excuse me ma'am please the court counsel my name is jim mcgowan the c j a lawyer here on behalf of anthony miller of the southern district of iowa the issue really in this case is whether a fictitious cross walk exists to justify the probable cause for the vehicle pullover statute issue names a number of times or situations in which somebody needs to stop when there's a when there's a stop sign whether it's before a clearly marked line that doesn't apply here whether it's before a marked cross walk which doesn't apply here or before the person comes into the intersection which doesn't apply here the officer testif the suppression hearing that there was no market line so we know that part of the statute doesn't apply there is no cross walk so that part of the statute doesn't apply and that the vehicle did not stop in the intersection so the vehicle properly stopped before the intersection but the officer pulled it over believing that it was a violation of the law if he stopped passed the stop sign exhibits number two and three really there was only three exhibits in this case one was  video from the officers patrol vehicle two and three were the pictures of the intersection let me ask at that one the one fact and i wasn't sure of after in the brief very carefully explained the prolonging action issue but i wasn't clear whether there was a sidewalk on the east side considering continuing along sixteenth street or whether the only sidewalk on the east side was the perpendicular sidewalk that heading to the part that i understand on on the on the west side there was a sidewalk coming along sixteen an extension to the to the street yes and it in intersecting a and a and eleventh street sidewalk heading toward the park right and there was there was no whatever there was on the east side there was no little extension from sidewalk going to the park over to the street yeah you are here you argue therefore there was nothing to hook up yes my question was there a sidewalk then continuing to the left if you're going to get out for the park the answer is yes your honor all right so the only thing missing in the sidewalk configuration was the stub from the eleventh street sidewalk over to eleventh street on the i think that's correct of understand your question your honor he's traveling on eleventh street headed north sixteenth street is the east west street that's crossing so the question is where he stops on eleventh street is that is he into a fictitious cross walk or not at that point on his right on his face there is a stub yes heading to the street from the eleventh street sidewalk a continuation of the sixteenth street sidewalk that sixteenth would go across the sidewalk would go across sixteenth street and then there is a section that ends at eleventh street that would presumably go across eleven states what the district court with prolonging yes but it doesn't snow stuff to hook up to and question was yes but was there a continuation sidewalk continuing on sixteenth street and sixteenth street going north and south or that and since i haven't ever been there my directions are mixed well he know he's at a north content continuing west on sixteenth street past eleven is there a sidewalk you know there is a sidewalk that goes north and south  parallel to the two eleventh street to where there are a little walk and that continues on the sixteenth street you can see that on the video of exhibit number one but there's nothing that goes that would link up to the west side sidewalk coming across  work on the west is coming along sixteenth street from whatever it was was east of there a sidewalk on the right yes right sidewalk on the right goes north and south and i ask him is there a sidewalk forget i understand there's no stub to the street yes but is there a continuation of a sixteenth street sidewalk going further west no if i understand your i would say no if i understand you correctly judge if the us here on the top left hand corner this is the stop sign here this is the north and south eleventh street where the defendant stops there's a sidewalk here so this would be on the west side and then here on the on the east side the sidewalk is only going north and south so to prick us auto doesn't does the photo doesn't show what the area i'm asking about it doesn't it doesn't and there's nothing the video does exhibit number one the video does because the officer follows and you can see the full intersection on exhibit number one i think twenty two seconds twenty two seconds to twenty seven seconds is the time that the defendant is making that turn and the officer follows him through that turn so i think if you focus on that section of the video you'll see that and i would i would agree that there is a north and south on both sides east and west side of eleventh street north and south there's a sidewalk that ends of both and the south side and on the north side of sixteenth street but we disagree that there's any sidewalk continuation that runs east and west across eleventh street to me the district court is clearly right if there is that continuation if it's a more interesting question if there is not and i'm amazed that i think is to the right there is a sidewalk yes we know that there's nothing left as it to the left ok yes all right so it goes to the left and then i get to the point where there's nothing that carries it on kind of into their regular curb cut you know like in  all the little ramps right then if you cross the street where the other side is there clearly is no were no kind of ramp or connection because that's what you are going the question is is there a sidewalk that continues off in that direction right and if the answer is is yes well then all we're missing is that little stub that judge logan is talking about if there is no sidewalk then i've got this question i know under north dakota law that wherever there's a roadway there's an easement granted for foot traffic parallel to the roadway does iowa have such a law i don't believe so ok i don't believe so and it's possible that  misunderstanding the court's question because the the government argues that he stopped into the intersection that would run east and west along eleventh street where he  stops and not only is there not a cutout on the right hand side that would continue the sidewalk on the left hand side that sidewalk runs parallel to the vehicle and the one on the left hand side runs perpendicular to the vehicle ok so not only is there not a continuation of those two sidewalks but if an individual is going to walk from the right hand side or the vehicle is across eleventh street to the left hand side where the where there is a sidewalk the person's going to have to walk across the grass median the grass median there step off of the curb there's no cut out there where it should link up so clearly that is not the situation north and south but that is the situation east and west where the vehicle stops so since everybody's presume to know the law then the question is for a reasonable motorist what is the law the law is if it's if there's a