mr rawabi and we're not contesting that he was in physical control of the car because he was asleep behind the wheel of a car or whatever we are contesting and i think we shown some evidence enough evidence that he was not driving on a public highway and in addition to the second issue your honour's is the fact that he did not refuse once he was taken to the police station after he was arrested for dui he did not to say is that he refused blower urine testing when there is no such testimony in fact when he was asked about that he said i don't remember but there is no evidence whatsoever that the police given to my client as the original om document that i was presented to or to the court and admitted into evidence was remarkably different there was no marking whatsoever on my car m rwandese more ruling to morris as to whether or not he refused or submitted to the past and there was no time nor date for the refusal of wheels to quote file miraculously had that information that what the officer that would needs to be shelled was that it that i've been driving this vehicle if the officer did not seen drag his vehicle in the parking lot and lose no evidence that he drove his vehicle short and the ear for it is possible when the defendant lawyer or with their decided to bring unfavorable evidence into the case or he was not required and i urge your honest to continue on and follow the i raised regarding the beyond the scope i think that this is an abuse of discretion review for that all over the judge didn't take into consideration in her ruling which i believe was completely flawed because examination and beyond the sparrow is the only objection that you can make when somebody who cross examines goes beyond the scope of the direct examination so i do believe that the judge was absolutely with that is you first absolutely did not absolutely i guess that means i'm not going to be responsible for the decision there it's the main issues before the court today the first is whether the trial judge properly denied to an institution for  decision hearing and the second is one of the trial judge properly overruled the defendant's objection during cross facie case as to the elements now the road elements in this case come from the statutory some resistance in statute they are that the defendant is an actual physical control or driving a vehicle on the public highways of the state of illinois that he and that that driver had test in order to be under the statutes jurisdiction in this case as the people he helped case in the second district held the defendant has to establish at least some evidence which will agree it's a minim says that the state failed to present any evidence that the driver of the vehicle had driven off public highway however the cross examination in question elicited that testimony from the defendant in the record pages thirteen and fourteen the defendant states that he was a driver now the defending consensus this court should be that this court should overturn the trial judge's ruling because the trial judge made an error in her ruling stating that private highways really is something to do with drive right now because here we know he had the right yes that's just on the issue of of whether or not he drove on a public highway or near the time he was found and arresting officer does not have to observe the defendant drive on a public highway it just has to be some evidence that he had had driven on a public highway at or near the time of the arrest and additionally the people are not are not submitting that the walgreens parking lot was a was undisputed that the driver was on a private lot in his will there was no benefits presented on whether the driver had driven on a public highway at or near the time of the vent so that's a distinguishable case and finally in people the monza long ago it was ample evidence to police officer is that night was the defendant said that he is he admitted to using heroin and other drugs on that night and it was appropriate for the week for the people to go outside the scope on cross exam so that we could elicit further testimony and create a proper context for the trial judge to rule and as we as i explained earlier he was not prosecuted and which established that the defendant told the officer that he had been driving from chicago to juliet and that he had taken heavy drugs as well as consuming alcohol that it's not that i'm backing away i do believe that there was not a full hearing on the obvious that it will be more than delighted if your honour's will the citizenry suspension but i think the proper way to thirteen and then he says and then the state asked him up i guess an awfully crafted question thing but you have been driving from the restaurant with your guess i didn't recall because of taking multiple drugs it doesn't recall having any beer in the vehicle like you had put into evidence again was the fact that the officer wrote that he observed that open bottle of alcohol so she brings information that first does not trulli evidence sucking up information that she takes into account when she makes the ruling effect that the state has the court took into account the court file ruling to morris which is exactly the same as my client received the morning two mothers and it's was supposed to the scene at the end when d d was released my client had one copy the court file had a completely different not a completely different but a copy that had additional information their own shows is that i think the supreme court ruled that whether the key is in the ignition or in the browser makes no difference the person is in control of the car it's the issue of being on a public and the private li