectively unreasonable under the fourth amendment, subject to qualified immunity and other pursuits, you may be liable but to the extent which the error falls with the magistrate or the prosecutor, these claims would be foreclosed by absolute immunity. >> what if it's an fbi agent? >> your honor, i think the liabilities were a federal officer at the scene, the immunity is enrolled. >> i thought you said in your brief the standard for state and local law enforcement officers might be different from the standard for federal law enforcement officers ? >> if i did your honor i don't believe, if you could clarify which standard you mean, the standard for qualified immunity or ... >> on page 30 of your brief, 30 to 31 of your brief area. >> your honor, i think that in those particular instances, that part of our

brief relates to social factors that could potentially count in a business claim that don't necessarily apply to section 19. >> that's what i'm saying. you think there should be a remedy for violations by state and local police officers but not under identical circumstances possibly if he the is a federal lawsuit. >> in this instance we wouldn't draw that distinction. >> than what were you seeing in your brief, i don't understand. >> there may be other circumstances not presented by this case, not presented by a case, fabricated evidence or unreasonable pursuit of a wrongful criminal charge that may lead to a different result under 1983 under bivens but i don't think we have to, we just wanted to make sure the court understood that the bivens claim may have different ramifications. >> right, i may be missing something, this is quite a

simple case. a policeman makes an unreasonable stop, and unreasonable search, thereby violating the fourth amendment. now, you can see to him assuming you can overcome other hurdles. now he takes you off and put you in prison. either with a magistrate or without the magistrate and you are therefore being unreasonably detained. it's an unreasonable search and seizure. pursuant to the fourth amendment, therefore it's a violation. then you have a trial. and using the same rotten evidence, you are convicted. there you don't, though you could, but the reason you don't is because you are viewed as, by the law so far, being in jail now as a result of your conviction and the reason i guess is practical. you don't want to look into all those convictions and their different standards. now, that's the framework in my mind, is it right?

>> absolutely, that is the framework that the governor puts forward that it's not just the mere fact of being held in jail that it's a constitutional right that depends on what process was infringed next so let's stop and as i understand you so far, the question pursuant to this was, i think, i don't have it here, so it's whether it it's an individual's right to be free from unreasonable search seizure continues beyond the legal process so as to allow a malicious prosecution claim based on the fourth amendment. thechief justice was right. the question presented is , does the fourth amendment house a malicious prosecution claim? which is something very different than what you are describing as a fourth amendment seizure and

detention without legal process. >> that's correct your honor because in our view the constitutional inquiry is step one step two is to determine the elements and accrual data and other prerequisites under a section 1983 court and in that instance the acquittal may be governed by the closest common-law analogy. when the challenge at its core is arguing that the wrongful prosecution and wrongful institution of process led to the detention without probable cause. in our view, the closest analogy is malicious prosecution suit. >> we have to say, are you suggesting we have to take every element of whatever the elements are, because from what i understand from the briefing, malicious prosecution is defined differently from state to state so if that's the case, what are the elements that you see april 8, 1983 claim? does it include malice? >> your honor, we do not think a constitutional tort under 1983 simply adopts common-law or state tort elements of malicious

prosecution, under the only the accrual rule are taken up by the common-law analogy. in terms of analogy, we don't think malice as it's known in state court is an element of this kind of claim. we do advocate that this court treat a probable cause determination underlying a criminal charge the same way it treats a probable cause determination underlying a search warrant which includes the same. we don't think about is a malice standard of common-law but rather an extension of the safe doctrine. >> i know we said inspired examples we take to flesh this out but it seems to me to be pretty result oriented cherry picking once you say here's a claim, now we like the statute of limitations part so we don't get that aim. we don't have to show malice area i don't know if we're still holding true to the approach in malice if you start picking things out depending on what the demands

of a particular case. >> your honor, i think wallace is in a federal accrual law in particular were governed by the common-law analogy. that's as far as it goes in as far as choosing from common-law. the statute of limitations borrowed from state law but the seventh circuit acquittal went to the scope of the fourth amendment so to justice kagan's proposal that is go back, we think that's appropriate because for seven circuit error by noting that since the fourth amendment stops the criminal process begins, you can't have a malicious prosecution analogous claim because there is no such fourth amendment claim. if you peel that layer away, we think that the seventh circuit jurisprudence, they would agree a favorable termination requirement would apply in such circumstances. >> when does the fourth amendment claim stop? i think pro council said if you are convicted, it stops.

but in response to my question, suppose none of this comes out until haiti us and we find the police have lied from day one. >> your honor, we do see those as distinct phases and when you are held pursuant before trial pursuant to a finding of probable cause by a magistrate or grand jury that is a fourth amendment claim but once the person is held pursuant to finding beyond a reasonable doubt , that due process and other constitutional protections take over. >> suppose there's a pretrial suppression hearing in which both parties are represented and the court reaches a wrong result with reference to the admission of theevidence , is the fourth amendment violation still continue? >> your honor, i think it may be a fourth amendment violation but whether a plaintiff could bring those kind of claims would be governed by conclusion principles and other similar bars once that issue is litigated in the state courts.

>> it is a state court proceeding. the state analog. what would be the rule of accrual ending mark you get convicted area you don't find out about the false testimony until haiti us, state or federal . when in that situation would accrual occur? >> when the case was dismissed or overturned your honor. >> you counsel. >> mister scodro? >> mister chief justice, may it please the court. i think it's important to frame what is before the court this afternoon and to begin i think it's essential to note, we are not desponding at any point in this litigation that misstatements made that result in a finding of probable cause and a cursing hearing is a fourth amendment violation, nor does the

seventh circuit disagree. the reason this came up to the seventh circuit as it did in this may be important in understanding the context, this is not a motion to dismiss for violation of the statute of limitations. all claims were dismissed but one, the one that was appealed and that one survived momentarily in the district court because the petitioner claimed that one claim as a favorable termination element because it is malicious prosecution. you really rated that claim for the seventh circuit and the seventh circuit reached two conclusions. one, you have a fourth amendment claim which they discussed and the only claim before them was they found the lie at the cursing hearing, you have a fourth minute claim but it has already accrued too early, it is untimely. now you're asking us to recognize a different breed