line on the line if there's a crosswalk stop on the cross walk if those two don't exist stop before you get into the intersection and there's no question in the record the officer testified he stopped before he went into the intersection and the unpublished case of the state relies upon and saying well there's this missouri case out there the gray case where it's a similar issue that issue that case is different because in that case the person stopped four feet into the intersection that doesn't apply here so really the question is is there and when you look at that that language when the crosswalk is defined ok and it says the pro long geisha and or the continuation of or connection of foot lateral lines plural there are no lateral lines on both sides there's a lateral line on the driver's left hand side which would be the west there is not a lot or a line on the right hand side so and no indication that there is quite lateral lines i'd like to reserve the rest of the time i have any left for  again my name is shelley suman and sissy united states attorney with the southern district representing the united states of america in this case a district court ruled that the officer did not violate the form the memmott rights of the appellant he was the passenger a vehicle traffic what you are asking of mr mcgowan says there's a sidewalk along sixteenth street on the west side where the sidewalk it abuts up to the intersection there is no sidewalk that's on the east side of the sidewalk to be prolong there is no sidewalk that proceed along sixteenth street but there is a sidewalk that proceed along eleventh street and that is a residential neighborhood and cross walk doesn't look up to  pedestrian that there are encouraged to cross eleven street there well if you are on that on the sixteenth street and your house is on the east side of eleventh street signal like one one way in which the highway department has told the public this is a place to cross eleven street the place across eleven street is because on the left side there there is that portion of the sidewalk that about sent to the intersection which gives more south sidewalk in or they don't need to cross to get to that one because they've got the same sidewalk on the west side right well if they want to take the street have a sidewalk into the park for the park levers nobody has to cross eleventh street right but this is a very large park there's a softball field there's swings and well pedestrians should have the opportunity to cross the  because at that point and on the west side of eleven straight there is indication that a professional would be able to travel across that street just because there's a section of right away that's grass instead of a cutout which would create not in the in the a i would disagree with the word fictitious it's unmarked and if you look at that same code section three twenty one point one six sixteen it cross walks can be marked or unmarked and then it goes  talk about this from a longer version across the intersection to where the southern side of that sidewalk intersected with the stop sign and if that the court found that to be the case and base then found that the driver of this vehicle stopped pas the crosswalk and was in violation of three twenty i work on section three twenty one point three twenty two which at the first of at the first opportunity must stop at prior to entering a cross walk if there is an mar unmarked crosswalk but even if the court rules that that driver didn't actually violate this law the the i would refer you then to the second round so that the judge upheld this the district co it strikes me that originally this officer says didn't stop at the stop sign right is that true but it's correct ok now if the cops are just stuck to that didn't stop at the stop sign and i think that's a violation of of iowa law in it turns out he's just uninformed that that's not a violation of iowa law but he just believed that reasonably and said well geez i thought that was the law you know and so i made to stop and by the way he didn't turn without using  signal which is another violation of iowa law but it can't be primarily enforced now i've got a mistaken belief that has been a violation so i do with the secondary enforcement there's like no problem you're at all the problem becomes when the officer comes up with alternative reality number two that says fictitious crosswalk right no no it's not because as it strikes me that this crosswalk thing becomes really complicated because there's no continuation of any sidewalk i was told there is no will pedestrian right away that exists under iowa law and so all the sudden you know really under the law what's likely to happen if you're on the other side of the street as you got across to the park side cross again cross back right now it may be inconvenient but that may be where the established crosswalks are well the government and the government would disagree because there is that sense that that little section that would indicate can cross that street from the west side to the east side of the street and from the officer vantage point when he saw this violation so if you look at what the conception a sense of you at all though that officer comes up with op but from his that i mean from a legal standpoint i get it but just from a just like the factual universe that we're living in i mean what's the point of saying i've made my stop for reason a and then all of a sudden changing it to be reason b and officer initially say that didn't officer initially say he stopped in front of the stop sign and never actually said he was into the roadway and of course another side says he was never in the roadway  he does say bassett passed the stop sign but when you evaluate the code section of three twenty one point three twenty two and then what cross walk means it does show that the driver is in the cross walk which is past the stop sign which is why the officer said that he stopped him in the first place and basically they are the the district court found the officer credible and found that the the officer was had an objective or reason to stop him based on that thank you so in answer to the government's point if the government's right in this case that you can just draw a cross walk if there's no indication that the two sidewalks are supposed to line up then the rest of the statute in issue statute sets forth here for places that you're supposed to stop if the previous one two or three don't exist if the government can just come in any time and just draw fictitious cross walk and say well since there was on one side even though there was a kit it wasn't a continuation on the other side then that creates a cross walk in the rest of the statute means nothing and it's kind of silly then for the rest of statute even exist if you can always create this fake on that secondary issue on the on the turn signal i think the officer at page twenty seven clearly says hey i'm not saying he didn't uses turn signal for one hundred feet so that really shouldn't be a reason at all it saves any of