very good stewards why don't you begin with you please the court and this appeal from his convictions for possession of a controlled substance mr bosler raises two claims if time permits i will discuss the second issue regarding the trial court's failure to provide rule for a one admonishment but i would like to primarily focused today on mr boswell's first claim that the controlled substances underlying his convictions must be suppressed because they were obtained as the result of an unlawful stop followed by an unlawful friends in this case the officers went to investigate mr boswell out at trial and it did not come out in testimony until the point of trial that the suppression hearing the officer merely gave the categories of the descriptors but i do believe that may have been we should not consider the informant to be reliable because just like in people versus reinhart in people versus henderson this informant remained effectively anonymous despite the fact that she was providing must have been person for one thing she did not provide any information about herself she had her name be it her address says she could not be held accountable if her tip had turned out to be fake adding to that is the fact that just like in reinhard the officers did not point to anything he the fact that we do know her source of knowledge might be but that's generally considered to be something that hides the tape but here the fact that her source of knowledge but she was a drug user in the sense certainly takes away from her reliability and adding to that is the fact that though she says that she had purchased narcotics from this person in the past there's nothing provided in her tip to help establish that to be true one would think that if she had actually purchase narcotics from this person before she could have at least specified what type of drugs this individual sold how they were packaged how he went about so living those to the buyers perhaps a name or at least a nickname but none of that type of information was provided and that goes to the fact that this tip did not include any details regarding the alleged illegality and that makes this tip very comparable to florida versus j al where the tip was found to be insufficient to support the stop and although that was a tip that was provided anonymously over the phone here just like in rinehart and henderson there was nothing about the way that this tech was provided in person that made it any more reliable than an anonymous tip provided over the phone and so what we're left with here is a bare report lacking in detail and reliability of a tip to not predict any future behavior it didn't provide any details and there was nothing about the woman who provide d the tip that lent added reliability to the tip on top of the details that were initially provided and so what that means is that when the officers went to investigate they were investigating a tip that didn't have any reliability to it and so they would be observed was particularly important because that was essentially what was going with needed to provide reasonable suspicion was really focused on the observation itself there really wasn't anything for them to corroborate though because obviously corroborate was innocent details which is all that she provided his physical description and his location which was facts that were readily available to the public and that were exhausted ng at the time that she provided the tip mr boswell was only located one block away and they went immediately there so the fact that they found a man matching the description a block away isn't significant and then there was nothing beyond that for them to corroborate now the officers did exchanged money with another individual without having seen some other object exchanged this is consistent with someone paying a friend back and a handclasp is certainly consistent with the way that people shake hands or create one another and say hello  the right corner explained the tip with a combination as working on kind of a sliding scale and it said that if a tip has lower liability then more information is required to establish reasonable suspicion here the tit had i would argue no reliability and so a great deal more information was required in order to establish reasonable suspicion seeing ron act which is consistent with innocent behavior is not doesn't rise to the level ordinary that any competent officer would be expected to act quickly now here the situation was not so far from ordinary want to people asking hands or exchanging money on the street is not that far from ordinary and what a competent officer would be expected to do is remain in their place set up a surveillance watch this person for five minutes if run or two more of the same type of x had been seen after that point then certainly there would have been greater suspicion see somebody clasped hands three times in five minutes is very different than seeing somebody just one time but here that's all that occurred was this one hand clasped and the officers i did not act as as one would expect a competent officer to do and unless this did not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion even taking the tip and the observation together which is what the c really emphasizes here that it's the combination of the two but given the weakness of girls which the state takes some liberty in its brief of when it describes them it describes the tip as being very specific an accurate but of course that's only with regard to the innocent details and or it describes the observation on page sixteen of it's  being an eyewitness observation of the hand to hand are caught extends action but of course the officers were not able to say that that's what they had seen all of this the weakness of the tip and the observation is the fact that there are these inconsistency is me officers testimony which goes to the very heart of the basis for their stop the most significant is the fact that both officers here testified that they were the one to witness this hand class where the purported hand hand transaction because their partner was the one driving to turn the car around whereas officer prisco said i saw this myself an officer gomez was driving and then adding to that is the fact that this hand clasp or the hands of him transaction was not included anywhere in the arrest report narrative which is just  a bit incredible considering that that was the basis for the stop but even if the court finds that the stop itself was lawful the first is even more clearly unlawful in this case because a frisk requires specific  articulable facts that the defendant is to support a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was armed or dangerous in this case there are two different problems with officer push scholars stated explanation for why he first mr boswell for one fresca that that that that statement was made an officer gomez mystified that what happened was raw officer purse was frisking him he was also simultaneously questioning him as to whether he had any contraband on him and that