of fourth amendment claim, namely a malicious prosecution fourth amendment claim because you'd like to overcome the time law. we do not recognize that fourth amendment malicious prosecution. >> mister scodro, i read this differently so you can tell me why i'm wrong but in the last column of the seventh circuit's opinion, there are twice where the second circuit says what he thinks. the first time it says when after the arrest, a person is not let go when he should be so it's after the initial seizure and then the person is not let go, the fourth amendment gives way to the due process as a basis for challenging his attention and in the last paragraph, it says once detention by reason of arrest turns into detention by reason of arraignment, the fourth amendment. of the pictures so it seems to me that twice the seventh circuit says very clearly that if you have this fourth amendment claim until arraignment or legal process and after that the amendment falls out of the picture. at the very basic level, before you get into the questions of what the accrual date or anything else, it seems that the thing he

petitioner is saying is wrong, that the fourth amendment claim continues after arraignment or after legal process. when it accrues, when it doesn't accrue is a different question but it's still a fourth amendment claim and that's what the seventh circuit rejected. >> your honor, i would direct the court to the top of ja 103 as well where the court also notes the fact that they have found fourth amendment claims even in terms of false information in an incident report, even at a preliminary hearing which comes long after the initiation of process but the court in context has read and by the way this is consistent with past statements by the set second circuit. upon the mental statement the court has made and this comes from newson, the 2001 decision from which this jurisprudence has blossomed in the seventh circuit,

relabeling a fourth amendment claim is malicious prosecution would not extend the statute of limitations. this has been the nature of the battle and on page 21 of the petition in this case, the petitioner makes clear why the question presented doesn't end halfway through, it doesn't ask merely where the there's a fourth amendment rights that survived the initiation of process. if by processing the cursing hearing we agree and i think the seventh would agree as well but it goes on to say as you allow for a malicious prosecution claim and on page 21 of their decision they explain to the court what they need my. when they say the fate of this appeal to this court in turn, and what the court does or does not adopt favorable termination element and that makes an ideal vehicle to answer justice alito's earlier question which iswhat are the elements of this claim ? >> i didn't think that was a difficult question. i thought everyone agreed if a policeman wrongly arrests you, maliciously arrest you,

etc., then you are in his custody and you are put in jail, up until this point where you see the magistrate, there's a claim for. ask and we said that claim for false arrest is a constitutional claim. it violates thefourth amendment. what time limit applies? that's the most analogous . then we get into the next stage. now you are in front of a magistrate and the magistrate says stay in jail for two more months area does that violate fourth amendment? not maliciousprosecution, does violate the fourth amendment? way we tend to think it doesn't because of what the circuit court says, judge them up and said it in the fifth , one of the fifth circuit pick that up, not everyone but that to violates the fourth amendment. now we have a problem. what statute of limitations do we use for that one and there the circuits seem to have fixed malicious

prosecution not because they're going to follow every element but because it's the state law that provides the closest analogy and that seems to me where we are in this case, we don't have to go much further than that. am i right? >> you are correct. the issue before the court is which accrual date for limitations. should the courts be able to. >> should you affect or will you accept for purposes of this argument that once this individual is brought by the police into jail and they go before a magistrate and the magistrate using the same bad evidence says stay here in jail or a week anyway until we get totrial . that period is a violation of the fourth amendment assuming they were all lying, etc. >> your honor, yes, so far. >> and the question is do we use the malicious prosecution as an analogy, not all the elements so now the question

i have, why isn't it a good analogy? >> your honor, let me answer why it's not a good analogy and i will also answer, what you just like me whether or not this remains the moment in time when the police officer lie and submit an affidavit, a falsehood to a magistrate and a cursing hearing and the magistrate finds probable cause. what we do not dispute and what we do not think the seventh circuit will dispute is that is a violation of the fourth amendment. the question of whether malicious prosecution is the proper analogy, the answer is absolutely not and wallace tells us why not. wallace tells us the petitioner differs slightly from reliance on common-law favorable determination which is what most of the circuit on their side of the split has done, this also goes to your question, your point. most of the circuit on the

other side of the split use favorable termination but they done so by adopting it as part of the underlying four elements of common law tort and they think if that's what we're calling it, that is going to have favorable termination. a smaller number, relied on extension, a drastic extension of discourse and that's a request made by the petitioner in the room replied. that have to be extended to apply wallace was very clear , that only applies, delayed accrual principle and favorable termination element that comes with applied only where you have an extent conviction and that doesn't exist here. the court went through a mental exercise. they said look, if you can realize that you have a fourth amendment claim before your convicted, if the elements can be in mind, you know you've been wronged in a fourth amendment way before your convicted, then that is not a claim that is entitled

to the delay the accrual principle of pack and the reason was simple because as the court said in bursting, fourth amendment contemplates that you can have bad arrests and good convictions and nevertheless, the fourth amendment protects the innocent as well as the guilty and expanding hack to in a circumstance where all you have is an ex parte requirement or findingrather , requiring that civil plaintiff to prove vindication at the end of the day would close the door on a potential universe of fourth amendment claims and instances . >> he has discrete claims, one wrong if you've never seen him be arrested, if you have fourthamendment claim for that . another wrong is in detention, they extended that arrest so i don't see why you have on law which ends on an arrest but then if you are

continuing to be held, based on trumped up false information, why isn't that like a continuing tort? and it continues until it ends? >> your honor, just to make sure that i've been clear, again, we do agree that the second lie your honor has described, lie before the magistrate is actionable under the fourth amendment. if the question is why then dozens the accrual. run from when one is ultimately released, i would make a couple of points in response to your honors question. first, the petitioner has been very careful not to make that argument. indeed, the continuing seizure idea would be inconsistent with the sir

petition which claims they need the benefit of favorable termination to prevail. they of course wouldn't need it if they were set arguing for a period of a continuing seizure. lower courts have rejected the notion of a continuing seizure and they're not raising it here and i think the reason may be to fall. the first is that it runs in the face of traditional accrual principle that this court has said, cases like ricks and others that it's not the period of harm that matters or for accrual purposes, is when one first experience is the harm and has all the elements needed to proceed. and a case like morgan which was a hostile work environment case is really the exception that proves the rule rule. in many ways it tells us why or how narrowly the court has construed the exceptions to this difficult accrual principle. hostile work environment does require precisely what your honor describes because it's impossible to know precisely

