of the trial of the police officer on what he had done and the job you've done and said that he would not have done anything differently but nevertheless found that there was not sufficient grounds to request the test is whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure warrant a man a reasonable caution in the belief that actual pic was appropriate and i think the that the parties agreed that there was a basis for the initial stop stealing that's correct my question is when mucking at the court granting the request to suppress the evidence where do determination but there was probably cause related to suspecting driving under the influence even if the entirety of the situation which means including what happened before the stop so that the  whatever observations the defendant's driving was before the stop would could be came because as far as of this reasonable suspicion here the only observation was that the defendant was speeding explain well i'm just i'm just glad my meet let me go to flesh out the question if you're saying that it's relevant that he doesn't see  a number of factors like the court you know it doesn't know what to say what i'm saying is that you can consider that but the fact that those that if if in fact there were indications of impaired driving that might be relevant to establishing reasonable suspicion but their absence doesn't in and of itself establish that there is no reasonable suspicion yes that's exactly what i'm saying the so in reality two we really start at the beginning of the observation or do we start at the time he gets out of his vehicle and approaches the defendant because up to that point everybody agrees everything was perfectly appropriate and this is a clear probable cause stopped for speeding you know he approaches that vehicle you before that really involve itself in the equation as to what's in a reasonable suspicion both the only thing that would matter was the fact that the defendant turn immediately upon seeing the officer that could be seen as a visual and adding to it but that i don't think adds much to the  proceedings or the viewing of reason or suspicion the author testified that he requested the field test because of the observationally alcohol the defendant's admission of drinking within a short period of time and the condition of the defendants is and i submit that under cases are decided in my brief that that was in fact imagination of anything to be the case or likely to be likely or probable a vague notion of something that's a definition for of suspicion from the dictionary and the indicators of glassy eyes alcohol a breath and the admission of reason drinking does give sufficient suspicion to take the initial step of asking with you to the  his observation based upon the video was different than what the officer was describing what he did not say that he disagreed with the officer or whether his view was based somewhat different he did not say i disbelieve him and when you consider the fact that the how the court complet the officer over what he did said he acted  if the standard is would a reasonable person take the action of the officer when the tragedy was i would have done the same thing i think that standard has been met and  was going to rely on in asking for the tests that's the only interpretation i can give that and i think that's almost exactly what we have here specific facts that show that the defendant might be driving under the influence whether he was not right or not at that time is not the standard it is is just whether he was true that the absence of other factors considering his driving don't discount the factors that the that the officer didn't reach and finding that there was reasonable suspicion that is not to say that those factors are not relevant in considering the totality of the circumstances because feeding the fact that there was no drifting or weaving to suggest that he was impaired the fact that there was no erratic braking to suggest that he was impaired the fact that he put it on a you put it on  saying it well if they don't have these things then for some reason his reasonable suspicion of value of his reasonable suspicion is less my question is although they may be relevant if they're pres how is their absence in any way a detractor from the reasonableness of the office or suspicions based on his other observation your honor i don't have the end to make a teeter totter of the these things and i'm just i mixed my argument would be that the factors that existed in the officer were not it would be more reasonable inference from the evidence and they were reasonable inferences based on what was in front of them in light of the video and the officers own testimony so when they are not in that respect the fact that the author of the court remarked that from what he could see in the video his eyes appeared clear the state a state is not considering the context in which in which those statements were made because it's the court is making the statements and the context of all the other personal contact fathers putting aside the observations about the vehicle and motion the court is making observations about mr patel person based on the officers testimony and based on what it saw during the video what does not court actually just list the bunch of things that on purpose and for some reason is troubled by what is broken yes your honor because rational inferences and it is entitle to make a totality of the circumstances and whether or not there were these were rational inferences from the up and so i demand that it's not that the absence of those factors is means that there was no reasonable suspicion it's in the context of which it was said and it didn't find it was let me ask you then what you think it meant when the court is talking about the totality of circumstances and that's what is a greatest concerns of the court that so many times in these cases as if somehow this case is now being considered in context with a bunch of other cases that don't have anything to do that so many many times in these cases now what i'm finding is that i'm getting