was what prompted m mr boswell to make that statement that was something of the trial quite robert was confused about at the suppression hearing and its factual findings that the statement came before the frisk which was not consistent with the testimony adding to the fact that only a general statement was provided as the explanation officer crystal wasn't even the one to articulate that generalized statement he was just responding yes to the prosecutor's leading questions in the suppression hearing so in other words the prosecutor said something along the lines of experience is it true that drugs and guns tend to go together or that you know this is a that there's a logical inference that a drug dealer might be carrying weapons an officer  person simply said yes to a series of leading questions like that the case of my o t establishes that a yes response like this to leading questions is also insufficient to establish specific articulable facts to support a frisk adding to the fact that there was no sufficient subjective articulation of a need to trust mr boswell there also no objective facts in the record to support it this occurred in the middle of the afternoon around two to two thirty pm in a commercial area there were two officers as opposed to just one suspect he was never described as making any furtive movements or acting in a suspicious way he was not sky busying seen with any bulges on him and certainly that was subsequently recovered fruits a voice in history either the sop or the frist are sufficient to warrant suppression of this evidence and mr boswell pursuant to this issue asked that his convictions be reversed outright for that reason turning quickly to the rule for a one a admonishments as this quite knows it's a fundamental right guaranteed to any defendant in a criminal prosecution that he be afforded the right to counsel that's why it will fly when he exists it's  meant to ensure that when a defendant weighs his right to counsel he does so knowingly and voluntarily and that's the only way that it becomes effective the state's argument is that he will fall when he was satisfied here by the court providing individual  on three separate status hearings spanning nine months the see does not point to a single case that stands for the proposition that that is a sufficient way to satisfy the rule and there are several contrary cases saying that admonishments must be provided at the time of waiver it's also this argument is also just contrary to the purpose of the rule which is to allow the defendant to consider the ramifications of his decision and certainly mr boswell cannot be expected to have  adequately been able to consider the ramifications of his decision when one of his purported admonishments was provided seven months earlier at his arraignment and also notably one of the admonishments that the state points to was provided about a month and a half after counsel had already withdrawn counsel if true in this case on october thirteenth and it was on december first when mr boswell was already representing himself that the state claims that he received the final admonishment this is ultimately just like campbell where no compliance substantial or it leads the court on patrol chicago police officers to scalloway and gomez were approached by a woman who placed her any money at risk and potentially implicated herself by informing the officers voluntarily that description of the defendant gave his approximate age his approximate height his approximate weight his skin color identified a particular item of clothing that he was wearing is his camouflage jacket issue is th question thank you as you and she goes on to indicate that defendant is is currently dealing drugs she describes his the criminal behavior that he's engaged in informing the officers that that he is at the corner of forty saw the hand to hand clasp that he believed to be an exchange of drugs of narcotics to shake hands and it's not illegal activity it's certainly not your honor but but couple it again coupled with the fact that they had just spoken to a woman who that that the defendant was in fact dealing drugs described with with particularly that they he was on the street corner dealing drugs in public and then with the when the officers immediately arrive right after speaking to the woman they they persist they see what appears to be a drug transaction therefore coupled together it it substantiates a reasonable suspicion in the officers mind you to their substantial experience both veteran chicago police officers let's say that shaking hands and an officer called let's say that's enough for them to it's not enough to frisk right so the court of course can consider the officer subjective belief as he approaches the defendant he does testify other than the general statement in my to the second district tactical unit for for fourteen years and in his experience there he knows that that is an area of high gang violence high crime high narcotics activity and in this case he's investigating but i those generalities his experience and his belief that guns and drugs then would justify him or any other officer in that neighborhood frisking everybody that they approach ye doesn't make a sweeping generality that anytime he's in a high crime area that that he conducts a pat pat down when you can talk to terry stop what what he does say is that he was in the midst of investigating illegal drug activity  he does make the reasonable inference that that where there is drug activity there are often guns based on his experience and then goes on to say that it was his belief at the time he approached defendant that defendant was on but based on give me an objective fact other thing his experience and his belief that generally guns and drugs go together what other objective facts are there in the rocker to show that he had a subjective belief that this particular individual with the fact that he was in the midst of an investigation of a drug activity and that he had actually witnessed what he appeared to be drug activity just like the officer did in people the delusion where this court ruled that an officer conducting an investigation a drug investigation watched the individual place that he loved cocaine into is into his pants and walk up to a known drug house and the officer was justified in that case at a reasonable fear for his safety based on his experience and his subjective belief at the time of the frisk that that he did in fact fear for his safety if he testified explicitly that he did not see any guns he was not aware of any guns in the individual's car on person but just that he he in that's at that specific place of that specific time did have a fear for his safety and therefore the court found that his risk was justified this isn't exactly the same no nobody saw any drugs nobody  not however but both officers testified extensively about the their substantial experience of having witness hundreds of these hand to hand drug transactions over the course of their their time investigating not exactly the way they knew what