when hostile work environment begins. is it the second time for the fifth or the 10th that someone have to endure the workplace and therefore the court is willing to consider it as a monolithic hole and treated that way for accrual purposes but again, that's the exception that prove the rule. as was concluded, there can be a cut off which wallace enclosed between the initial arrest and the postprocessed arrest and wallace itself in that regard i think breaks through the notion of a continuing seizure, the final point i would make and i think this comes out in one of their amicus briefs, namely the brief by professor out of a, taken to its logical conclusion, the logic of continuing seizure lead one to conclude that the seizure doesn't end until the ultimate period of incarceration concludes and what that means is now you have potential civil plaintiff's claims 10, 15, 20 years down the road without any prior notice that would be the defendants, no ability

to maintain evidence and so forth. >> you need to give evidence to somebody who fabricated the reasons why you are in jail? and i don't know why you would think that it's important to cut off recovery against the police officer who bases an arrest solely on fabrication. >> it doesn't seem so horrible to me. if you done something as unconstitutional as that, why should it matter? >> two points, the first is and this is a point of clarification, we are not suggesting that damages arising from lies at a cursing hearing for lack of a better term for it would not run subject to traditional common-law principles through

part or all of the pretrial.. there may well be interrupting events but that i want to make sure, we are not suggesting those damages may not be available in this case had a claim then brought timely for the full 48 days depending on how those common-law principles which a gap. the other point, and this is one of the states made in their amicus brief and wallace, they made it again at the municipalities, they made the point that early notice to the state as employer of agents who are engaged in bad acts is extraordinarily important. government is intent upon learning sooner rather than later that they have individuals in their ranks that are violating the constitution and this court in wallace , in turning aside basically the same extension of hack that is recommended for the court or invited to take in this very case, when they turn it away they said one of the reasons is we need notice to would be defendants in those cases. they can preserve evidence to ensure ... >> counselor, it's not as if most states don't receive that kind of noticein these

situations . the defendants are just not believe in most until some independent evidence is discovered long after the conviction. in my experience, you can point the one that's different, i've never come across any of these cases where the defendant falsely accused of a crime hasn't vigorously announced his or her innocence and vigorously tried to tell the authorities this police officer is corrupt so i don't know what extra notice you need other than that. the situation is unique, we are talking about total fabrication. you have so many other ways out of liability. qualified immunity, frank,

there are so many other protections against the state in an individual officer for errors but why should we worry about not receiving notice? >> the reason your honor is that in this case when the later accrual principle, the petitioner requests under hack or as a matter of a common-law element is purchased not only at the price of delayed notice for the would-be defendant, it's purchased at the price of closing the courthouse door on a number of potential fourth amendment claims. those who are subject to unlawful arrests but are later validly convicted. >> can i ask, i may be misunderstanding this so tell me if i am but it seems as though the position you are

taking now is diametrically opposed to the position you took in the seventh circuit so i'll just read you something and this is from oral arguments but my grief tells me this is what happened. i think there's not a transcript but maybe there is but this is what my clerk tells me. this is what happened at oral argument. judge rominger says there are 10 other circuits that have now recognized this kind of claim, this kind of fourth amendment claim and she said let's just assume that we do what those 10 other circuits have done which of course he didn't do what she says let's just assume it. at what point would you think the statute of limitations would begin to run and you, maybe not you but you ... you say if you were to recognize such a claim, the accrual is the time at which the proceedings are terminated in favor of that individual so in this case it would be i think, the date would have been may 4, 2011 and chief

john woods says, so you're assuming the constitutional court would follow the same pattern the state law does and require the favorable termination because if there's no favorable termination, for all the policy reasons states have considered there's no injury and again, whoever the lawyer was said that's correct. so am i misunderstanding this or are you saying that's not correct, that's wrong. >> i think that is correct in so far as what the lawyer was being asked. as i understand having also listened to the argument your honor is that ... >> is there no transcript for this? >> i'm not aware of the transcript. part of that appeared in the reply brief in support of the third petition and what that quote makes clear, it seems to me what the lawyer is being asked is if we are to follow suit, what's again,

taking it back to, this is not a motion to dismiss on limitations grounds, if they are not able to establish that they have an accrued claim or a claim with a clade delayed accrual sufficient to satisfy the limitation. under a traditional fourth amendment theory, can we overcome this limitation. by virtue of these common-law elements? what the attorney was being asked as i heard that argument, what the attorney was being asked is isn't , do you agree that what they are trying to do here is join what every other circuit has done and if we join what every other circuit has done, they would have a favorable termination element? >> i don't think, maybe, i guess. it seems to be a much more natural way of understanding this is to say look, if we do what every other circuit has done in the sense that we acknowledge that there is a fourth amendment claim here

post legal process, something which you yourself have now acknowledged today, that if we acknowledge that, what would accrual dates the and then the lawyer says the accrual date would be the date of termination and now you are saying, and i actually don't know whether it should be or should be, i don't think the second circuit for a moment and centered that suggestion.i guess it's another question why i think we should send the whole thing back, the seventh circuit should figure out whether you forfeited this claim. theseventh circuit could figure out if you did forfeit this claim, what the right answer is but to me this language , and i have not listened to the tape myself so i have to admit that but to me this language suggests that youforfeited this . >> your honor, again, in context i think the lawyer was being asked is if they get the benefits, i believe the quote in the reply in support of the part of the

quote appears in the reply in support of the circuit petition includes a reference to well, along with a common-law elements, the lawyer is saying yes, if they were to get the benefits, this is what they are trying to do. no one denied it. what they were saying in their briefs is that we want the benefit of the four elements of fort recognized in other circuits, most because they are adopting the wholesale the fourth. of you because they seem to have in lou of the common-law elements and the question was , if we give them what they are asking for, if this court goes to other courts, would they have a may 4 accrualdate and the answer is yes because that's what they've been seeking all along . >> why not? if a person is being held the magistrate listening to the policeman detained him and the magistrate and everybody was very unreasonable.

