the evidence at the hearing showed that the dart was certified to have been training on the state present that evidence the defense then present was introduced into evidence showing he the passes around vehicle eventually the judge denied the motion to suppress on i'm asking the court today to find that the dog was not reliable that the state and that needed to burden of establishing the dog was reliable based on the fuel performance records and based on the video of the st was probable cause for the search in this case my argument is that the burden was shifted with the field performance records showing that the dog gave false positives and with the video stopped that impeach the officers explanation of how the dog over it and which indicates that the dog was cute  'm the the first point that i would like to address is that the the defendant shifted to bring to the state  the state are presented evidence that the dog had been certified improperly trained under florida versus harris that's enough to establish that the dog is reliable enough to provide probable cause however florida versus harris also made it clear that the defining can challenge that are that finding that the dog is certified than to get the dog certified there's a presumption that he's alive in this case the dog's certification was challenged with the field performance records what this would be errors of course they have a field before that they could be considered but ah but there was there were field performance records that can be considered in challenging where the dog is reliable now our defense counsel in the trial court pointed out based on residue that's one out of four alerts ah was incorrect there's no but it was no basis shown for appeal or that means that one of every four grabber that well that is the question and that gets to a policy argument that i want to make to the court if the state had conmen at that point where the records of the docs training and those records show the dog was probably trained as probably would have been on so there's a and it's just into the court there's an incentive to have the say come in with the records showing that the dogs are probably trying otherwise every time we encounter one the dog was trying to survive with certified spray and my argument is that that training under hers that would be another was not if it was not charles but in this case it was challenged by the number of false positives down he would stay at that spot and look at and he would just stop and look at this file is not what happened in this case the video shows that the dog actually tried to walk past the officer both times and when he alerted the first time he described but when he learned he was a looking at a spot and staying there he was looking at the officer as if he was being cute now the video also shows that the officer blocked the dog both times hip checking when the dog part of walk around and lifted the leash which suggest killing so the combination of o of the alerts being false positives with no explanation for the alert in combination with the video showing the dog and not alert on his own the way that the officer description of how the dog was supposed to work given by the officer so the video shows the dark not alert basically in accordance with what the officer testified was in the works so we have alerted based on those factors the burden was shifted to the state to then come in with the records in the training records and and show that it would be that this dog  performed on adequately in training and the supreme court made clear that those are the best records for the steps he regards performs what we have in this case is a dog that is wrong one fourth of the time in that in that q are the way in the not right the way that he was supposed to have a lower according to the the hammer based on that  so therefore the state not meet its burden of shawn probable cause in this case thank you and because it's a fail to show probable cause in this case i'm asking this court respec phone argues that additional evidence of raw ability specifically the dog's training records were required to be introduced by the people of because he introduced performance records but that's not consistent with the harris framework under harris the state can show reliability through the certification and training records than the defendant has the opportunity to challenge that showing however they choose to and after that the trial judge weighs all of the competing up dance so the consequence of any about cueing he could retain an expert in this case the defendant actually did retain an expert to look into queuing to look over the performance records to look over the field records and make a challenge based on that whereas in this case he did attempt to challenge in the trial did just the way all the computing of the ins and weighing all of the competing evidence in this case the liability was established the trooper for s q had been a canine handler working with this particular dog waver for over ten years by the time t frets he had also learned other keys through his decade of experience in working with the dog and the video does show the dog exhibiting most of those of us he doesn't look at the spot but he does bark he does sit down and change his post dog did not alert and a search was reform no narcotics for you to follow in that search so that further indicates reliability of the find rate in this case was sixty seven percent health related by defense counsel at trial and i  angry as in foster bolster the reliably arguments make based on queuing are entirely speculative at this point because although i defend defense counsel at the trial court did retain an expert to look into the possibility of doing that expert wasn't ultimately call no argument was made on the issue so it's just speculative at this point when all the evidence it's a part of the trial just finding a rival in so the requirement to introduce the training records the supreme court and harris is actually disapproving of the cases which it acquired a mandatory checklist of evidentiary i got was so in this case when the state introduced those icons in the field performance records only further showed reliability by showing the sixty seven percent find grade and by showing no false negatives other is really no reason to show further evidence while i believe i hadn't really been challenge hear the complete statement in the context of their case neck case to court that the state had met its burden by bringing in the training records something that not happened in this case in when discussing the sixty seven percent accuracy rate the court said that was acceptable in connection with the evidence showing that the darker perform well in training we don't have that connection in this case then the state couldn't fully explain the context in which that sixty seven percent accuracy rate was set out in foster so to the extent the fire s suggests that sixty seven percent is that is good enough that reasoning does not apply in our case because in our case we don't have the sixty seven percent accuracy rate connect so i deleted the the the state would come in with the training records there would have been all that it would have taken the importance of this case and in a certain respect is that this court can encourage the state to put those records into evidence and eliminate the conflict that we have in this case whether there's argument as enlightening way and the those records in the organ case show that the dog was essentially in training accurate one hundred percent of the time and of the state would come in with those records in this case and that's what the records w shown as i mentioned previously this would have been anders and the case in the future that brings in such evidence would be an anderson but so there's there's there's a reason for a policy reason for asking that the state produce these records once they're been equal challenge to their reliability of the alert and in this case there was a credible challenge in the false  negative body parts of asia let me say it this state failed to produce any records that the public defender requested no the state produced the records oh the training i believe in the interest of you to show economy it's important to encourage the states the state come in with those records and boston