video of the stop there we're discussing today is there any objection to that mr de lay well those my motion i think you've already granted it ok i just wanted to make sure you're ready to proceed i am your honor you go right ahead where you guys may please the court and counsel my name is patrick daley time here on behalf of the people of the state of illinois this is an appeal brought subsequent to a court judgment suppressing evidence aquash interest in this case this is a somewhat unusual case but outlets start by saying does it really kind of comes down to a credibility determination this is what the trial court judge ultimately found here that the officers testimony about the central facts which would have legally permitted the removal of the defendant from the vehicle and search of the defendant to find his vehicle were not credible and this is coming from the testimony of the single witness at the hearing which is john davis of the st clair county sheriff's department now in this case there are really kind of two parts to it there was a hearing in which officer or you know sheriff's deputy davis testified and then the video the video was not played at that hearing it wasn't discovered until the conclusion of the hearing that the video even existed the court ordered the state to produce the video and after reviewing that video apparently ex parte there's nothing in the record to show that there was any reconvening of the court proceedings to discuss you what it doesn't show and how that sort of plays into the state's argument here because what our position is is this it is true manifestly that this court defers to credibility determinations i the lower court  because the court is in a best position to consider the evidence hear the testimony the witnesses etc and i won't deny the fact of that testimony critical testimony provided by davis was not in accord with the video that being most specifically the discovery of the cannabis in the vehicle which apparently prompted davis to ask defendant to get out of the car that said our principle thesis is that while all of those that testimony and that video evidence does not align both the testimony and the video and the videos really had a true statement of what happened right because it's you know a contemporaneous recording of the events is that davis did in fact observe cannabis that he did have the defendant exit the vehicle that appears that the defendant attempt to discard or do something with the cannabis and all this i believe his crowd rated both by the physical activities that took place on the video as well as audio that was picked up near the conclusion of it when the defendant was brought back to the squad car and the i guess in car microphone was able to pick provided to the vehicle and the defenders name was actually provided about two hours later to two and a half hours later davis observed this vehicle at a gas station which matched the description and elected to follow it looking for a traffic violation so the court says well this is a this is a a pretextual stop but a permissible one and i think that's a correct conclusion there officer observes a car speeding fifteen  forty hold the car over and then at the hearing testified that he observed or detected us in order fresh cannabis from the vehicle the defendant appeared nervous approached the vehicle while another officer that had been contacted scott morman who did not testify  vehicle and and interacting with the defendant when he saw what he claimed at the hearing to be a  the video itself in the audio small amount of cannabis which obviously led eventually to much more serious charges so you know i you know it would obviously be nice if that kind of evidence are recovered just as a matter of corroborat e you know evidence but again it's something i think that the officers could probably discard in view of the more serious charges that subsequently from the from the traffic stop what do you say and your response to   as as davis testified that you know he saw isn't a lap and it fell out of the vehicle amounts of the ground which is what he testified but the video does show is that something relatively early into the interaction with the defendant in the vehicle prompted his immediate sort of request or demand that to find an exit the car all right so he saw something i think that's a reasonable inference next as a defendant is getting out of the car you can see clearly in the video the defendant his accident then reaches when they get back to the car you can clearly hear if you turn the volume up a bit but you can hear davis to say i saw you throw the dope or weed on the floor when you step out now the defendant's responses to these statements are largely not on the ball but there is a little bit of cross talk that happens for the next minute or so and davison says well it was a little blood what else do you have you can hear that so the point being here is that while davis testimony later than a traffic stop itself is hearing and say all right well there's little doubt that one davis was mistaken but two that the basic constitutional promise justifying the him being taken out of the car and having the vehicle searched is in fact corroborated by the video that davis was not incorrect or that he observed cannabis because that's apparently what you hear him say on the video and there's little reason to believe or that he just sort of making it up as he went along at that point it was not correct in terms of the you know being you know falling out of the ground outside of the car piers if you it was all inside of the vehicle but there's little doubt based upon what we see in the video that he believe saw cannabis and has nothing to rebut that nor is there anything to rebut the propositions that you know he smelled fresh cannabis in the car and and so now the court had focused on a couple of other aspects of it being that time in which that davis was at the vehicle what he was doing or what he was seeing inside the video itself shows that the interaction of davis with the vehicle is about forty seconds or so before before davis has a get out of the car it's not it's not readily ascertainable whether there was actually any conversation that took place with davis or not i think davis had testified that that there was some but that the video does not necessarily refute you know the defendant's actions in terms of his actions of his focus being on mormon at the passenger side of the car but i think it really is the principal concern court because other than that it's these step that instance of the can't and the law and the observation of the cannabis which is a critical justification for having to find it removed from the car and there is no doubt that that was a  lawful request if true everything else that happened in the video the court and everything else that davis testified to the court found to be you know lawful actions on the part of davis and the court did not as i think the defendant argues on appeal sort of find davis to be not credible generally just found not to be credible the testimony about the cannabis in the observation of the campus but again credibility versus mistaken those things are two different things eleven doesn't mistake mistaken as can affect his credibility but again your honor the question here is the facts that give rise to the legal justification for him being asked out of the vehicle and if that legal justification is supported or premised on the notion that cannabis was observed by davis in defend his possession then that removal from the vehicles perfectly lawful and so it's our position your honor to conclude that the court's order suppressing evidence was an error where the video evidence supported the legal justification for the removal and ultimate search of the basis ruling in large part on the discrepancy between davis's testimony and video to davis's dash cam now the same points out that the