>> okay. >> he's there, day one. entering a case? yes. why not? they too and he's being held for 90 days and i can say the same thing. 90th day he's released, the 91st day, can you bring it? yes but now we only have two years. why only two years question mark because we are looking for an analogous statute of the state to give us a limit and the analogous window, not perfectly fit is malicious prosecution and that has two years and that's why. two years after the release date is the longest, you'd better bring it before then because that's two years since you were unlawfullyheld . what's wrong with what i just said? >> your honor, two points in response. the first would be wallace says that if you have a claim on day one then it's accruing

on day one. we're not going to give you, there's no extent conviction. >> but it's a different claim. one is for arrest and the other is for wrong detention. there are two different things. that's why i take issue with you and you say you hold with this petitioner among people who are falsely arrested but properly convicted will have no claims. i don't see that, they had a false arrest claim. they don't have a parole and detention claim. >> your honor, i think what would happen, they wouldn't have a claim based on misstatements at the bursting hearing it in order to make out that claim as petitioners contend, they would have to show that ultimately their criminal litigation terminated in their favor. that's the request. if packis extended or the common-law elements is extended and that's why this is not the best analog . if it would be helpful to have a common-law point of

guidance on this in footnote 12 of our brief we provide a list of common law cases and example of common law cases in which the court addressed a question like this. we have an ex parte proceeding in which a magistrate is issued, i will take the stewart case of three items. the person serves six months in jail on the warrant but there's never a hockey solution, it never blossomed. he's released and is used for malicious prosecution and the defendant in the malicious prosecution contends that they're unable to show successful outcome. >> what's the best analogy? >> 'sformal malicious prosecution where you didn't have to prove favorable prosecution because all that was against you wasan ex parte determination, a state law like that . >> that's your opinion, what is the state law that does apply the best analogy?

>> the best analogy is false arrest. >> false arrest, okay. what is the statute of limitations for false arrest the state law is still the personal injury limitations period of two years. >> fine. he was being detained for up to let's say the 90th day. he's still being detained. the 90th day as the beginning of two years running and so now we run for two years and it's still may 12 or whatever. >> your honor, a false arrest claim on wallace a cruise once process begins so it's not running for those 90 days. >> why not? is he being held unlawfully on the 41st day and after all, we're not copying the state law. all we're doing is trying to find an analogous period of time. >> your honor, by imposing a favorable determination elements of the common-law claim, it would run headlong

into the fourth amendment aim. what the fourth amendment is vindicated, the fourth amendment is therefore the guilty and innocent life and in this case, the cost of borrowing that favorable termination element and importing it into a claim slowly on lies on an ex parte proceeding which is what we are talking about with the bursting hearing, doing so would mean if you are the victim of lies at the bursting hearing and you are detained but ultimately you are constitutionally convicted as evidence of masses against you, the need to show favorable termination would be impossible for that plaintiff so the fourth amendment right will not be something that plaintiff can dedicate. that's the reason wallace allowed to expand to instances like this where you are not challenging a wrongful conviction itself. and what they have asked, their claim is there and the way to resolve this is now equally narrow. way to resolve the case is to conclude that whenever this,

your fourth amendment claim could run through the arraignment after indictment in this case which was out of the limitations. but it is not entitled to that favorable termination element which would have the effect of closing off the courthouse doors to universal claims in order to buy extra time in this case and that is what we urged the court not to do. that is the simplest way. >> if you are falsely arrested, you have a display for false arrest, it doesn't matter that you were improperly convicted but if you are not only falsely arrested, if your detention continues, then you have a claim for the intervening detention. >> for violation of the bursting hearing your honor and i do want to be clear, insane the closest analogous

port is false arrest. that is treating it the way i think the seventh circuit has which is that it runs up until what we call the first appearance where you have the initiation of adversarial process. by no means does limitations. or if there is a polling that runs from the period of the bursting hearing through the pretrial.. as i said at the outset that is subject to traditional tort common-law principles of proximate cause and there may well be damages recoverable for that. but based on the life of the bursting hearing and as wallace health, cannot be extended to apply to a claim that exists before you have extent conviction. >> one more time, suppose you have arrest, the bursting hearing, filing formal charges, either information or indictment created

pretrial suppression during which both parties are represented and the false evidence, it's not known and so you are detained and then try. when does the fourth amendment violation and? >> this returns to justice ginsburg's point. you have a fourth amendment claim for the initial warrantless arrest. you would have a fourth amendment claim for this at the bursting hearing that then led to ongoing pretrial caesar and the damages from that claim may run through the period of pretrial caesar but with regard to the nature of the constitutional violation that occurs at subsequent processes, be they grand jury, bail hearings, preliminary hearings, those are traditional due process claims consistent with this

court's holding in the movie, frankly in brady which is applied in due process to prosecutorial duties during that period so i hope that answers your honors question. whether that those damages run through that. or whether they are reduced by virtue of a intervening cause would be an application of traditional cost. >> opposing counsel or defendant counsel ever present in the bursting hearing? >> generally, in this case yes. often they are because the bursting determination is frequently made as part of the perseverance which is to say the moment in time when this court is filed, you have a six minute right attack, does that answer your question? >> do have more, go ahead. >> so i want to return to the point i was making. i don't know if i've answered your honor. >> you were talking about the

bursting hearing. >> it's often combined with the first appearance and the reason this court is contemplated that in theory and bursting itself, it's often a matter of convenience that at that point it when the individual is informed of the charges, they fail at that as well. >> thank you council. >> mister eisenhammer, you have three minutes remaining. >> just to answer justice kennedy's question about reasonable error on a detention, in that situation the officer would have a qualified immunity that would, assuming it was objectively reasonable, he would be protected. in that situation. with respect to the seventh circuit. >> there still is a fourth minute violation. >> there still is a fourth amendment violation but he would have qualified immunity if it reacted with objective

