case that the a guilty decision from the trial judge and so rest assured i realize that they have a high burden to right to overcome there's no doubt about it i mean is in the light most favorable to the state was unprobable with officer trees that he felt like the defendant were either half mile for mile depending upon director cross examination at the time he said he did not observe any type of proper improper turn on when he turned on about he did notice improper turn when he turned on to ashbury off about so when this first turned on to bouton there was no improper lane usage is no lane crossing the nothing usual with the way he turned the next corner and again it's unclear if he was a quarter mile or half mile away his distance and i put to the court it's not a matter of a tour for that's where the significant or a mile away to a half by even a quarter mile he's quite a few don't recall if i did or didn't now again one thought he said he did he doesn't recall he did or didn't when he's in the officers at the corner of ashbury he obviously loses sight of the vehicle which were about thirty seconds then he finds the vehicle and goes up to the vehicle itself again little things like knocking on the window trying to get his attention when he comes up to the vehicle he doesn't know whether or not he knocked or not or that something that would again which he said in this testimony and then i think if you're just chasing somebody heard screeching tires you would not be forcibly yelling and screaming but he didn't recall he did ask him drinking s s drinking beers while fishing but what i find a little uneasy is fact that one how much when you have your first one hundred perfect last one i didn't hear that those questions were asked and granted i was not the trial attorney who did this but i hear those you know when you have your first when you have your last which would be key factors as to ounces duration of time etc speech he said he barely spoke but there was nothing w the speech and thirty one and previously whenever i say he said this in this part of the section and then other section it's different when you exit the vehicle you exit the troll when there's a little confusion as to keep you can infer but you still don't know what you don't know never asked for injuries never asked why he why would the officer request him to take field sobriety test except for the obvious he really didn't say now walking towards a squad car is nothing unusual about the way he walked towards a squad car there's no swearing again i'm in cases like this it appears that the argument centers around every little point to say that he has he's impaired the putting him on a pedestal to say that some reason he fell initially he should be impaired i smelled alcohol i didn't he should be  tree start and i believe officer higgins and she was the last one to testify and in the record i believe it's sixty one the sixty seven because she said it when he exited the vehicle there's nothing unusual can spell he picked  we have over here can sell and trees and water they said and one point consult for trees says he didn't have i believe he there was nothing wrong with his he barely spoke with there's nothing wrong with that on page thirty this is the state's case the state put on these different factions and the state and all the respective states want to nit pick on factors they like but disregard factors that they don't and put the defendant doubting that i have a high standard over car but but i'm saying these are there in consistencies these i think of the defendant always has the presumption of innocence but when you present this type of evidence in the transcript and i just found it alarming specially when he says when the again as i call it nitpicking when they're at the station and i believe can sell us said that he wasn't paying attention to my directions when i was finger printing but on cross it said because officer chris was standing next to him to talk until and i just found it a little bit disheartening when you're saying you're not paying attention didn't say why and so with that i think i have found this to be so improbable so one satisfactory so inconclusive that i respect we submit to the court with the contradictions in them that's i actually think i wrote a longer statement of facts than they did mantua argument trying to bring out its well as he wrote a very extensive motion to reconsider trying to outline those facts but i think that a just outcome would be a reversal and that any further question may please the court counsel my name is jazmin morton i represent the people who think of illinois in this matter viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the people all elements of the offenses both for d and improper lane usage were proved and a judgment should only be overturned when the evidence is so unreasonable or so improbable as to raise reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt in this matter  should not err in finding that defendant had committed improper lane usage the officer was officer trees he was following the defendant were travelling down the same road ways him saw him make this left turn that required two cars to jam on their brakes so officers thought that thought that was odd and possibly a violation of the vehicle code he pulls behind the defendant who's pulled into a driveway knock on the ss that's who made the out of your car and then you toss them over a fence as though there is nothing odd about that or house who has there is there is testimony that this is the defense house and i know in other parts of the testimony it becomes a little unclear as to whose house it is but it's our position that it's the defendant's home and what does that have to do with  that some alcohol does not have an odor and others do i would assert that beer generally does happen odor well it's probably the odor of an alcoholic beverage yes a alcohol cans cans of beer follow and then the judge makes a finding that the condition of the mother there was any up wasn't enough to satisfy the elements for illegal transportation  impair a guess here i think when we look at the totality of the circumstances the way the defendant made the left turn causing other cars to stop immediately when he is supposed to yield to oncoming traffic and the fact that it's taking him time to roll down his window when he can see that someone standing outside of his car window trying to get his attention the officer stating or testifying that there's alcohol and alcoholic beverage odor on the defendant's breath he gets out of the car beer cans fall out he's refusing to submit to a breath test refusing a field sobriety test some total all those bands would lead the officer to believe that this person is in fact intoxicated and then when we get to the station at one of the officers can sell it says that the defendant has difficult time responding to his command talking to are of fishing you know is constantly saying he's behind him and sort of one side of him