standardized criteria only allow impoundment where the if of a car that's in a private lot where the offense the vehicle was initially stopped for occurred on a public way and additionally the ickle must be left unattended  location rendering it highly susceptible to damage or vandalism both conditions are required and neither condition was met in this case the district court recognized that mr woodard was not stopped for an offense that occurred on a public way that is to say the court recognized that the plain language of that pulse a procedure did not allow for uncommon in this case it erred when it then determined that the tolls the policy and procedures are not limited to the plain language of the tulsa policy and procedure moreover while officers did testify that the entirety of north tulsa is a neighborhood with a lot of car related crime there was simply no evidence that mr cloth which was parked and locked in the morning in daylight hours in a marked space in front of a well trafficked and well maintained mini mart that that was highly susceptible to damage or vandalism it was clearly your own yes for the court doctrine when officers motive invalidates objective we justifiable behavior under the th amendment so what were they as the officers motives here was the st officer to go search the car said we're going to friggin light him up with everything we can the nd officer who went to join him in conducting the search with him said yeah there's stuff in here and turned around and walked towards the cop that st officer immediately began to search the center console of the car the place that he said contemporaneously that he just saw mr woodard messing around in when he was going to pull the other officer walked over looked briefly in the front driver's side door and then took out his flashlight to look under the driver's seat moreover the st officer gave a pretextual explanation for what he was doing at the time of the search that officer kept saying over and over i'm just looking for insurance i'm just looking for insurance paraphrasing and then he didn't begin where you would expect someone to look for insurance in the glove compartment he looked at that center console again where he says he saw mr woodard moving things around then when he finally did find an insurance card that was expired he did nothing to check to see whether that policy was still in effect there is no evidence anywhere on the record that any of the officers ever actually checked in the state database or with m or in mr woodard's wallet or with the owner of the car to find out if it was in fact insured so that tells us two things one if evidence of pretext that the officer said he was doing something didn't actually do it and then it turns out that that's not something that would be constitutional anyway you can't just go look inside of a car to find evidence of insurance to see whether the driver was or was not complying with the state's insurance law it also  shows that the district court finding that there was no insurance on the car was clearly eroding because there was no testimony from a single officer or anyone else at that hearing that there was no insurance on the car and the evidence that aren't you going a little bit too far to say it was clearly erroneous that he lacked valid insurance because we do have you're right the former is current was through two thousand and fifty wasn't current and there was no inquiry but we do have to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government were constrained by the clear standard so would we be hard pressed to safely view the evidence favorably to the government that it was clearly erroneous to conclude was insured six months earlier when he was stopped in bartlesville i think that the issue you can view ideas that you require to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the court's determination there  but if you can't stretch it past the weight of the evidence and that's stretching it past the weight of the evidence but i think it's also not critical to any of the arguments that i'm making here i think it's important to note that the tulsa policy and procedure tells officers to exercise discretion about towing even if there's no insurance so the district courts statement that there was no alternative to telling even the tulsa police department doesn't think that's true  n it isn't true there's lots of alternatives you can review the car where it is allowed if the station would like to do a private so they can do it you can offer to the person you've arrested to do a private tow those things are not going to require insurance and they're going to be in the interest of the defendant who then would only have to pay for the tow and not pay for the storage fees of his car if you're thinking about poor people whose cars might be towed in north tulsa it's extremely important for them to be able to access their cars so that they can go to work and so that being arrested for failure to pay fines and fees which is what happened here is not something that's going to lead them to then lose their job and have their life fall apart  doesn't mean that the police had no all their alternatives so that finding on one of the sanders factors and i think that's the most powerful finding that the district court made of well what else could they have done it isn't supported by the evidence it's not supported by the practical realities of what it is that you can do when you have a car parked and loft in daylight hours in a very well monitored parking lot  your point as they should just or block the car and there i think that they absolutely could have left the car there and i think under the tulsa policy isn't procedures and under this court's one finger's they were required to leave the car there honor i think i'm sorry to interrupt i think that that's a red herring the question here again is the us supreme court is that in rent is very unique to this particular situation when we care about the subjective intent  police officers and whether they had a reasonable non pretextual community care taking rationale they didn't ask the owners they didn't ask the employees what it is that they would have wanted and they provided no testimony whatsoever about either knowing believing or even guessing what it is that the property owners would have wanted or frankly even comparing the testimony that was provided by the owner of quick mart was that they want the cars moved because particularly if they're parked next to the store because they want other customers to be able to access that store but the non pretextual reason that the district court mistakenly rony asli found didn't have anything to do with the interests of quick mart or the desires of quick mart it had to do with this idea that these cars were highly susceptible to damage or vandals and again i'd like to point out what the testimony from the officer and the testimony from the officer wasn't a concern for mr woodard's car it was a concern for the liability of the tulsa police department and we know that the tulsa police department did not have liability if they had left the car park where it was this office incurred liability for the sapulpa police department but i to a subjective it isn't is it in your argument giving a little bit requiring a little bit too much of the officers to assume that that they are trained in the nuances of oklahoma context even in criminal investigations where we're looking to see if the the actions of the police officer reasonable even there we require that mistakes of law be reasonable mistakes of well i think i think it's pretty difficult for any of us to define even yet to doing what is a rational community terry taking what what what does that encompass i think that's a good question your honor and i think you can really think about it by looking at the core of the exception and where it comes from and the core of the exception is when you have an accident on the freeway when you have a drunk driver whose car is in the middle of the we have something that's blocking that intersection is blocking traffic that is potentially a danger to the community and here the district court well recognize that neither of those exist and this court has recognized in sanders that that is the core of the community caretaking function and that the public away is the core locus where the community care taking function takes place and so sanders focuses on what do you need when you don't have those things