manifest weight of the evidence the trial judgment gazin of private investigation by obtaining images and measurements from a google web site which the judge relied on when granting defendants motion to suppress and worse the judge included business in the residential district and not less than two hundred feet before the turn outside a business or residential district a judge may take judicial notice of approximate distances between two locations in the city is his evidence of the precise minimum distance from returning the defendant had activated his turn signal willing regarding defendant's first left turn on the third street in his order the trial judge stated no measurements were made but the court's best estimate based on awesome observation of video and compared with google's estimate of fifty feet confirms that the defendant in fact used his signal in an inappropriate manner in more than one hundred feet from the intersection therefore the judge's own written order sure was that he relied on the google street view that was not offered or admitted into evidence but that the judge taking from his own private investigation to determine the distance from the first train that defend activated to signal those on this basis alone the trial judge's claims of defend his motion to suppress must be reverse right that more and more courts are using sources of that are generally unimpeachable so to speak that are found on the internet and additionally notice fact little must be subject to reasonable and must not be subject to reasonable dispute in this case the actual fact of the one hundred foot signal was was reasonably disputed and the judge use that google image to say that while i could not find that but i have gotten myself to the website and there is a one inch rule that says two hundred feet on the current version of it i don't know what it was the time the judge looked at it but then images are subject turn signal when the judge found that the officer was three hundred fifty to five hundred feet back when defendant turned left but there was no evidence presented to support does finding in the wide range of range between two distances given by the judge no way for the judge to determine an accurate distance from the particular video assuming only rumor of the judge had it that the defendant had probably activated the signal when he made his first turning clearly did not do so before making the second the intersection of fourth and seminary streets intersection there is much more brightly lit area on the video we had the officers while following closely behind the defendant at this point in video shows that the defendant did not activate his term signal until he was no more than three callings from the stop sign which is swollen to the minimum distance of one hundred feet required under you know for be there for defendant did commit a signal violation at the conclusion is supported by the tape authority of the people saying on pages eleven through twelve for a brief shows that an officer does not have to inform the defendant of the reason for the stop it and that this is not relevant to whether the think where the big problem here is telling us understand the court's ruling first of all the court never said it based it says on the google maps evidence is it is accurate it's correct because of the fact that there's an incentive for to be correct  so i think that's extremely important case here tonight which is different than what he basically states is there's there's a wall safina now where what police officer stated that the reason he started whi based on your own cars for instance if you can use my three car length estimate that is not even close to one hundred feet and and i could or you would we could talk about it all day but the the video is the objective evidence that you can look at and say this is or is not one hundred feet and you can base that one can base that on their own knowledge of distances who is it is a member of the core of your unit are allowed to make that determination on your own personal knowledge you can take judicial norms of known facts such  yes yes but the trial just did not say it was one hundred feet you said it in my estimate and then comparing it with this you know so reds that's where the judge didn't believe it was a hundred feet himself until the judge used the particular party also under the case law we have someone i mentioned earlier in the brief and also does not have to tell the defendant the reason first stop or issue a ticket in this case the officer did write a warning ticket for th turn violation he did see there was a traffic violation on the video i don't remember the specific language unfortunately didn't have it in in the briefs but there was some notice to the defendant at the time that he had committed some sort of traffic violation in the course  one i have nothing else record you have any questions