saying you know talking about fishing or something and the fact i mean it's sort see what is happening in the video and it's clear that one officer is to the side of the defendant but it's not as clear as to who is speaking to him so just basing it on officer can sell as  testimony that the defendant had a difficult time comprehending or listening to his instructions is was more instructive to the trial judge as to what actually occurred a video where we don't have much audio evidence just little in the videos or showing destruction by someone else regardless of the work or the real it shows the officer standing next to him i can't honestly see anyone's mouth moving i'm assuming that they're giving him directives but i can't it doesn't appear that he is distracted by another officer so again when we look at the sum total of the events  the officer had reason to stop the car reason to believe that the defendant was a fact under the influence of alcohol after he admitted to drinking that day and then there is all these dish will signs of him not willing to comply with the field sobriety test or portable breath test for the defendant refus unwillingness to take it's not alone dispositive of being under the influence but when we look at the sum total of the events it is one of the indicators that this individual is under the influence of alcohol and had just been that along with the other factors that are displayed his his refusal to take a p v t test is throwing beer cans that were just falling out of his car over a fence and i would i would draw the inference although the trial court did not say this that he was trying to get rid of evidence of him drinking even though it's it's over and that you can assuming see through and the fact that he has alcoholic beverage on his breath all of those things together show that defendant was under the influence of alcohol so what i don't have a vehicle code for me but improper lane usage was the action of the improper lane usage so under the statute the driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection or into an alley private road or driveway sh yield to the right away to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard and the fact that those two cars that were so that ok i'm just presumably cutting off two cars not waiting the appropriate time for those cars to pass was the improper lane usage the fact that he is crossing over more than one lane testimony as to how much beer was left in the can if it was deemed just a few drops or if it was just a sip taking out of it that part was unclear to the trial judge i don't believe so it just within the statute it says partially consumed or if there's any an open container in your vehicle  described testified of vehicles now there isn't that there's contrary evidence from the three officers about that i mean at one point you've got the original officer trieste saying there was some problem although perhaps not for of containing and it would nevertheless the presence of containers is circumstantial evidence that he concludes absolutely circumstantial evidence though not consistent from the encounters that each got correct that i would say that the scene of the beer cans being thrown over the fence was probably the most i'm yes so just to confuse the circumstantial evidence i'm not consistent from the wrong a bit but the most the common theme throughout all the officers testimony is that they see him get out of the car at the beer cans are thrown over the fence  the the initial stop performed by officer trees he smells the alcohol when he's talking to the defended he sees the defendant being eye responses and not getting out of the card mediately or not responding to the officer immediately and when it comes to the way to the evidence or the credibility of those witnesses that was weighed by the trial court and our ability to look at this cold record and not have the actual squad car body you know of what occurred at that defendant defendant speech and his ability to really information to the officers is as part of the evidence that was weighed but then we have on the other side the fact of the fact that defendant was actually under the influence of alcohol and the fact that he made this this left turn cutting off two cars coming towards him are all indicators that he was actually  now not a burden to disprove it but when we look at the sum total of the advance defendant showed indications of being under the influence and it's the people's position that it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the trial judge correctly found or properly found that defendant was under the influence and that there was improper lane usage there are wasn't equipped with the dash cam video  it was i believe it was i'll say this your honor on appeal it was not provided and our record that there was a squad car know for all of us to view so i believe there was a video at the trial court level i am not sure if it was actually submitted into evidence or if it was admitted into evidence it was not provided on appeal and and the officer i'm sorry just said closeouts and the trial just refers to the scant video graphic evidence in this case and to make its decision it just happened to a farm thank you few questions asked could resolve a lot by asking simple question where were you how much do you drink how many can somebody bought us he could still said no to every question he could refuse to answer but appeared he asked a lot more questions will wire and he didn't do feel i want to do it right here there's a lot of cases where they asked well washington where worryin opens up a whole pandora's other issues in question but that just wasn't done here we have very limited so i don't stuff but i think i overcame it maybe not but i believe i overcame in the one living i want to point the court these are three trained individuals this is not somebody just walking down the street the three trained individuals one trained how to take no taking how to testify in court how to do a dui arrest now the defendant doesn't have to use a better term doesn't have the training and alternatives on the evidence so you base the evidence on except for the fact of complying with his commands doing the i believe officer can sell or was doing the processing whether or not he was talking to another individual why do in the processing you know who is the processing i distraction ok we have higgins who apparently is consistent in all respects and the only thing higgins testifies to is seen bare hands fall of the ground and she smelled the odor an alcoholic inconsistent season  the trees just observes behavior seem cans fall to the ground and throwing cans over a fence that's it that's what tree said i believe he said a lot again i mean it did he think that that was too long to write was he looking up the papers again and again what i heard was a power window was a great window at that and i thought the questions there was at that time when he was standing next to standing next to him