rationale that this was a proper search contemporaneous with the arrest in this case i would ask you all to look very carefully at the factual scenario here the excerpt the record containing twenty two pages of police reports which is fairly pulling as police reports for a fairly simple incident this is a traffic stop there was no violence no injuries in fact the officer the first just thought it was probably just your seven to twenty nine those also contrast with the testimony of the police officers at the motion to suppress the motion to suppress the police officers testimony almost twenty months later and you will find significant is in the interests records took note of the inconsistency between the information in the voluminous police reports and the officer's testimony forty months later in his decision the court notes that they adopted the timing of events as described in the police reports so the district court judge never says exactly i am going with the police reports for this clear when you read it i would argue that he is adopting the police officers the regional police question all your honor i believe i agree with the trial judge it's just what i've read the brief by the government they seem to be now relying on the testimony of the police officers but i would go with what the district court found the items that approximately two fifty five fifteen minutes later so i would argue that it is that the district court has settled this issue and it is supported by the police reports as i said on the munis police reports so then the issue raised is that fifteen about it because of the record indicates that the first officer who shot my client sergeant davis he remained on the scene for the entire time and two forty so the time difference between two forty when officer my client in two fifty when i arrived on the scene sergeant davis was there at all times so the car was in their custody there is no indication that there was any problem with possession of the car  whenever possible release the car do not impound the car and they had already had contact with the father of my client who was standing by nearby it's not sure if he was at home somewhere near the scene but he was ready to take possession of the car with an arrest and detention so that five minutes this court held that five minutes was all right then we have a basket which held it clearly a thirty to forty five minute gap breaks the chain it cannot be contemporaneous now here we have a case that falls in the middle fifteen minutes however but there is no indication there's no unlike the five minutes that was the album mclaughlin there was no they were not filling out in the necessary paperwork they were simply standing around there is a break well i believe that this accord didn't place much reliance on that and i would ask the court also and i believe the reason they didn't was when you look if you look at page twenty four of the excerpts and that is the report of officer las and about midway down that report on page twenty four of the ex and was instructed to search the vehicle relative to and arrested person look at the detail that he has here you know how do we know if the car the color the make the model and was destructive the search relative i would argue that certainly if my client was there standing next to their vehicle he would have noted that that this is a this is a synopsis and a very accurate and detailed explanation certainly if the it's exactly true and that is one of the problems in this case i think when you read between the lines i think it's clear what the court was saying and the fact where the district court says we rely on the timeline set out in the police report but if the the judge never did say at there again and here's where the record is important there is peace love it does say that knowledge among police officers can be imputed so clearly officer davis and officer to no l knew about these alleged marijuana cigarettes the question is did they ever tell us because when you look at the other cases bill of these fill and hartson illinois versus andrius when officers are cooperate investigation the knowledge of one is presumed shared by all but when you look at those cases there is evidence of communication and again when you look at twenty four when you look at page twenty four officer lasagnas report of what happened that day he was suspected that these were marijuana cigarettes but he took them down with the defendants down to the precinct and then had a field tested so i would argue with that point they did not have probable cause they were field tested on the precinct approximately forty minutes later  what is why is there an exception for it's contemporaneous for us and that is for officer safety and preservation of evidence if there is none of that here we have we have drifted so far from the original rationale that i would argue that this fifteen minute probable cause to search the car and this case they found on third person actual marijuana cigarettes and what they believe to be so the answer is yes finding an honest person under present law gives them district court's ruling that they had found that my client had left the scene certainly if they wanted to contest this the factual findings of the district court judge they could file a motion for considering reconsideration right after the judge issued his ruling they  t they don't like the judge's ruling but you can read it and it's very clear as to why there's to the probable cause issue there is no evidence of any communication that was the problem between officer to an oriole an