much michel granted the defendant's motion to quash and suppress on one ground all right and that is that the results of my wife's petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension of that what happens in the statutory summary suspension even if it's the same person does not have reclusive effect in a criminal case also there's no mutuality of the parties so this point he's arguing that exactly what more pointed out that statutory summary suspensions are much more here because they're meant to be a short hearings and this was a motion hearing on a motion reason this case i think has to go back down is i have a hard time machine between questions of law questions of fact and it seems like the search and seizure there aren't necessarily inferences that have to draw  it seems more appropriate for trial judge to make those choices and the case in point here is you have a series of nine one one is the first one that says  are conducting a grid search of the streets in the area and see no other vehicular traffic so the officer makes a stop and then there are inferences to be made from that the words to determine the officers decided that the vehicle was connected to the shooting and it should be up to the trial judge to to decide whether that was a in the downtown area now preceding the hearing in front of mitchell we had a hearing in front of report of shots fired and then said he heard a miracle but i've got nothing to connected vehicle with the shooting certainly no description of a vehicle nothing saying that you know any b any gun oh was was in the vehicle one of the callers that called in and that's on your you when asked by the dispatcher well when did you hear the shot she said i think partially fifteen minutes ago i'm not sure where the first caller heard or the shops i don't think he said when he heard the shots i don't know what class of what time lapse or what between when he called  when he heard the shots but there's nothing to connect the jackson vehicle you know with with the shooting and once and once the deputy you webber and sto came to the scene and a number of police officers were there at the car and it's at that time that he gets on his public address system or whatever you call it and  are all this evidence it was just mitchell was presented with was an initial motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence based on the unlawful stop and then a supplemental motion to quash arrest expressive of alleging the collateral a stop he heard all you have evidence you took this matter under advisement and then he just hit collateral a stop now then the supreme court came back and reversed the fourth district and said well brief saying that they are the reason utilized by the pro court may be wrong it's the result that counts and in this case there's more than sufficient evidence one of the police officers and remember all these officers had their guns drawn he was i think was either ten to fifteen feet was asked to walk and then he was asked why so saying that asking a person who was in a house here if they had a new drugs other person that was an incriminating statement and was not permitted and so fact is it was george mitchell right to be here ample evidence to decide that this was a was a big search ok shop and everything that followed from there which you can work so that makes it a little bit of hope for you to apply the facts to the law in this case we've had many cases before where on a motion to suppress where there might not be one issue that was reached and it's remanded back down for a trial judge to decide and judge mitchell certainly did not adopt the factual point judge olson they've heard entirely different evidence and there was a void in the evidence before judge olson there was no testimony about where the shots he also said it was from north play and then there was a third caller who also said i think it's from north plays so you got that point that is built in this says that he's he's living on the north part north of me and he hears the vehicle speeding down independence and then turning south and north main so there's an inference to be made that the shots are fired from that also you know the fact that the officer then sees the vehicle just such a short time later a half mile away well as isn't heading in the direction that this field vehicle was supposed to be the length of the stop i guess he's talking about whether the defendant was unlawfully detained for a long period of time the stop was at two forty eight am and it was it was pretty smart