vehicle that is driven causes death or personal injury and number two that the police have probable cause to believe that individuals and or is under the influence now of course there's no debate on the issue on whether or not  to there's there's the under the influence type where it's a two through a five that involved actual impairment of driving ability and then there's the other two sections a one of the six that have no impairment element and have so we a strict liability type of of quite serious and in this case the defenders charge under a six which is of course a striving with any amount of drug for example or a presumption for lack of a better word that driving for example under a one with a blood alcohol content of over point or having any amount of drugs in your system under one hundred six are zero driving under the influence phrase should be considered identical under five want to have is under five and one points you see to it if if you do that how would you what would be here probable cause for a one and he said absent the urine test the statements of of a defendant that he was recently smoking marijuana or recently ingesting any job would provide probable cause for for example testing for example five one point two c t to be trigger have probable cause to believe that there is a that there is a drug in the in the driver system and the people don't don't believe that that's consistent how could how could testing be required to see two that the purpose of this step is for is for the purpose of the term in the alcohol content there of or the presence of any other drug or combination of zero so that the statute wants to hear is designed to figure out if there is a any mom out of drug in the person system but it won't allow officers to use the evidence that they've you know clean based on their own observations and own conversations with this gentleman to find the get this task and may because he was he doesn't necessarily know that he is now free to leave he he listens to the officer and goes to the hospital and question is that important how we got to the hospital and i mean the greek people are wrong but it seems to me that the facts of this case show that the police had no reason to suspect that offender was under the influence by hot rocks before intoxicated as a result of alcohol or drugs at the time of the x and because least it did they did not possess that probable cause can form on that basis alternative even if your hours agree with the interpretation of probable cause them there was no showing that those statements were made before the defendant says it you're innocent of this testimony but a couple different statements here one of the state relies on the field that the defendant allegedly said that he was already in some weeks prior to the incident one problem here the term partying was never clarified and secondly the time frame of some weeks before the incident was never clarified and so submit to the court that even if that statement was made it did not give the police probable cause illusion mr russell had any drugs in his system at the time of the acts in addition there was testimony about of the defendant having made his statement that he smoked marijuana the day before and this is where the timing question really comes in because the only testimony as of the finding of that statement was that it was made to later in the evening in the trial from the testimony alone it simply was not clear it was not shown that that statement was made before the sample was provided and of course the constitution requires again the prob cannot be uncovered as a result the sky if you stayed on the people insist that it is not advocating an interpretation of the statute that would simply allow the police to arrive on the scene statute that is advocating in effect on the facts of this case it is what it's advocating released in this case the case that the state says let the results come in which runs counter to that argument no that's  statute which uses the for whom the phrase on in the influence of drugs or alcohol and that certainly is a phrase that repeatedly appears in the illinois case law defendants and visit is a term of art meaning impairment or intoxication or inability to safely operate a motor vehicle as the result of consumption of drugs or alcohol and it should be presumed that the legislature knew it was using a term of art interpretation of this probable cause requirement interesting would though as the state knows four of the subsections of the dui statute a two through a five used the phrase under the influence and is the to mean something completely different there's just no consistency there especially since here the state is saying good to the duis that should but if you look at that part of the dui statute you see the same phrase used under the influence and to construe it finding there was no consent the state does not challenge that funding on him therefore the police get only of sane urine sample from mr russell in this case by operation of this particular sanford which requires probable cause so  summary the defendants some of the judge's interpretation was consistent with the plain language of the century of the term of art used by the legislature in the statute that the judge has it in effect got it wrong and that because the police admitted they had no