trial court finding of noncredit really means that they found him not credible generally just best of why discretion when it comes to factual findings and credibility determinations those factual findings are your view for clear air and only overturned if they're against the manifest weight of the evidence as this court has s accurately when testifying at the hearing defense counsel asked davis when he knew what he said when he talked mr porter davis said he always introduces himself and explains the reasoning for a stop yet looking at the video evidence there is no indication of any on the ground it's opening brief the state attempts to argue that dave's testimony was plain mistaken rather not credible generally and that mr and that davis simply meant that he saw mr porter throw something onto the floor of his vehicle there is however a large difference between something falling from someone's lap on to the ground and someone turning around to throw something back into their car behind you in the many discrepancies between davis testimony and his dash cam video it was reasonable for the t declared not proud of it would have been strange indeed if the trial court noted these may discrepancies but found davis credible because no part of the trial court's factual findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence the court must then consider whether the trial court's legal findings were accurate but this argument overlooks the fact that the trial court found that davis quote jumped the gun unquote in making the arrest and seizure because he not did not do anything that would perfect a legitimate traffic stop or provide any sort of reasonable suspicion for search and seizure the simple irony of this case is had davis done anything to legitimate traffic stop there likely wouldn't have been a constitutional question in this case and davis actually engaged in conversation with mr porter or even looked through the directly to opening mr porter's door and pulling him out of the car during his testimony davis says that he always tells the person he has stopped who he is and the reason for his search davis forgot to do the one thing he always does when effectuating a traffic stop restall suspicion before conducting a search and seizure of mr were and as your honor i have just to touch on a few things from the states and in your honour's to reiterate the marijuana in this case has never been entered into evidence as far as we understand the last time anybody saw it in this case was allegedly that the traffic stopped mr porter it was never presented during the motion hearing as i understand it and hasn't been tested turned it into evidence or discovery at all i'd also like to point out that deputy mormon never testified there's no indication that he was unavailable for testimony on the day of the hearing and the state never moved  or motion to reconsider in this case where deputy debbie mormon also could have testified there are ample chances for the state to attempt to rectify way judge cruz found in her trial or to be deficient or even credible testimony that didn't support the state's requests however none of those options were taken the trial court special findings or tapes as testimony was not credible is directly supported by the dash cam video from davis own squad car the video evidence clearly stands his testimony on nearly every important element of the motion at issue where no other witnesses testified at the hearing including warman who assisted davis during stop and the video evidence shows an entirely different series of events in davis testimony no part of the factual findings were against manifest weight of the evidence additionally with the video evidence clearly shows that davis did nothing to perfect a legal traffic stop that would have created a legitimate pretext for search and seizure trial court properly found that the search and arrest violated mr stops are not themselves on lawful provided there is a correlating lawful justification to make a stop so officers are permitted to stop a vehicle if there's a suspicion of drug activity or other criminal activity as long as there's another reason to do so no one here and even the court found that the stop of the vehicle based upon the observed traffic violation was lawful i think that the court's focus on pretextual  largely involves the court's belief that davis did not or apparently was not finding credible the observation of the cannabis because if the stop itself was lawful and this is not a situation where the stop was unlawfully extended in this if the extent that it didn't fire fall outside the normal timeframe in which an ordinary traffic stop would be taking place and that cannabis was in fact observed i don't think there's any doubt and i think even the judge probably would have found that the removal of the fender from the vehicle and all subsequent events was justified and lawful so that's what it really kind of came down to for the court but the fun it does not address and i think it has to be addressed what is actually on the video and again if our if our focus in inquiry here is upon the observation of the cannabis and illegal imports the constitutional import of that observation with regards to the ultimate conclusion about whether the defendant could be lawfully removed from the vehicle etc one has to basically ignore that which to which a video shows and that is davis  you know unambiguous statement about you know seen him throw dope on the floor of the car ok and the actions of the defendant and the actions of a mormon in the spontaneity of mormons sort of asking him to get out of the car seems to corroborate this notion that he saw something that was in defense possession which prompted days because it didn't seem to happen as part of any kind of organic interaction with mormon now the guy's a mormon i do agree with counsel on one point it would have been better if mormon had testified but by that same measure you know not knowing what mormon would have said in a good mormon was not involved with the defendant driver we don't know what he observed as clearly his focus was likely on the passenger because that's where that interaction was taking place it can't be said you know definitively that he would have added anything that would have changed the ultimate outcome here nor is the court required to by the way move to reconsider it's under no legal obligation to move to reconsider it can simply just appeal as it did here so i don't think that that's a fact that this court should take into consideration defendant you know i know  mean he defended focuses on i would characterize as several minutia that seems to have us as ultimate conclusion that credibility sort of has to align with the video testimony for that credibility to be intact but as a matter of human nature if you don't watch a video and you're handling hundreds of traffic stops in the course of months or at least if not hundreds a lot i think it's fair to say that a lot happens between one to one and fifteen and then you're put on the stand and you have to cold you know give a cold recollection of what happened without looking at the video or that video being perhaps used as part of the preparation process because clearly no one knew about it at the time of the hearing until mormon brought it up at the end or there was discussion about it at the end you know i don't think knox davis credibility it simply shows it encroaching self into saying exactly what the videos so again the court's order suppressing evidence which focused on i think the absence of evidence that aligns with mormons test davis's testimony to the exclusion of for whatever reason what the video  show and i think that this court can observe for itself should a lot of course arrive at the conclusion that the court's ignoring that which does corroborate the general and salient and really the principle legal proposition of the observation that