reasonableness . >> because if the fourth amendment doesn't have any intent, either violated or not violated. >> there's either probable cause or not and then you could superimpose qualified immunity. the seventh circuit would have said that there is no fourth amendment rights whether or not a petitioner filed the claim three years, four years, 1 million years ago or the day after he was released. that's their position. that's why we are here, on the question of whether this is the fourth amendment violation we rejected at the seventh circuit that is due process . >> so you don't care that we don't reach the statute of limitations. >> correct. >> but i do want to note the seventh circuit with respect

to the statute of limitations as the accrual point uses favorable termination in their due process case. >> what happens in this situation? a person is initially arrested and held for a period of time based on fabricated evidence but before trial, truly before trial, other valid evidence is gathered and the person is convicted at the trial. does that person have the kind of claim that you are asserting and if so, when would the claim group? with a favorable determination to be the claim? >> he would at that point, if you use hack as the case that covers the specific issue, since he was convicted under half, he would not be able to bring the claim if that claim attacks the conviction, if it doesn't attack the conviction as the court pointed out in seven on suppression hearings .

>> i will say the tax, the unlawful detention. it's not the conviction. >> then i would say under hat, the hack exception they could bringing suit. >> when with the claim approved? >> it would accrue at that point, if that's the conviction read as i read read because i think it would be, in this particular case it would be unfair to the individual to speculate on whether what evidence comes out at the trial to determine whether or not that probable cause determinationmay or may not attack the . >>

>> >> that is live at 7:00

p.m..

♪ in the fight for the u.s. senate democrats are counting on colorado to keep their senator in his seat so far the poles oran his side going up against commissioner gerald lead to is struggling against funds he is an unapologetic constitutional conservative. by contrast it bennett supports liberal policies same-sex marriage in a year dominated by the presidential race glenn has gone back and forth. if we will get the latest on that from both candidates as they go head-to-head in their only televised debate.

>> life from history colorado's center in downtown denver this is decision 2016 race for the senate. [applause] >> moderator: good evening. thanks for joining us to night our audience will be skipping applies for the majority of the right to maximize time for our senator bennett and his challenger mr. glenn but we will have applause one more time as banks to the candidates for participating in. [applause] >> everyone watching at home right now has the opportunity to guide in this debate with the issues discussed.

9news.com you'll have the opportunity to choose if the issues will be extended discussion we have chosen the questions a while they have not been shared with the candidates. with that let's get started. >> moderator: in the last four days you have had three different positions on donald trump's first supported him, then you call borne him to drop out after bragging about sexually assaulting women that he is simply disqualified for being commander-in-chief. then you said maybe i will support with them check them later. once and for all william still support donald trump? glenn: thanks for having us and to be here this is important when you start to think about it repentance i am here because of a very strong will then with young

kapor add what you have seen is we should never disrespect women. i grew up in the family with domestic violence so anybody who puts a hand auger talks about with in that way is painful but what you saw on sunday was an individual who made an apology. i made deep man of faith in it is extremely important to somebody makes an apology life eight teaches me grace and mercy and respect for:so i would like to know what is in his heart berger also campaigning about the issues and he supports. that is why i am dedicated to doing that and then after that conversation i can address that. >> moderator: but he apologized before you said he was disqualified. so but then he performed

fairly well in the debate. >> his apology was not scripted. when you are apologizing to somebody one of the things you have to do is address of family members. he addressed to the family some of the toughest conversations that you have is substance-abuse your family is there to call you on the carpet to assure you that path out had when he was to deliver that message the number one questions is how do you know, he does not feel that way? i have personal credibility to talk to him. >> moderator: just extend the invitation is obviously will not tell us. i do not want to waste the entire of work but the of broader and leadership you have the core of your

campaign that you are apron's salt one dash principled christian conservative about supporting and abandoning towards a man that degrades women? glenn: here is the moment about faith. the individual actually says they need help and they need to repent and your faith gives them that opportunity. to say what it is in in your heart to learn on the campaign trail. from what people are suffering from i want to go out there to show him how your works means things. the invitation is still out there. >> moderator: we talk about 9news.com bills on the screen will buy yen what

they think will happen with the iran nuclear deal. you told us recently that iran will cheat on the nuclear deal because normally with the deal is done in good faith expecting their partner to cheat on them that they will not do the work. refuse suspected that they acted in bad faith what does that say? bennet: thanks for doing this. and commissioner thank you for being here as well. there is citing a contract of somebody to work in-house or zero contract with iran. would it has nothing to do with trust. i did not trust them then or now. before we do the deal there

was enough to make 10 bombs of iran. that is what the intelligence agency told us. but today the plutonium reactor has been filled with cement and is inoperable. and toolkit the nuclear program. in every game we should push back on the conventional threat. that was the right to vote and a difficult vote politically. >> ss-18 jurists signal so for them to come to the table to give them what they want. bennet: the money they got as a result of the deal that would have got in any way because the sanctions were multilateral and the chinese

and russians were walking away so the consequence of not doing a deal would allow them to build the bomb in secret with the money from the released sanctions to put the united states of america in a position to decide when we wanted to attack to prevent them from having nuclear weapons. ironclad redid this without firing a shot. we have to be extremely vigilant what i have legislation providing for congressional oversight to make sure we are stationed with the ballistic missile test. they are doing world will things in yemen and iraq and it is hard for me to see is a push back and with the program they are pursuing. >> moderator: the recently impeached speeches for hillary clinton give us some new insight.

so she has a dream of open trade open borders to share that? >> i believe very strongly in free trade to benefit mightily as all whole. there are groups of people whose jobs we have done a good job to a answer that. open borders greg said of the with that means. >> but hurt'' the dream is this the hemisphere. glenn: i not know what that means that part of the negotiation to put additional border security arm of border as a pathway to citizenship in the village is important to have a secure border with either

house of congress with that piece of legislation. what worries me about the debate is not just about trade agreements it isn't good for the country we have a lot to benefit for trade and adult want to allow the chinese to write the rules of the road prevalent united states to help write those rules. we should not turn our back of the rest of the world. >> moderator: we will continue that discussion. >> it seems to be a vote of no on it tpp. they have winners and losers that is why it is done behind closed doors. but what about opening up process? >> with the ivy league educated and he knows what

open borders are. and i'd like tim to commit that we oppose the open border concept. clear access to this country without going through legal immigration process and that is exactly what mrs. clinton wants us to do. open borders. we although common language. but common-sense does prevail if somebody tells you open borders just like the open door if you leave your door open what does that mean? that is exactly what she wants to promote but i want to commit to making sure that senator bennet will oppose his party's nominee. >> moderator: should the

trade deal be more open and process? glenn: free trade is extremely important i am opposed to the tpp as we cannot give up our sovereignty. article 27 is the commission of unelected bureaucrats to adopt rules dash regulations without the united states of america to intervene. '' we need to do is be open and transparent to make sure we are standing up make sure we are representing america. >> moderator: just a quick note what you are hearing are protesters beating on the outside of the building. we assume they are in support of the half-dozen unaffiliated candidates better in the race better not on the stage tonight.

