is that you can't really have substantial compliance with fire so that there will be a preservative when there is no reserve and so our position here is the same this is a simple rule the rule requires that the integrity of the does not require a specific drug and obviously in this case the testing was not done for the specific categories that the officer of  recognition expert testified to does that preclude a finding of guilt that's the point is that does the state have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific drug was in the defendant's system or does the state have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not alcohol with some combination of some drugs because were the up there's clearly impairment here that does state just can't see exactly what drug or what combination of drugs it is so you're saying something like that what i'm also saying is that our program ignition expert admitted in her testimony that she's not qualified to turn in their son other psychiatric psychological and mental illness basis for the a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol and this one's very well may have lost because if you try to fact i don't believe that mr lenz was under the influence of alcohol based on that because he was clearly he could have said something he didn't have to say something and he did not have to prove he was not or or he was mentally ill but fact remains this record doesn't show anything about testing other testing of the urine  actions occurred what is i mean one of the points i think the council was making is the defendant actually held the the jar container in his hand and there was nothing no gloat no anything else what's why wasn't there some precaution to make sure that the he continues the dry employee i don't believe that there's any testimony that it was not people just or it's on the screen people the heart and neck pain the reason why there was no compliance found was that there was testimony that the actual regulation that wasn't compliant with the lack of preserved in the blood went to the scientific basis there is a specific drug listed in the testimony the fact that there's no medical evidence that says that doesn't mean that there wasn't a specific drug shown and you twelve step process that she went through to determine whether or not the defendant was under the influence of any sort of drug we do you i think would have to admit that without that do you agree expert it would be hard to prove this case hard to which defendant actuarial testify which is that the very expert is an expert in training and expertise in drug recognition which is exactly what she did she did twelve step process which was lengthy  right i would agree i believe that the state said that they were not under that they were not going on their time i would note that it appears everyone at the trial you know there was no mention the defendant has to rely on the government complying with the rules that they promised in order to have let's say for the sake of argument that we would find th it would affect or for sake of but no judgment was that or not to pursue the count because it was merged with this company was sentenced only on a four and so how would it affect you for your position is that you you've got a strong case on a four so we can