and it absolutely requires the standardized criteria and the non protection will community care taking rational i guess it doesn't say what it is that gives a couple example of what it is there's also tells you what it's not so sanders does recognize that there's one case floating around in the th circuit that says here's this car that's been abandoned we don't even know the name of the guy who was driving at we're taking him away and this car is like here forever and therefore it's acceptable to damage and vandalism and it can be towed and sanders a sensually limits that case to its back and says you know this whole thing about high crime area we know that that's a signal of pretext and so for that to really come into place we need a car that's been abandoned and here the government didn't argue abandonment there was no finding of abandonment and i don't think there could have been because this was mr woodard's car he asked if he could call to have someone come pick it up and there's all indications that that was his intention was to keep that car and he was being arrested on a warrant for failure to pay fines and fees so there was also indication that he would be able to get out or even though the officers didn't allow them to call anyone that when he got back to the station he would be able to make a phone call to arrange for something to happen from that judge briscoe does that answer your question yes or next one is what do we do with the bartlesville  and your honor i think that those must be reversed as well the government was required to show harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt i don't believe it even made that argument and it certainly didn't show harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt we have a situation where the government was trying to prove possession with intent to traffic drugs based on the amount of drugs based on scales but without any actual transactions and one of the ways they did that was through text messages discovered in mr woodard's phone after the phone with seized in tulsa based on a search warrant that was based on the items found in the car and also so they should not have been allowed to use that they also provided testimony about drug dealers carrying guns and that again the only gun that was located with look at it and tolls of that evidence wouldn't have been allowed and mr woodard self testified that you know if i'm a drug dealer i'm sure broke drug dealer he denied that he was doing these drugs and the officers did acknowledge at least one of the officers that it would be possible for someone who was only a user to have this on any of drugs although obviously he thought that it would be an i mean usual circumstance and in that situation i don't believe that that is proof beyond a arranged for the impound of mr words are were in fact guided by standardized criteria in the form of the t p d regulation thirty one thousand one hundred and twelve well and it's true that there is a procedure in place but did they follow  she in its entirety and you see what function that specific provision is playing within the document as a whole and what it's doing there is acting in a way of providing a response to this court's concern whereas here we have this p p p regulation that's attempting to get the police just such authority in situations like this so as to fill that gap that the court identified in sander's so ordinarily be the jurisdictional cook for police officers here and in t v being would be the use of a public way as you can see in thirty one once well but that carve out there in one b is intended you know in the context of this document to provide the police a practical way to remove cars that are otherwise going to be sitting on it ended in areas where they can  right so i'm aware of no precedent at all one way or the other point you know if you follow up on just briscoe's question hypothetically let's say i owe five dollars on a l standing parking ticket and the oklahoma city police department about the police i do not believe certainly nothing in the evidence in this case that they are aware of what the amount would be for failure to take off i think what the police would be able to see is that there was not any one but your body but your point i guess if if words in your mouth is that if there is an arrest warrant it doesn't matter whether it's for st degree murder or an arrest warrant for fair to pay a five dollars fine if there is an arrest warrant the answer is yes they can wait outside anybody's home and as soon as you pull out into a public street whether it's a neighborhood street or not they can pull you over pursuant to this policy is that is it is that right or not so i think in order to answer the court's hypothetical there'd be more information necessary to get intelligently response of what the police would be able to do under the specific circumstances but as far as being able to stop you before they've done anything i want to light him up with whatever with what a friggin light him up with whatever we can get what he's really being is because all he knows is there is dow standing a protective order has never been served so what you're saying is that could flip possibly be that we we just really want to sign him for tickets if he's done something bad we don't know of anything wants please you know as i recall the immediate context surrounding that comment was when officer douglas describing one of the other officers on scene what was happening i believe it was ryan rogers had just arrived surrounding context there helps to explain a little bit what that means and then i start searching so are may then pursuing a criminal investigation to find evidence to fly him which means we all know what it means to charge him with whatever we can possibly find no your honor i don't think that's the reasonable job protection under the circumstances here and just put this in the context of the case law is in the center console it explains that he's he's looking in there because he saw the defendant moving around there and then also looks st in places or if i'm not mistaken or little console narcotics dog did not alert so i asked permission to search car i was denied that permission and then i called the rental car company and the rental car company directed me to impound and then i found the drug and this court acknowledged that that was ok under the circumstances in there it's much less equivocal what the intent of the police were the appellant here as you know put together a circumstantial case arguing that we really didn't want to find drugs under some other  here that controls it's whether they objectively speaking had a valid basis inventory in the st place and it's similar to the logic underlying inevitable discovery if i provide not and i thought and read we were told of subjecti motivation by the officer at the suppression hearing he concluded that it would in fact be highly susceptible to damage or vandalism and in addition quick trip doesn't want that car there except there are multiple reasons why in supplemental or a way volume two starting on page one hundred and twelve you can see that the officer testified that in the several one hundred times he had encountered someone with scale he had never trainings and received the number of arrests that he had conducted the number of people he had come into contact with with distributed and used contact informants discussions with other investigators together with the packaging of the narcotics out of mr walker's car in the digital scale meant that to him it was possession with intent to distribute and then it's so you would have to establish and convince often it's harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if we reversed the tulsa charges that there was no still over to the bartlesville charges that's correct your honor and the way the court would do that would be to evaluate the other evidence supporting those charges in the appellate has pointed out testimony about text messag etc but the court as an articulate and he was the russian is you consider the alleged error quote in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether it's admission was harmless beyond reasonable doubt in the government the government's position is that scandal if you'd like to rebut just briefly your honor right at the end of mr ekdahl statement the government's statement against that could be dispositive and his standard there is that he needs to show beyond a reasonable