9news has the 10% threshold so that campaigns were invited to submit to be on stage but they are exercising free speech outside by using the of building as the bass drum. so if at any point you are unable to hear the questions please just ask us to repeat . i will start with yes or notion of the government and colorado be allowed to banff tracking with approval? >> no. >> could you please repeat? >> no. who is the single best and worst president of all time quick. >> i am a big fan of abraham lincoln. the worst president? still to be determined.

>> and dick abraham lincoln was the best double wait for the worse but i will respond to what he said earlier. >> moderator: you can have that opportunity in '81 to revisit in your own time but name a republican you can recall voting for? >> yes. >> moderator: please name the republican. >> i will not. [laughter] >> that this was my business >> moderator: now you are completely off the hook but if you look like to name a democrat? glenn: our folks are private even though there is an infringement i will protect the sacred right to your vote. >> moderator: would use the single biggest leadership characteristic

that you do not have the? that you wish you had. [laughter] glenn: heighth. bennet: i am developing patience. >> moderator: thank you gentlemen. >> i disagree. [laughter] >> moderator: this is a question to both of you. the issue of refugees from the middle east, the syrian refugees is from the presidential campaign. and yours the end of the assyrian refugees how does that make the process more effective?

and do they change the vetting process? >> as part of the family of nations working together to try to deal with the horrendous refugee crisis. it is better if we are willing to take them but now we just take stuff out. the burden of proof and should be on the refugee the vetting process is very thorough as it can possibly be because people are reasonably concerned a people coming to the united states. but what i cannot support is who we are as americans of the higher religion if they were to ban all syrian refugees. but in times of difficulty i was proud to take the vote

and i will take it again. >> does the u.s. have a duty to lead in the assyrian refugees? and what is the standard you would apply? p mike united states of america is provided for the safety and security of our citizens but what i am concerned about is the fact that we have not secure our borders and it is important to make sure we acknowledge there are threats to david states of america and we have to have a way to screen those specific threats. i have spent a lot of time and the underserved communities with the participation rate but the other side is advocating more people in the market for black and brown populations and that is very

troubling. and then to understand clearly because that will hurt the people. >> moderator: you better religious test for volume quick. >> or to identify the specific threats. >> i do not support of blanket bans was a retired air force colonel and to use the specific intelligence how you can look to those potential threats. on a bipartisan basis. >> for the other aspect is the ongoing conflict as partners but your running

mate things we need to go after a side and who do you side with quick. >> this is why i am in the race. you have a commander in chief that clearly has not defined our role. we need to be working with our allies working together the reason why there's so much leverage is because america is not leading. the first thing that we need to do as senator still have those clear lines of objective as far as national security. >> moderator: is a solid hour partner? >> 22 cleared the identified our threat to the dreaded states of america as. >>. >> moderator: is assad our

partner or not correct. >> we need to work with the military intelligence with our allies to clearly identify the threats that are there. and come up with a strategy. >> moderator: you're not answering that question. >> i will answer the question because to hear him abandon the religious test as he has supported in doc past with donald trump but let me make clear i was part of uh day innovate in the senate. >> moderator: what about assad quick. >> but it is also of humanity itself. >> moderator: in another run clinton's speeches she said terrorism is not a threat to america as it does not endanger our society or in economy.

that is not the uncommon theme that the threat of terrorism is exaggerated to play into people's fears. do you agree that it does not endanger our economy for? >> battle they get is the left or the right. i don't agree. i think it is very important to keep the of perspective of what we faced a major rework together but i would not say it is not a threat. >> it does rank very high because it is in the public consciousness. this seems it is the job of people that our responsible leaders to undersea and the fear to explain what we are trying to do and then we can have a chance to talk about what is going on with the threat to our homeland and then to make their own

judgment. i believe there is a lot of work left undone that we are safe from terrorist threat. >> now opportunity to engage with and one another. we respect your ability to respect each other's answering each question. >> moderator: yes that is their first amendment right but during the iran nuclear debate the republicans brought forward a resolution to oppose that why did you filibuster that correct. >> because it supported the iran deal and i would vote against what made the united states more secure and made

allies more secure that we try to face down the conventional threat in the region which was extremely dangerous without the threat of acquiring a nuclear weapon but you talk about the obstructionist why would you allow that vote to occur? don't you think that should allow for a vote but. >> the reason i thought it was important the entire rest of the world to endorse the deal waiting for the united states congress to finish and it could not go into effect without at which case iranians would have gotten the sanctions relief with the of many in other

places i did not think that was in the interest of the united states. >> is that considered a ransom payment now that i read has access to billions of dollars to potentially put men and women in harm's way? >> do you still stand by that correct. >> i will be cleared the iranian military was very much against the deal they were benefiting from the of black market when there were sanctions to be released. second there is nothing that i have heard that suggest this payment that you described was ran some. we will not ransom hostages. and finally and fairness the amount of money is far less than when be voted on the

deal. with people that have supported the deal. >> moderator: we don't need a speech. phone. >> i thought it was one question. >> i want to go back to the discussion you change the subject doc about syrian refugees so to shift into competition on jobs is not the answer. clearly he apologized before he said he was unqualified to be commander-in-chief which i agree with and i take your position was strong.

