truong and found weapons which were the subject of the charges that are against this is the supreme court has recognized that eight of the scope of a search conducted pursuant to the automobile exception is limited to those areas of the vehicle in containers where probable cause exists to search as a result the scope of research may only be as thorough as a magistrate authorized by a warrant a mention of points of law first because i think they're the most would not have probable cause we believe there was probable cause to believe that there was on those were the facts available to the to the officer i also additionally the indicators potential indicators of marijuana in this case were tied to the passenger and not somewhat distinguishable these in weaver the court did discuss there was testimony from the trooper that there was an odor of rock cannabis now i understand that the court in that case said that it's going to be conducted and by that i mean it should go both ways in other words if an officer stops a vehicle smells and overwhelming odor of rock cannabis and certainly that's more indicative of drug trafficking and that circumstance the off in any circumstance in the trunk of the vehicle is certainly the last question is is trafficking the only offense that the available here isn't just possession of  don't ask the court to decide any issues that are outside of the facts of this case we're just asking the court to look at what are the facts here and the facts here are that there was only you know burnt cannabis there was no indication that initial stop get first of all there was a the officers vehicle was attached with the dash dash cam was functioning working properly for whatever reason the dash cam was not face forward so we do not have an actual that in addition to that there was the troopers initial testimony on scene as capture on the video that was submitted to the court was that basically the way the officer characterized the traffic violation was mr sutured as you go through that intersection one lane becomes two and you've got to use your turn signal depending on which lane you  lanes without signalling that that was not his initial testimony so there are some i don't want to call them that mr factual disputes but there's somewhat of an issue as to that initially taking what you officer uni sad it is our position that you officer made a mistake of law in that once and that individual you know wayne there's a case of it's unfortunate case of first impression as far as i can tell in illinois but as  so our position based on that is that there was no underlying traffic violation as you are correctly states is nothing in the traffic motor vehicle code that specifically prohibits it so our position initially is that if there's nothing that you think the officer might have said so when you've been transporting somebody back to the police station earlier and i can't recall exactly and in your position is that because the stuff the initial stuff was not that anything that happened after that stuff  suppress and his motion to reconsider regarding the first issue the trial judge's findings regarding the credibility and that traffic violation occurred were not against the manifest weight of the evidence credibility is generally a question for the trial for and in this case the trial judge specifically found that the officers testimony was consistent that the defendant was in an area with two define claims at the time the violation on and the officer was consistent about defendant's village signal while changing lanes and the judge's finding is not against man that's been the evidence that the violation is is clear regarding the third issue the officer had probable cause to search the trunk of the vehicle and defense counsel notes that more than just the odor of cannabis alone there's also the fact that a passenger was evidently attempting to cover up the cannabis not with a very very strong odor perfume and also the defendant had told the officer before the search that defend that the passenger smokes cannabis and that he was for or so the officer had probable cause to search the vehicle that under ross and lewis rushes up the scope of that search under those cases the clearly state that the trunk is at least on line with the glove compartment ross describes the glow compartment being within the bounds of the search but if i there's two lanes here a second lane is add so the left north coast lane is a continuation lane a second lane is that and then there's also it's a divided highway so these two lanes there's not to because one's been added are divided by signature you didn't use your signal you change lanes you got in the right lane when it splits into two you've got to change lanes when you get any other right when it splits into two once you go over once you go through the intersection as it goes to two lanes there you have to use a turn signal not a big deal and the words i think it's clear from what the officer said is that he made the mistake of  he believed that a signal was required once you go through the right one it's right what it splits into two once you go over once you go through the intersection as it goes to two lanes you have to use a turn signal that is not a correct state provide this direct evidence of what the alleged drug vials there was also some inconsistent testimony when we read with the court allows us to reopen the hearing as to whether there was actually a vehicle between the would ask the officer about stopping impeachment as i talked about in the court i believe his exact words were why i haven't heard enough here to erode the prior testimony of the troopers something to that effect i know the court is there's officer statements then you're correct and that's one of the reasons we've argued that the is the stock was not supported by reasonable suspicion is against manifest weight the other is i certainly understand the court is limited to