in a pretrial motion then and her argument to the court she did and i think this whole matter that much simplified had she actually insisted that there be an to view the video it's a fascinating subject of how different people can look at the same thing and see different things and he certainly was correct and it should apply should be applied here now as to the evidence presented regarding probable cause at the suppression hearing those or at least a that i didn't s out of the car however just two and a half months earlier after receiving the sensually the same testimony from the same two witnesses and watching think that that is only the be giving the story that's not the essence of the story because again going back to session hearing the judge said but on three and ears not staying with him and perhaps this is short and nomenclature that police officers use to basically just shorten the description for stepped from her car she stumbled now we can all say well you mean at that precise second she stepped from the car park on stepping from the car after she stepped out of the car they cannot both be correct in their factual conclusions or in their of legal conclusion the fending had the opportunity to seek reconsideration it may be your your position it was there if someone that back criminal defendant is thereby foreclose from filing a motion to quash the arrest for failure there have probable cause now no i am not going that far i am saying under where that happens and the circumstances permit it i believe it was more the illinois supreme court testimony and part describing the date and from the d v d itself for example he testified that during the instructional part of the heel to toe walk in turn test d act eighteen twenty four through eighteen forty three appears to show these missteps in terms of her body movement and swaying although did i i don't know that he was sure he was irritated with her i think he was irritated with the officer he had to correct and at least two occasions because the officer refused to comply with his instructions now he did tell  had viewed the video unfortunately several times because i will take credit for being technically incompetent i couldn't i kept pressing the wrong button and instead of going to the spot of the video i wanted to go to it would go all the way back to the beginning and i think it that they had him a little bit short and i understand i don't think he was upset with mr livingston but i do think after he corrected the officer i think it's clear the floor of the case doctrine is not applicable here this is an argument that was made in principle in the more case when the supreme court to separate consecutive cases arising and different causes of action they didn't talk about the law of the case there because then i've been unable to find it case that says we will not entirely different matters criminal versus civil civil procedure governments governments or petition for percent so clearly the question is it is this a clinical stop w you it's primarily for the benefit of the state it's not for the benefit of the defendant this is all for the benefit of the estate of the state because we don't want them to be required to treat every summary suspension hearing in the curb lane and she drives into the other lane going the same direction and it's about a fifth or a fourth of her car goes into the lane they're traveling in the same direction and then she turns on her turn test machine by the state if it's in proper working order he said the only thing he said and he can frame it he didn't say been trained he didn't say it wasn't proper working order he said it had given him any problem he didn't say it was a machine that was approved by the department the first thing he does is he talks to worry finds out she's had a fight with the boyfriend he claims there's a strong order for an alcoholic beverage of course we can't tell that from the video but he then he then after he talks with her and finds all this out  ok wait a minute i'm going to check to see if you're valid and then we'll get you go and he goes back to his car going to answer a question as to why it matters that it was the last thing he did because i think he's detained her first and a fishing expedition for later we're going to have to have a foundation for the p p t i think that i think that the officer can just say without showing there some additional liability just as he's got to say there's some addition of the liability for these i would like to say there is no reason i think there are years kristie and i think that reason is the same and if the state can not use discovery of cocaine on would be should be considered by the court in determining whether the officer had probable cause based on the point one four nine the point four one nine clearly was