during the trial and what is the import of the statement was essentially the nothing to be testimony evidence regarding whether mr puryear was wearing his seat belt is relevant to this matter it's there is quite a bit more at least in the perspective of the defense going on here than was actually set for trial and it was ever able to be put before any of the judges that looked at the matter at every i don't believe so i think that the jury was wrong and that a rational final track would return a verdict to the contrary my larger issue and i believe the that's not the standard testimony from other occupants of the vehicle their career was in fact wearing a seat belt is difficult to test the officers credibility much beyond what the defense did trial about what he was able to see on the day question and at the our problem is with what the defense was able to put on a trial obviously our position is that we should have been able to introduce the video and the audience of those five others of the four other socks but more than that mr currier has a habit of wearing  belt i think that well let's start with the first verse oh as the judge said would the videos of the other pieces prove either that the police officer was lying about the other cases and therefore he even though cleverly may be of age he might be why you're making a claim but i just don't see where it's going it doesn't show it doesn't there point over for pickup trucks and doing warrant search because he believed that someone in a ford pickup truck or he was looking for someone matching that a search or bad happens to undercut his testimony that he was policing  have turned on his  his car around doesn't undercut the little c of the evidence that the well i don't know you didn't does because either way with these other stops involved no one's getting a citation they're all writing similar vehicles and he's doing a hariri did something a bit more than one of the other drivers of those vehicles dead because the officer turns around and walks back to his vehicle he's a passenger and gives him a citation but in each of those stocks it's apparent that the officer takes far as video squad communications between dispatched it was nothing they could tell us off as to who the drivers were but they also take the information returns to a squad car apparently running their information and  after which was are you entitle to have evidence may recorded presented preserve that isn't there other writers is there an affirmative duty to record the archive these arrests which isn't the same thing as what you said about preserving things so what is it that your argument are you arguing is he had a way to preserve something that wasn't fair or he had the right is just as hudson was asking which you've already conceded there it is the argument is that because there was this affirmative duty to prove to have created make the evidence in this case by recording the audio a village policy in fact and failed to record the traffic stop calling it a dui allegation according to the village policy the failure to do so under the circumstances there were some additional service stances there whe please the court morning justices again jennifer give said i represent the village of her three year old and we thank you for this opportunity to address the court this morning if it pleases the court and i noticed that your honour's discuss much about the second issue but i want to touch about some points on the second issue regarding the duration of the  stop if it's ok with our's the first point that i wanted to address is it i don't think that the stop was all reasonable in duration i don't think it became reasonable analyzed the stock according to the principles of compliance because it turns on whether the officer was it was appropriate for the officer to ask for the driver's license of the passenger in that case but refers us to combat it's less the identity of the defendant finds out the defendant has a criminal history and then a pat down search ensues in none of which have been here you know and that's the point that all these cases off the corners discouraging traffic stop viewed the violation of one seventy six the officer had already he had an identification and identified him to defend it was granted defendant's information so if the really look at it mr krueger was the best person that testified about this hat and how he does it every single time their testimony clearly would have just by she wanted him and i think it's within the judge's discretion to limit humility i disinterest or hershy out with more credibility would tend to corroborate what was being said if they had said nothing more than they saw that he didn't have a seatbelt on this stage you could argue officer didn't even leave the testimony of the two other witnesses because he had told the defendant that i saw you driving or sitting as a passenger without a seatbelt but i will give you the benefit of the doubt because you say you were or that you were in violation that you ate your suit both down so even the police officer didn't necessarily accept the corroboration of the parties even though you might have realized that that was the reason why if it had been a ticket it had been issued and a trial had been and maybe the jury might tend to believe them if in fact they said yes i was there didn't spit on your shirt he didn't call you a the case law based on the language of illinois rule that is for a six that would have been proper testimony supposing that that foundation was away even though mr perle here is the only person who truly knows what goes through his head  actions speak to that as well and because of the relationship between heaven the coal the coal she would have been able to testify as to her observations and what that ma