which apparently state was entitle to with war which is to have a full and fair hearing that it meant that the police officer would then after you come in and testify so that the defendant would sensually be put in a first why did you say to her or since it was shepherd eyes did what you would have found if it was and to what makes you think that we are allowed to disregard  hard time understanding that plus the arguments that you've been making which are something to the effect that the stock is based upon the difficulties or the downstream of the facts rather than be elements that are set forth in both war and purpose so you're making an argument about why a sto say that the hurlburt should know why because or i should maybe i should say that more should apply to this case even over over suggests that it should be because the three elements exist and the state is where the defendant is not being prejudiced by it when her says the onus really haven't been that because there really has been a full hearing on the merits the issues were decided that are the same issues but it was a cursory an additional element of collateral estoppel what they're doing is they're carving out an exception they're saying yes collateral stop does apply but we have a policy concerns there's a legislative purpose for the statutory sorry suspension to have this limited arrest and suppress evidence you know we're talking about a constitutional challenge all of the rest of them only citizen and i don't think a potential constitutional challenge should be a bar of the outcome of a license suspension proceedings w so well oh i guess what i'm trying to lay out is how i think the this and again the moral case certainly talks are for the states and i would agree with but i'm trying to lay out some scenarios where i think have a complete hearing on the issue of the full and complete here on the issue like that you have a fool of the fair hearing and where this may be the only witness i think that would be reasonable however our own as the more case decided they did not want to do with case by case you don't do this on a case by case by case basis i think they want to have some sort of bright line rule and say this doesn't apply in the summers mentioned nurse because of the nature of the state strict summary suspension here and it would it would  i give the state it would undermine the nature of those hearings it will give the state the incentive to to call witnesses and so forth but if you don't have that incentive in the reverse situation is it well well i think and maybe i'm getting a different teacher here but i think you know all the state can proceed on people always they say we're just with our life with this usually they don't do so well with those hearings as opposed to having the officers there and testify or is this ultimately an elf was strictly the only witness who would be there and who could testify about anything because in i believe her over the question  wasn't just probable cause there were other issues raised corrals and other witnesses may have testified so the question isn't just whether or not cop was subpoenaed and testified the question is whether or not all possible witnesses who would come in a statutory you know ways to stop that there's no mechanism and obviously the motorist is motivated to have an expedited hearing because it's dealing with the suspension your license and in our whole society you need to be able to get the videos aren't made available and the trial court based upon them determines that there should be a summary suspension but under the war for purposes of prosecution he still prosecute them for d