and then you said you were persuaded by his attacks on hillary clinton to put her in jail if he was president of the united states. as the father of three girls >> moderator: answer the question. bennet: i did not hear an apology but what was justified to call its locker room behavior or the anchorage. >> is this an area where we agree we both have daughters. donald trump is the member of the republican family. i will call them out but every clinton has done so many things, allied, all list of things and where are you wracked?

you had yet to stand up to say anything. when will you call the hillary clinton accountable? bennet: i have endorsed hillary clinton. glenn: i endorsed donald trump he did something wrong call them out but she has been given away. >> please send sir the question. line your terms but your answer is to run by them. >> you are giving a speech i have been defended my endorsement of donald trump because my feet my dash my faith teaches me this.

i am answering that question. he asked me why. and again if it is about repentance to talk to the family member who is done something wrong to let them in the eye to sam want to help you with this and then if you can convince me you have done that you will i even called out hillary clinton. >> we get it. >> that was nearly as exciting as the drumming on the building. [laughter] we hope to return to questions by dash candidates later in the debut try to get things moving right now the viewers are weighing in on their thoughts of obamacare. as they answer that question , senator bennet the governor recently told me it

is not working the way it is. looking at the 20 or 40 percent tax hike next year. are you sorry for how that has laid out? how we get doc costs of that under control by. >> i am sorry with anybody zekauskas up before repass the affordable care act we have huge problems especially in parts of colorado there is not enough transparency in the system in many do a much better job to bring down the costs of what i believe is three should be working in a bipartisan way not just deal with the health care but health care generally in this country and that is what i have been trying to do. i am not for repealing the

affordable care act half-million more had it when they pass the bill those who could be denied insurance along baird canby in do cannot be discriminated against because you are a woman. >> moderator: what is the of six for the individual plant collects clacks. >> i get almost no complaints in my office about medicare people on medicare same to do a 0k and the doctors are paid and seem to be all right but the complaints that i get are those who paid their premium month after month to private insurance than the kids get sick basic to get a claim fulfilled but insurance keeps them on the phone until they give up and that is clearly a broken system. i believe we should have a

public option so people can choose from. >> do you think that public option? and actually know who role to play. >> >> such talk about obamacare into get more extensive it is pretty much the same price how would you change the system without disrupting with what is working? glenn: what to respond to what senator bennet stated. that is a key point because if he would actually leave the office and, home to talk to people on the of western

slope that when they look potentially add 20 of 40 percent premium increase he talks about health care or health insurance may need to go back and use common sense because when you're out there to purchase a good service is a make sense to decrease competition? if you want to have a higher quality product added cheaper price you need to have assisted them place encourages competition that is why we need to repeal the affordable care act immediately when it comes to competition across state lines. we need to make sure of your doing things to recurred to the market to grow. >> the polling would suggest that you are not able to fund raise at a level to make you competitive.

i asked you about your lackluster fund-raising during the primary debate and you said there were great secret fund-raising numbers to come out to prove i had asked the bad question but now you were dead last. why aren't to the republican primary voters before they nominated you? glenn: what is beautiful. >> moderator: they are relying on your honesty. glenn: you assume maybe year because of fund-raising you equate to millions of dollars of special interest money to compare with the. bennet: i am proud of those have ridley check of $25 because they are hurting but they believe did meet but please do not disrespect all those people go look at the number of people that have contributed to my campaign that had used their last bit

of dollars for because they understand i will talk to them to the will pray for them. to make sure they have a voice for somebody that continues to vote 90 percent of the time. >> moderator: but the importance of fund-raising for them investment small donors. >> moderator: by the do mislead the republican voters there is great secret fund-raising numbers that were not there? you do that was not true. glenn: the premise of your question makes it seem that we were misleading because it fund-raiser. and what is beautiful about all of this if you have confidence in the process that i raise the least amount of money by and here i b to lot of opponents and senator bennet is the only

person that i know can spend two and a million-dollar senate campaign in the primary to believe imam about. so could you want to manage your money? >> moderator: then we can choose the next topic. go to 9news.com to pickup of a topic he will decide between another question also bred infrastructure questions for kobe will keep the polling open for just a moment a question about the presidential race or the kennedys to talk about infrastructure? or education. now we will go on to a question about infrastructure. this comes from a 9news view. do you have any thoughts on

how to find the aging infrastructure? glenn: absolutely but we should not do was raise the gas tax to make sure that it is properly across -- properly applied. to make sure more funding is not caught up in the federal government because somebody that has been working transportation projects since 2003 states are very innovative when it comes to those issues. people have been frustrated sitting on i 25 raise your hands if you like that? we clearly have issues we must address hot and we need to give states more influence over how to prioritize this gimmicky one to handle more increasingly at the state level? >> they're closer to the source of the issue working with local government as the

person working as the city council member and county commissioner we work with these all the time coming up with solutions of transportation infrastructure projects they just need more. >> first of all, finally be funded after 23 or 24 short-term extensions all done in the name of fiscal responsibility in colorado got much-needed money but you cannot attack me for not traveling colorado i put my record against any official including those the don't have to go back to washington d.c.. when i travel across the state we get into the disagreements i say you

might be right but here is one thing that i do know because there is something wrong in our politics we don't have the decency as a generation to maintain that never structure of the parents in the grandparents. and with that the investment infrastructure and with the republicans and democrats to repatriate to come back to the united states and that could not be done. >> and raising the gas tax. >> they're losing to electric vehicles.

but we do have to figure out. so let's find a way to repatriate that $6 million to bring back here. >> moderator: would you raise the gas tax? >> therein is crossover firms. [laughter] i don't think anybody hear it misunderstands. said nfl-- are shorter answers but do you believe a lot of mr. glenn supporters are deplorable as said by hillary clinton? bennet: absolutely not. >> moderator: it is undeniable mr. trump candidacy has ignited a racist and anti-semitic

fervor in america you can grant to find how large. is that troubling to you in do you blame mr. trump for any of that? >> and to call a candidate out argue willing to do that now to go on the record. >> i did not have to say that because she said she was wrong in apologized immediately. >> du dome need to take a poll you do that when a happens simic drizzly so much time we can argue tonight. >> it was three words long. with roughly president obama

