that if in fact the bicycle obscured some of the apple american characters that  a go i have a question there's a case in alabama law called state the green where it's not the alabama supreme court but it's a court of appeals in alabama and in that case the court held that violations were considered misdemeanors which are punishable by farms which suggests that a non resident who is driving through the state of alabama who does not properly display their license tags could be subjected to this let me ask you a question about the bicycle on the grime on the bikes i mean why was that not related to the issue of the of the bikes obscuring the li if you could just give us what the standard what you would have the standard be i would appreciate that thank you so much but i think along with certification the standard should be that the officer  the district court conducted a thorough hearing where it heard evidence from both sides it found the officer's testimony credible and specifically rejected the defendant's expert testimony and then in  behavioral even if his interpretation of the law was mistaken it was a reasonable interpretation under an objective standard and as the supreme court has hailed the th amendment if flexible enough to excuse that sort of mistake of language it says that every operator must have a visible tag antibodies pointed out in mr bradford's argument even this that this section in title forty that the defend alabama long requires compliance with the registration state requirements and the registration states requirements plainly require visibility and i don't understand the sullivan and other law enforcement officers going important information from you know running information visible on the tags such as whether it's expired whether it's been switched whether the tag but that's exactly what it's provided if the state of registration doesn't prohibit concealing the tank which of course they all i mean they must so it's it was it was reasonable for for that reason construing that statute along with the statute in title thirty two makes it reasonable for the officer doing it to to do believe that the law to believe in good faith that the law will require out of state drivers to display their tags also it's not there's another provision in title forty section forty d issue in the rd issue so with respect to the nd issue my question is why was it ok for for the officer to take so long before you even started writing the morning here i mean isn't there some amount of diligence that's required otherwise you would have situation where we were to award officers for keeping people at the side of the road for longer than they really needed to know and it seems like an awful lot of time went by why why is the amount of time  ok and within the bounds of diligence that's st question nd question is what is the standard do you think we should adopt with respect to two dogs performing dog delay was in asking questions that were prompted by the defendant's responses to questions about his driver's license and about his  to use to check the defendant's information he had to power up his computer because this was the st thing in the morning and as he as he testified as soon as he was logged in he regarding the dog sniff the supreme court in florida versus harris ruled that the district that district court officers should be able to testify about their training and their dogs training how their dogs indicate when they alert  what happened if they don't hear the officer's testimony the really the issue of whether a final response or just a mere indication is required as is moot in this drugs it detected the odor and gave the initial response but could not pinpoint the source because of the conditions on the road at the time and so if that nd dog did not give the alert the final alert statute that officer salving thought was that why should we read every motor vehicle operator for its plain meaning which i think uses the word every motor vehicle operator and there isn't anything in there to just applies to sections within that portion of the alabama code because they're sure different sections one is title thirty two which is defined as motor vehicles and traffic and the other one is title forty which is under revenue and taxation