raise a preserved viable th amendment claim that was supported by controlling the us supreme court precedent and it would have thrown out some of the most damning evidence against now before the accident in this case have recognized that estimating a defendant's blood alcohol level at the time of an accident from results of tests performed hours later the conflicts net are generally beyond the other factors you know it is possible that his blood alcohol was rising at the time of the accident so it's possible that the his blood alcohol level at the time the testing was higher than at the time  d the time of the accident and because of that an expert testimony is needed to give the jury the proper information need to assess whether the blood alcohol the results of the blood alcohol testing you know establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he has blood alcohol level of the of the affected by the improper introduction of the blood alcohol evidence and therefore you know these are really can't be said that the introduction of the evidence was harmless beyond reasonable post conviction petition in this case on may th two thousand and eighteen raising several issues in the trial court dismissed that petition on august st two thousand and eighteen defendant argues that the motion court case and nearly was a missouri case that did not involve a death it was the police noticed the person who was driving was unable to maintain his lane and and was not driving properly so when he was pulled over the police asked him to perform sobriety tests and he refused and then in the police vehicle on his way the police station he told the officer that he would refuse any testing so breath testing blood testing at that s supreme court precedent takes priority over an illinois supreme court case but i would i would argue in response to that that the jones case relied on schroeder which is also a united states supreme court case and in that case it didn't valan injury and the blood draw was taken at the hospital where the defendant was injured and was taken to the hospital so the difference in this case is a defendant was not injured he was taken to the hospital specifically for zero for the blood draw however you know in getting into all the different federal and state supreme court cases in trying to decide this issue the important thing to remember is it as defendant points out in his reply is that counsel could have argued mcneely just as trial counsel did but the question in this case is whether it was in if whether counsel was ineffective for not doing so so course that you know a pelican also could have argued that mcneely  would would find otherwise in a case like this but whether or not it was on reasonable objectively unreasonable under strickland for him to fail to do that is another question i think in this case the answer is no because  e the controlling case at the time was jones and under that case it was clear that the this court in deciding that case would have relied on jones and found in favor of the state in that case so i think that the st issue fails on both the objectively unreasonable as well as the prejudice problem and then as far as the nd argument regarding the   the argument was not that there was a per se exigency and this is brought up it also i think you know of course the state meetings that you banks is not relevant however a person a c which is what mcneely was was decided on would not apply so the state cannot have a law that says in all cases in every case where there statute unconstitutional on its face and the supreme court reversed that but they found it unconstitutional as applied to that defendant and so the question in this case wasn't whether or not it would apply because there isn't a cross per say across the board extension see but because the case falls within the general rule which is when there is personal injury or death that  general rule would apply and then the defendant would have to then show that even though the general rule would apply in this case it should not apply because these delays in this case the delays you know are so many there's significant differences in the at the delay there's more than two and a half times the delay was seven hours before the blood drawn and then eight half hours before the urine here there was a total lapse time from the time of it's possible that there are other officers billable to aid in getting a warrant and the court however didn't lay out exactly how that would function and how how it would be decided whether or not those officers were available you know in a case like this when police officers are processing a scene and in this case there was two different scenes the defendant fled and what to another location there are some officers at that location and some officers at the accident scene so those officers were processing the scene and defendant contention is that because there were other officers one of them must have been able to go and get the warrant and  there is no there is no bright line rule as far as how that would would operate and it's significant i think that in this case the officer officer holes is the one who began to do a warrant application before he spoke with the state's attorney and then went to the hospital he was his day off so if there were you know in this case if there was an abundance of officers around playing crossword puzzles then it would make sense that there's an  officer on his night off processing a warrant and taking the defendant to the jail while the other officers were processing the scene so i think that the difference is that begin in the supreme court and they slowly trickle through these cases through eubanks even though it wasn't decided at the time down to showing that this case is just different than those cases and mcnealy did not involve an accident so if there was no accident in this case then it's probably likely that the word was blood draw would be unconstitutional but in this case there was and even in eubanks the court said that that general rule would still apply unless there was some reason to think that it should not and staff and the police departments to necessarily achieve the kind of quick turnaround sometimes in chicago if they have eight or ten officers they may have one or two to to perform the same duties and some of these smaller communit the defender was brought into the holding cell and was sitting down he couldn't sit without sliding himself down the wall every person who and encounter the defendant on that that date at that time described him as  chased after the defendant when he fled the scene and locked him in testified that he was very drunk when he got out of the car when the when officer holes went to  fred before the dr koch began her testimony the prosecutor informed the court that after a conversation with the defense counsel that you had decided that they would not be putting on the extra expert x ra evidence so the defense counsel's point is well taken that jurors generally are not capable of making those kind of calculations on their own without the aid of an expert however the court has said  point two seven three thank you so there is a there's there's a lot of space between a point eighty two hundred and seventy three and combined with all the other evidence of the defendant's behavior and what the other witnesses had observed and what the nurse report to any of the remaining arguments the the people stand on our brief with respect to any of the remaining issues unless the court has questions with respect to any of the arguments that we discussed you know inflammations i don't see any additional please head time to get a warrant and that was from officer holes and his statement is yes we did have time you know how many offices were involved in the case you know what a lot of force and efforts were needed at the time and he if he was still in the absorptions stage he could have been peaking at the time of his testing and we don't have any expert testimony saying well no you know even if he was speaking then he can still say you know