96% of the time is that a similar lockstep if they would enter those? >> in this mouth it does not capture the work i have done that is why i have a reputation in colorado and across the country for those bipartisan centers. as the third democratic and republican independent for in my record working on the fda or no child left behind has all been done with republicans it is my job to represent the people that vote for me but everybody in my state writing in entire

primary campaign that he was running against democrats there wasn't a single democrat that he could work with that republicans had been too conciliatory it would not vote for mitch mcconnell the republicans said colorado don't believe that. the democrats and independents cannot get anything done. >> moderator: we well continue on that. >> userid retired right . republicans reach across the aisle when you talk about not working with democrats how does that lead to a better outcome quick. >> i am glad you said that because both have done a poor job with this.

into set aside partisan politics. voting in lockstep with the administration 97% of the time but he says washington is broken with gridlock. so lets you save little common sense if you vote the same with the administration 97% of the time it coloradoans 97 percent success rate using your own theories have been bipartisan comity get everything funded and to deal with the country, this is one of the reasons why i want to repeal common core because we cannot use the mouth and common sense. be real, to denounce across

the aisle how does that do anything about gridlock? >> it is the whole idea of republicans and democrats to pigeonhole each other to get their way. >> in the primary were rather specific. >> with regard to his idea l2 we bipartisan with the iranian nuclear deal. and the epa regulations to shut down shops. that is his idea of bipartisanship. but i don't see them coming forward with solutions to help grow the economy. talk about repatriating the monday, the best is to reduce the corporate tax rate so to bring those dollars back? >> let me say. >> moderator: we have to go to another question you

can use your time if you can. edward asks unity. the country is based upon any candidates separate our country so which woody's kennedy do to heal the divisiveness to bring unity to the country? glenn: thanks for asking a very important question. the do not like the tone of this campaign is extremely important to bring community leaders and law-enforcement talk about policy makers to gather there are real differences just because of my skin color there are cultural differences we must address we can all the do that if we come to gather

and that is what is wrong with what is happening out there. and i hope that this center agrees with me it isn't about people's character by focus on the issues. i don't think that is right. that is i am concerned about and hold them accountable for that. >> what was a doo-doo do to shield the divisiveness of. >> and i respect the voters of colorado i see this even the primary election that is the exact opposite of what he said in a primary election. i care about that because i were to very hard in the time i was in the senate to build bridges on the other side of the aisle to get results for colorado.

for those who treat those maladies from the republican and from north carolina and lamar alexander. and to make things better for kids in their classrooms and teachers in the work i have done at a moment in time with horrible rhetoric at the top of the ticket on the republican side. of immigration bill. i have tried to set an example. but those who just want their name in lights. >> moderator: you are a lot of time i did not hear an answer. there's a lot of bank with a national politics right now.

bennet: we should be sending people to congress that don't play games to divide us but wake up every single morning to go to work with the other party to get work done. that is my have done over the last seven years. >> but at the top of your ticket does something wrong then make. >> we have been down that road spirit this comes from these denver business journal requested treetop about the number one issue in this race of jobs and the economy. site to a specific bills you wouldn't vance to lead that of private sector to create more jobs greg. >> the infrastructure build that's it is important for the private sector and the

bill that adjust pensions with sought fda they have been developing these new drugs are all private companies but what they faced was they couldn't raise venture capital anymore. because of the regulatory uncertainty caused by the fda. i worked with the republican from north carolina to change the way that process worked in the last four years. eighty-one or two drugs but it has been 51 i cannot remember the companies but not because of the bill but we have a thriving bioscience economy that we need to protect. >> to specific bills you wouldn't chance to lead the

private sector for more jobs >> my opponent -- out on his support for the affordable care act. that is crushing them we need to repeal the affordable care act that is extremely important. when you go out to talk to people they need regulatory reform the war on call in is real shutting down the entire industry to allow all forms of energy to roper to have a war on call but on top of that to double down on the support of the affordable care act and then as they try to incur a 20 or

40% premium try to think about paying your bills if you lose your job and your premiums go up 40%. >> a lot of folks want us to talk about guns tonight. hillary clinton was to abolish the second amendment do you believe they really want to abolish that? >> maybe she should not say that. she has made it very cleric ended is very i opening with those types of justices to win french upon the second amendment rights phidias said they did not say that actions speak louder than words to continue to press and the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and that is the reality. >> moderator: that they interpret to put the of

limits on today don't that it's to abolishing that? >> first people are deplorable. and then to say she did not lose e-mail's and does not take responsibility for that . she is all over the map. the one person who was not standing up to hold her accountable in is senator bennet. >> moderator: hope and a force in straightening up. there was some interesting work around the adm of guns and crime. looking at only three or 4 percent of gun homicides with those 300 million guns out there so knowing that, what schwartz of confiscation but would make

an impact quick. >> any and all restrictions on the second amendment are unconstitutional. also i don't agree that everybody can waive their guns around at all think that is what i support to. but strongly support in national forum of background checks mottling on the work we did in colorado. look at 2015 after the law was passed, of those that applied for guns to point to percent were denied among them were murderers, rapists , kidnappe rs, domestic abusers and it is very hard for me to hear the argument that says we're safer if they did not have guns. glenn: makes a significant

difference. bennet: it would make a difference because in colorado keeps them out of the hands of those who have committed those crimes. to say none of these laws would have any effect to happen in orlando or dallas that is the excuse to not do anything. so by definition it isn't taking somebody's done away it is when they apply for the gun. >> moderator: we have a couple of short answer questions. >> says name something we paid too much attention tarot. >> bible say one we are not paying enough and that is education. when you hear these abates

you hear nothing about talk about principles and students. >> moderator: short answer. >> i support always options and vouchers for i want to know if senator bennet will stand here to support vouchers for those in the underserved areas. >> moderator: be are out of time we must go to closing statements and senator bennet you have one minute. bennet: things for moderating the debate and to the audience. has been a great privilege to be your senator over the last term. every single day when there are people that by definition cannot agree with theaters side is because they might be a republicans or democrats. we have a track record and