the officers had testified that at the time that the request was made that they were unable to locate the video on this now the issue that we had with with that though was was the fact that officer got fired when he testified in regards to the video and he was clear that i have it both officer lives were clear that the car was equipped with both audio and video equipment officer geismar was not aware of any malfunctions that had occurred in regards to the audio and video equipment in his car  and based on so i mean as far as his explanation he had no obstacles or had no explanation as to why no video could be produced the state also said officer williams testified was one of the biggest tech people you can call them the one thing though is that officer williams testified that well he didn't find that they do have the option of going to the hard drive of the actual car to determine whether or not there was an option in that video and that he had testified that that they that he had requested that they do that search but there was no indication that any response or any determination of of of that search had been completed by the time the trial was conducted he was his only testimony was that as of the time of trial that he had not received in that but that there was an actual you know that they actually looked at the video determine if there was any sort of amount of function and there was also an issue in regards to the fact that while he stated that the officers didn't have any role in whether or not videos were saved where they were not saved he did testify that officer got fire whatever the evidence was placed into the locker as to the system that that that that police department had he did not check the evidence box however i mean as far as exactly how well that worked i mean there was no actual evidence that there was really about a function here i mean this was geismar said as far as i'm aware my video equipment in my car was working we just when you we couldn't find it now i mean obviously the defendant has no control over this other than a fact that there was a video or there should have been a video and there's no evidence that there was a malfunction of this video camera it was just some sort of  is whether or not it was actually on the video camera in the car on the hard drive and whether or not that was still there and there was no real answer provided to the state as to whether that was there or not it's obvious that if it has no control over that is finished dead but wouldn't this be a discovery problem that would be taken up before trial well if it was taken up before trial i mean that was part of the motion in limine they say and then that request was made and actually the trial was even continued in order to allow them to to bring in officer williams and do the additional investigation in the day game when we came back there still was no real answer as to whether or not that video was on that hard drive there was no real answer as to why that video could have been produced from the car driving the car and it seems to me that we ought to have definitive answers to whether or not there is is any kind of evidence regarding the stock in any close before we even move past the most well and i would agree with i guess i would agree with that but the judge made a ruling on the motion eliminate based off of what we had at that time and was ready to proceed with the case and so so that's what we did trial should have been prevented from providing you know baseball of the kind of decision you know and the way that they handled that is that the officer should have been prevented from testifying as to what should have been on that video and live and yet it is absolutely clear that what malfunction that was proven by the state would you think you know what i think i think that there was a base off of everything that there's a video on that hard drive and that it was never produced because the state has never really looked for it they never put the effort into trying to find it i mean even when it was obvious it was said by me that i made a request to tech sector to go in take a look at it that's all he did i mean there was no follow up on that there was no there was nothing i mean it was just we made a request to the person you text yes i see the squad cars wire right well but how do we know and how could you determine the other the by looking at the is still there though i mean with it's like if you take your video on your camera well and you want to put it on your computer well if you transfer it over to the computer and it doesn't save properly that video is not on the computer but it's still on the camera the camera in the squad car to determine if the original or a copy of the or the original of the video recording continue to exist or did you assert that they had destroyed it and so they should be able to use any evidence other than the well video don't maintain it and then it's no longer there is no longer available then i mean the result i guess i guess not to the result is the same is the case it's no longer there whether or not is it was is no longer there because  had had the evidence and they can no longer produce or they're no longer producing it i mean whether or not i mean in reality whether or not they can still produce it was never really it's a really proven by the state they never came out and said the know mr walker driving down the street he's guilty if they if the video doesn't show is for walker driving down the street then he's innocent and so i mean this is something to where in this particular case review the heart of the camera a request to them and we're going to check in the hard drive in the actual camera in the car and that there you know and at that point at this point there was no response i mean if you're asking my my opinion in regards to what happened is that that the the video didn't transfer wirelessly but that there's no reason why it wasn't still on that camera if if in fact you know i mean based on das nice testimony that the camera may have a good point about what the state police states or somebody have seen this off camera but that presumes that it's still there before well i mean and i guess i would i would say that that's that's a fair question but i would also say that as the as a as the defendant in this case you know we made the request of the state and the burden is on the state in this case and feel rushed ok i guess i would just say that the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence because of the fact that that officer williams who is the expert in this in this issue two and a half months later three months later died on this case actually said to you you know i actually asked the tech people who do know how this works to go back and check and see if they could find this video on the camera now i this six hours later or six days later or you know a month later that there's no possibility that back video would be on that camera then why would he do that i mean he could have just said i didn't ask them because i knew there were no longer be there so what i did say that he said when when we realized it had got transferred we made a request for somebody to go out check and see if it was still on the camera an d then never got a response so but i mean if he's asking for that it will be the reasonable assumption from that evidence is that that camera must keep those videos from bangor then just six hours or recording device for whatever reason the station and i'm troubled by the idea that you're asking this through person when there are these certainties in the record and i say well this falls th do but i mean the evidence is still i mean it still has i mean you can draw reasonable conclusions from what was there and i guess i guess i would just say i mean if in fact that video was not there you know i just i don't understand why he would have went through the effort of at least going through requesting the search and doing all of that if in fact that was the situation ok testified the hard drive was pulled manually and searched for the video in question and that he was not able to get any video from us or officer crushed by a car recording continued to exist on the camera in the squad is it possible to check either for the officer or somebody else to check and see if that recording is still there we run we've heard testimony testimony that the system was actually working properly at that time the officer assume that it was working properly there's also my little test where they never activated his wife's although the lights were our show review as far as wasc are missing evidence is that if the evidence has not been a request by the defense as been lost that there has to be showing a bad case and there has to be a up with what about the camera itself yeah why should we have to speculate that j probably doesn't hear two months worth of stuff on itself recorded records anything at all i don't believe it does that maybe it's everybody knows there is a tape that effect requests the tape and after the questions made the tapes destroyed and that is an entirely different situation from this case where  was not use discretion based on the episode before were there are questions that could have been asked yes would would be nice to have that information yes but based upon the information before the truck were bush's determination unreasonable and i do not believe that it was there is no showing of any bad faith on the part of anybody there is no showing that the tape ever existe showing of bad faith absolutely showing that it is more than just potentially useful the trucker's correct is that in regards to the schroeder case that he referred to i believe that a large factor in that was the the that stated that there was no reasonable probability that the result would have been different had the evidence been preserved and  it again i guess i would say that in this case i mean this this evidence was it would have been a crucial piece of evidence you know in regards to you in regards to the case and that in regards to you know he had mentioned that you knows who is that he was stating that the video was either lost or destroyed prior to it being requested and i believe that the statutes require that those videos are to be maintained until the case is resolved and that you know so as far as this for is the timing of that i don't believe that that that that should be an issue if the video exists it has to be maintained until the case is resolved and not you know it only has to be maintained once the defendant requests so and then obviously i guess i would just say that you know in addition obviously we're proud of the issue in regards to the keys and no opportunity for the defendant to have done that and that the court has made an assumption in regards to that evidence of that's clearly not supported by the so we would ask