twenty five years ago and the the legislature has amended it or indicated in any way that they thought that they got it wrong so there's a judicial canon there whether you know what the legislature is aware of usual so i think even resolving these this you know that would be that would be interesting here the abstraction in justice related to something that was unrelated to the investigation but if you could if we agree that he's apprehended he's taken in for cause of questioning on a specific subject any assume for the moment that truthful information would assist the police has misinformation but he doesn't want to be arrested and charged with accountability and the very thing that they're that they're working on it except that i'm truthful information he's going to be arrested because he's there with a it's a cousin is it allegedly yeah even if you're present at the scene of a murder and you're with a guy that's got to go on that i would say but i think in that instance he acted with the intent prevent yet pretention the principle and maybe in the back of his mind he's worried he might be liable as accomplice accomplice but he's every handed oscars and not now maybe they can charge him with and i mean president berger seen early on january thirtieth two thousand and thirteen that was false it was proved to be false the only issue then became whether the state proved that he had the intent to prevent his own apprehension and africans to find in the case was a seizure taking or arrest the person on the criminal charge so here the evidence does not show that he was in fact under arrest for the charge of first degree murder at the time he was being questioned is seized cannot be seized again this is ignores the fact that the definition of apprehension includes the element of that the apprehension be on the particular criminal charge so only by omitting that part of the definition warrants and therefore lied about his name and date of birth in order to avoid being apprehended on the outstanding warrant although he was being seized and detained questioning with respect to a suspected burglary so those situations  can obstruct justice by intending to avoid apprehension in the form of rats for that same charge so it's not just different charges which would apply for example in fact q p but it could be of use the very same charge but simply own feeding a mere seizure someone who's not free to leave who's been detained for questioning a person is the forecast because there are different levels of seizure and so therefore the definition of by statute but has been defined in the case law starting with miller case so for those reasons there's another bigger reason essentially why to apply the the state's interpretation of this statute which is the the policy rescind that would be effected in in the case if the defendant's interpretation were were adopted and that is that would be granting carte blanche to anyone who seized by the police for any reason whatsoever to then go on and lie about anything and everything in order to avoid being arrested for example or continue to be detained for any other matter criminal charge so someone who about his name and who are to point being arrested for murder so that may be an extreme example but that's the type of thing that could happen under the defendant's interpretation of the statute so with respect this court should if you're to at the time he was being questioned about first degree murder that happens but yet that's not by itself sufficient in the state's position is that it's not showing that he was in fact under masts for the crime of first degree murder at the time that he double credit for time that he served under the the previous sentence as a condition of his probation and because he gets simply double credit for that he did not have to pack served extra time he had pretrial credit for that