they saw there was the casual shake of his hands it was not friends reading one another what they saw was a man walk up quickly clasp hands with another man and briskly walk away your colleague suggested that the case might better stand dealing with im but then in the perceived drug activity that they saw that they the the informant i just described to them and said that that individual was dealing drugs on the street corner they immediately go to this recorder and they see what appears to be a hand  and based on based on their reasonable suspicion they were justified in conducting is that the defendant based on also for scotland was substantial experience in working in a high crime area based on based on the fact that he saw it was investigating drug activity and actually saw what he what appeared to him to be drug activity and his subjective belief that he feared for his safety on that on that afternoon he was justified in in conducting a pat down for his for officer safety the first did not go beyond a protective at and of course during the course of that down where the first was justified in the pat down was justified or in the course of that the officer asks a question to the defendant do you have weapons or contraband on you  to allowing the the defendant to proceed pro se and the court did so here substantial compliance does not require a strict word for word verbatim reading of of the  s the defendant to tell her what are the charges against you and he fumbled a little bit and then the trial judge said well you don't know it you don't know what the charges are against backwards however the court did inform the defendant and arraignment of course that he was charged her possession of a controlled substance and there's an indication in his pro se motion to suppress that he found on september first that he was in possession of the comply with the for when in management's the trial court is only required to impart upon the defendant largely what is specified in the rule it's not required to read verbatim word for word all in one hearing contemporaneously with with the defendants waive however however the defendant was given the nature of the charges against him had at his arraignment on march twenty fourth he was given the minimum and maximum sentence that he faces based on his extent of all sentencing range of one to six years based on his six prior drug felonies and was also advised that he had a right to an attorney on december first two thousand and eleven the trial court said to him i do you represent yourself or the public defender will represent you it's your right you choose it's your position record he sheds light on the dispute between himself and the public defender that after the public defender had had argued his motion to suppress and the motion was denied and then again argued a motion to reconsider and that was denied he wanted to file his own pro says that if i cannot afford a lawyer one will be appointed to the same admonish me that he was given and finally goes on to say in the in october of two thousand and eleven the public defender came in the back to lock up and told me if i wanted him to defend me to call him so can string these out over time and especially based on the entirety the record here it's there's a clear indication that if any did make a voluntary knowing intelligent waiver he had appointed counsel he knew he knew the nature of the charges against him he knew the sentencing range that he was facing and clearly knew based on it in his own words his own writing knew that he had the right to have the public defender reported for him as  i just want to clarify that with regards to the amount what was sad at the actual time when the defendant waived his right to counsel does it this is exactly what was that that's fine you are going to be house of the same standard as these two you are not a licensed lawyer your motion is already stricken we have with a gated it we are setting up for a jury december first for a jury trial mr boswell you will be representing yourself the judge actually did not even ask the defendant to explain to her what the charges were and on the next day when he was at that time warner no your honor there was not substantial compliance certainly not on those dates and not by way of stringing it out across a span of nine months and as your honor said it's certainly the question here is whether the court did what it was supposed to do but i would argue even if the question is whether the defendant actually knew his rights or not pointing to the post trial motion is irrelevant because if he knew his rights after the trial was over that doesn't mean that he knew his rights going into his trial and that that is his right quickly just a couple of points with regard to the stop the state says that it proved to be reliable because they saw a hand to him transaction i just want to point out that the tip did not include a detail that the way that  this dealer was delivering drugs to buyers was via a hand to hand transaction and that's certainly not the only way that dealers deliver drugs to buyers so we can't even really say that seeing a ham class even if it was perceived as a hand to hand transaction that didn't really do anything to actually corroborate the tip because there was no detail provided about how the drugs were being delivered there was some question about whether or not informant had specified that she purchased drugs earlier that day and on  record it specified the officer was asked that very question and he said no she did not specify that she purchased drugs earlier that day and then with regard to the press the state said that this was not a sweeping generalization like in mario t and rivera i just wanted to point out that in my oath to you what the officer answered yes to was the prosecutor's question did you fear for your safety during the frisk and he said yes i think that's arguably an even stronger case for frist and what we have here because at least the officer there said yes i was in fear there was not even any articulation here by officer person ever that he actually feared for his safety and with regard to the comparison to delimit finally i just want to point out that there the officer saw what he perceived as a hero of cocaine which is a very large amount of drugs and that is it would be much more likely to infer that somebody is has a back in to protect a very large amount of drugs like that also there the defendant had knocked on the door of the same apartment where the officers were executing a search warrant for drugs so they knew that this person was coming to engage with somebody who they they had probable cause to believe had drugs also the defendant there wide to the officer about how he had arrived there he said he had a drive by public transportation when the officer actually saw him arrive by car and they saw a bulge under the defendant's shirt there were four specific things there within the record that could be pointed to to justify reasonable suspicion for the frisk in here there was absolutely nothing for