of there are only two people two judges showing on the screen just a slip will be the rd member of the panel and he was unable to be here for the argument this morning he will be listening to the traffic stop based on a mistake of law that was objective we unreasonable race was stopped on a state highway after changing lanes to get to and on ran for interstate fifty five you know officer he against testified that she stopped him because she saw him begin a lane change as he passed through an intersection and before completely clearing the intersection and at that time she testified she believed it was a legal to begin a lane change prior to clearing an intersection she believed it was a violation of illinois improper lane usage statute also known as the iou statute however she made a mistake of law because the i o u statute requires only that a vehicle be driven as nearly as practicable within a single lane and the driver not moved from the lane unless the movement can be done safely the statute does not prohibit a driver from initiating a lane change prior to clearing the intersection and the state presented no evidence or argument that race violated the iou statute and indeed the police officer testified that she would not stop race again if this happened today she testified that he signaled before shifting lanes he didn't speed he didn't obstruct other vehicles and he changed lanes in a safe manner so under high end versus north carolina and his adopted by illinois courts a stop based on a mistake of law is valid only if the mistake of law was objective really reasonable and despite some of the arguments the state has made in this appeal there was no debate in the trial court about whether this particular officer made a mistake again even she testified she wouldn't stop him if this happened again the statute was not ambiguous or vague if the statute is ambiguous then it mistake of law and interpret in that statute could be objectively reasonable but here at the statute clearly didn't cover this driving maneuver and it's clear in what it requires it doesn't it you don't have to resort to a lot of different canons of interpretation in order to determine what it means it's not subject to two or more interpretations it just requires that a vehicle be driven as nearly as practicable within a single lane and that movement from the lane only be done when it can be done safely so the state in its brief points out that a statute may be ambiguous if it's subject to two or more interpretations but here again is not subject to two or more interpretations and there is no per se violation when somebody begins to shift lanes prior to clearing an intersection and even though the statute requires that the driver proceed safely when changing lanes the word safe is it may be subject to different circumstances depending on a given case there is no evidence that any of mr rice's driving in this case was unsafe and in fact the police officer testified that after he cleared the intersection he changed lanes in a safe manner the state did present in its brief an alternate basis for the stop regarding the one hundred foot signaling distance requirement f turn but as this court recently held in catch koski the statute distinguishes between turns and lane changes and so this requirement doesn't apply to lane she lane changes and mr rice did signal even though it wasn't for a one hundred feet or so the motion to cross into crass should have been granted because officer he gains stopped race based on a mistake of law that was objective realities novel the plain language of the statute is unambiguous in so far it is it does not prohibit a driver from initiating a lane change prior to clearing an intersection or choirs only that the movement be made received the police officers testimony showed that on the day she stopped race she mistakenly believed that begin elaine changed prior to clearing an intersection was a person violation of the statute but she testified that right otherwise you're of safely and she did not observe any other traffic violation congratulations just for me yes congratulations and thank you for all of the really excellent work that you have done before the score like you  reasonable for an officer to spec the defendant's count it was illegal there was no th amendment violation of the st place the high court held the for the minimum is not violated were after conducting a traffic stop it  what was objective really reasonable about the the fact that the officer believed that it was illegal to make a lane change in an intersection of course is unreasonable but under the facts of this case were a few was dark it was raining there were five  their driver may not move vehicle from a lane of traffic until determining that he can do so safely in this case he could not have done so with the number of cars in the area and conditions at the time no that was not the church in fact now we are certain was a safe lane change but that implies that no one had to stop no one there were no accidents involved in this so he had to clear the intersection before he could change moorings it was a mistake of log that she mentioned that she believed that was the case but she believed he was it violated the iou statute was or her statement she didn't state so she pulled them over because she believed that he couldn't meet it moving intersection and to be  fair we don't look at what this officer bowie we look at what an objective really reasonable police officer who believed so it doesn't matter that doesn't make your honour's i have a question a couple of questions about the claimed ambiguity here it sounds like what you're saying is that because the police safely that all of the officer is able to go on as the object of view of what a person has done at the time and so it changes given the circumstances whether or not those th violated the statute doesn't change the interpretation of a particular action of particular or motorists may change but those that you that cell doesn't they'll be true to any unambiguous serenity m b used to actual language remains the same it's how it's interpreted and in this case you can interpret it that safe lane change language in a variety of different ways and that it was unreasonable to believe that the iou statute prohibited beginning a lane change prior to clearing the intersection but the state has also argued that that her testimony that he drove in a safe manner that he changed those two lanes in a safe manner implies i heard the state argue that that implies that the   lane change in the intersection was unsafe however she did not testify to that she was she indicated that even at the time she believed those to those lane changes received her concern was just about the one that was initiated prior to clearing the intersection but it's important to note that she also testified she would not issue a ticket if this happened again today which is much stronger evidence that she believes the entire shifting of lanes was safe and also with respect to that whether the statute is ambiguous because safe can be something different in different circumstances and a police officer has to make observations based on a particular case in the particular circumstances that doesn't make the statute the statute is clear it requires safety and in this case that even if even if this court were to find that the word safe is vague or ambiguous in this case we don't have any evidence that mr rice drove that that there was no doubt there was no dispute that what he did was safe or unsafe the police officer testified that it was safe and also as far as the use of interpretive aids engaged than the illinois supreme court case did not say that just the mere use of interpretive aides  renders a statute ambiguous he can said that a statute may be ambiguous when interpretive aides do not clarify the meaning and in this case the meaning is clear so for those reasons we ask you to motion thank you we thank both of you for your arguments this morning and again mr austin for your arguments over the years we will take the matter under