he's not the person generating these points in springfield that's what the business record exception provides that you don't need somebody who generated in springfield what we need to know we have to have someone that says that this report is made in the regular course of business at or near the time of the event this report we know was actually generated the day before trial was not made at or near the time of the event based on the date on the report and we don't know that it's the regular course of business to make these records clearly this one has just been sent out for purposes of hearsay documents the only reason that this hearsay information is even allowable is because it's generated out of a machine and presumed reliable and accurate based on the other or position is that they did not do the foundation for presenting the breath test results in this case and were asking your honour's to reverse her conviction for the second part as i felt when in the brief just to make a couple  about section eight to my main point being that there was no proof of actual impaired driving i'd like to point out that the state continually talks about how the evidence showed that lutetia eagle tail quest into this other car no one testified that she crashed into the car when the officers arrive on the seam the cars are not even touching we don't know what happened to the lack of information the judge had to acquit her a failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident because nobody testif that the officer said that he held the pen six to eight inches from her face and the n h t s a manual requires it to be twelve to fifteen so this officer of the opposing counsel describes him as an expert in to you why did not even perform administer the history and test correctly so due to the questions remaining about the section eight to conviction coupled with the fact that we don't have admissible breath test result if your honour's do not reversible subsections of her convictions we're asking for a new trial on the the second driving under the influence conviction thank you very much your honor to have any further questions conduct however this is an extremely narrow an erroneous interpretation of the term flamed out that's referred to by the orth court as long as the breathalyzer test results can be identified as the results given to defendant was in the back to ship it to parties and as far as the foundational requirements the officer testified that who has personal knowledge she's certified he certified by the eleanor state  computer in springfield and he knew he testified that what he was taught in those classes that to get a copy of those results he could contact the state academy that means he's been in that computer and they could reprint it and that is what occurred here results because there's a missing link i think from it if this were say a consumer fraud case and somebody bought a thousand dollar refrigerator from some company and they lost a receipt in the future you didn't work and they said oh what i'm go get i have printed out from the main offices computer wouldn't you be saying well how can you verify that that's the right print out for this refrigerator wouldn't you wouldn't you be asking for more foundation for the company computer printout instead of the store told the state police do he's never been to the state police i can read from the record he's never sought he's never seen your computer he's never talked to their computer programmers he's never witnessed any of that he's never produced any of those records he's never done anything at the state police level somewhere in some training they said oh don't worry about it if it's stored on the state police computer and there's no one from the state police saying yes we've got it i what i what i meant by he had personal knowledge shonar is that he has personal knowledge that the results that appeared on that  what is the information that is in the dark and if that ultimately was admitted at trial that is consistent with the other testimony at trial in terms of very what i would call verifying fair verify that this document was there anything inconsistent in any of their information as compared to other information available at trial no everything was accurate and matched and in fact the babak which was also  very don't have too much to say in rebuttal except to point out that i'm not contesting that she wasn't driving the car my point is that there was no evidence of our wedding driving which is an important point in most dui cases there's been some evidence of a way to driving and we just have a lack of testimony and evidence in this case that that was what was going on next as far as the law book to emphasize again the law book and the officers testimony are not sufficient on their own to admit breath test results there has to be a waving somebody took the other information and then went to the computer created this document in order just to win this case it's a potential possible i'm not like actually stating they did that i may believe it but if they did of foundation requirement in this kind of case that the business record exception would be a very little use seems to me i think that possibly there could be and this possibly the fifth or three climate if we had is a business record i submit that we did not we did not have anybody that makes this record in springfield talk about how it was made that was made in the regular course the business that is the regular course of the business to make this and it wasn't just generated and that's exactly what happens every time they do these type of test they send that information to screen but we were missing that that stuff with someone says these reports such as was introduced at trial  that this was made in the course it doesn't this is the regular course of the business of the only state police agency to make these reports we don't know anything about the computer where it was stored who did it who requested this was that the state was at the