that are in compliance with the asian regulations because it seems to me that rules and regulations relate to blood tests because blood tests are based upon scientific analysis and if you're going to use pharmacist changed o'donnell and the only theory o'donnell not as to how the latter preservative could affect the result was that there could be bacteria in the sample and that could result in the production of alcohol in the sample to because it registers the alcohol radical that is on the part of the chain and i believe in alcohol radicals  perfectly appropriate to call of a fair question but no testing was done so well for which requires a test to be done by the hospital where the bloodiest taken which would have been visible had it been tested at the different question of whether a regulation is mandatory doesn't necessarily mean that no compliance gets to define their remedy the supreme court's made that very clear and down in other cases in similar context dealing with violations supreme court rules for example the sample which makes sense when you're talking about hospital blood because it's traditionally do immediately because eve patients are still in the emergency room and the doctor needs the blood results so we can determine a course of treatment to make sure the requirements of these requirements under this first exceptional client's analysis still function to protect the defendant from an unreliable test defendant has a minimal burden only has to do is put forward some evidence showing that reliability is a fact that if you can do that he wins the evidence is out even if he's wrong even if it's actually disputed and i would imagine that the point about the comparison between the five zero one four it's true that the legislature is essentially tests from the preservative requirement because they're done in the hospital but i would have you know this simple was stored in the hospital until the day it was tested and the hospital had a different contains a preserve it even the attorney general of it on the record there is no evidence to support the fact that files use in this case contain a permit to have an effect there was only contrary evidence offered repeatedly by the testimony of the hospital testimony purple for well i want to point out is the burden of the state to establish the admissibility of the evidence they intend to produce they have not done that they produced serial evidence that refrigeration of the sample satisfies the requirement or somehow sample that was originally taken from the defend it how it's been contaminated and adulterated and how it cannot be relied upon in this case so i don't believe that the state has desk i can dish in that they have proven the reliability of their shows that there was a phone call by the states to me as well as a subpoena issued within a day or two of mr hall leaving the hospital so if it wasn't me eighteen days or nineteen days it was seventeen or sixteen regardless within two weeks  they are certified and they're employing people that are certified and they have their own procedures in place and testing but in the course of treatment to save people's lives the blood that even the hospital does not sit around for nineteen days because when against mr hall was just a driving under the influence charge that he to charge approximately five hundred twenty days after he was charged with driving under the influence the state head count of a warner driving with a true the argument that seems to be contained in the briefs is that because you didn't know what might have been fire with in the future you really shouldn't be  compulsory joinery the conduct of driving under the influence of the b s e over a point away and driving off under the influence arises out of the same conduct and either the same act and it was known to the prosecution at the time of the charging so because of these reasons  the williams decision should or shouldn't apply in this case because it is a nutritional charge compulsory joiner applied and you cannot allow the state to prosecute you define it for five hundred twenty days meanwhile in the because the demand was mild but either way the question was was the clock told and by just kind of agreeing to a continuance that's a step ahead of where we are here in this case as some of the questions indicate that there is no was about bacteria it's not exactly true that it's the state's burden to prove a disability are born is to rebut the evidence of the arguments that the defendant has raised and here under the test we didn't need to introduce any that's not even in this court the full story different was arrested on april twenty sixth we filing motions to preserve the blood results and to have them released to the state police for testing six days later that motion was a move on right away but that wasn't the state's fault that was a direct result of the fact that the senate was a sitting judge all the defense all the judges in lake county recused themselves we had to wait for the supreme court to appoint a new out of circuit judge to hear the motion and he didn't want that motion until may fourteenth ate breath mints during the twenty minute period before the test that was also a violation of the regulation but those courts also admitted the evidence because there was no evidence showing those non compliant those types of noncompliance made the result unreliable so  even this is right in line with other cases it's not an outlier as i mentioned it's in line with the supreme court cases in other contexts interpreted supreme court rules and saying you know this rule is mandatory and it wasn't followed but that doesn't