cherry picking and i see this happening again here when you think that my view of that is that the court was making an implicit finding that the officers testimony was and was not credible  regards to some of the observation he made because there would be no reason for the guy and there would be no reason for the court to point out that his eyes appeared clear in the video if the court hadn't actually believed his eyes were clear that remark doesn't make sense unless he's sentence is and i'm glad the obvious or is in here because i think the officer did an excellent job but i'm concerned about the cherry picking that's going on and i'm still trying to really figure out what exactly that meant other than even lists of various a list of observations of things that aren't present as if that has somehow detracting from reasonableness of the officers suspicion he then goes on to say i would have done anything different how is it you can find that the officer is doing an excellent job and that you would not have done in a different light however you that they were not these were nevertheless not sufficient because the court was concerned that about cherry picking and further evidence saying that the court made a credit only use that term to i'm trying to find out what that meat is i believe that means that if we didn't find the officers testimony credible i believe that he's considered of concern about cherry picking in this case because in relation for instance in relation to the construction zone it was the officers testimony and what he said said that he was the minute he he said there's construction on college street he knew that he knew that there was a construction zone area and he just didn't know for sure whether the sign was up or down at that moment and you didn't know whether all  pylons were up or down yes the sign is down some of the pylons are up and some are now so you know officer says he knew there was a there was construction going on in that area whether in fact those those things were there or not he didn't really know for sure that particular point in time how does that make him incredible especially in light of the fact that that's not even relevant to the stop but your hon the court didn't find it relevant to the stop because had my client been speeding through a construction zone or engaging in that sort of behavior and was unable to see such signage or able to see pylons that were arisen in the street that's a not to indicate that there is an absence of other factors means there was no reasonable suspicion these are issues these were credibility determinations that were made by the court these were the court's factual findings that made after the hearing and whether the officer suspicion it's not looked at in a vacuum it's the objective can't see under doesn't just including the the i officers finding and taking those out in taking those findings that it's more it's and valuating the totality of the circumstances that they taken together did not amount to submission reasonable suspicion to require the driver since yes your honor i'd still do not think that's a sufficient for reasonable suspicion drinking alcohol is not legal it's not illegal or criminal activity drinking alcohol and then driving is not illegal activity and anyone who's had even a drink of alcohol is likely going to say have the scent of alcohol on their person during the during the hearing it came out that he was at dinner during he was if he was excuse me at dinner with his brother there was no testimony unlike unlike the defendants other defendants and all the cases cited by the state that he got into the car after drinking three or four beers and then got into the vehicle that's not the testimony that was presented it was that he stopped drinking thirty five and the court made a determination that should that he stopped drinking thirty five minutes before he got into the vehicle and he and then at the time of that incident was three minutes later and there's in these cases your honor and i do want to remark on this these cases are fundamentally distinguish because there is a difference between the owner of alcohol and a strong odor of alcohol for instance one of the defendants and bruni there was a faint although there was only a faint odor of alcohol but it was coming from the passenger compartment so that was rule excluding evidence because it wasn't it was the the evidence was suppressed because there was not enough there was not reasonable suspicion to to warrant  conduct field sobriety test and it is because the court did make trant ability determinations all the cases cited by the state are distinguishable into fundamental ways they they either have a strong order of alcohol mr patel confuse or disoriented and there was nothing suggest his up and the court did make a remark that his eyes appeared clear and this has to be considered in the context of which it was sad and that even if in the court and in subtly saying that even if you take those place and the argument that once the officer returned was the ickle with my client's driver's license and if and i you can see right the ticket that that was the end of that that should have been the completion of this down as well i respectfully disagree your honor i believe that it's only relevant what happened whatever whether these factors reasonable more warranting realisable suspicion of whether they were there is there has to be enough reasonable suspicion and the court simply found that there wasn't enough reasonable suspicion in this case and made those credibility determination was based solely upon the request to take the test the trial court did not consider anything that happened after the th minute and said that just the request for the test amounted to a i'm only can could consider the st eight as of the tapes and there was two there was the camera from the police car and the shoulder cam that basically showed the same of whether that it also had a rest was correct he just simply said you cat asked based upon the same action i would have taken you cannot ask the defendant to take a drinking and the