seeking to reverse the commission's decision on the basis that primarily the basis that it is against the manifest weight of the evidence in particular in this case it is clear the officers a rulebook a series a neighborhood office on the date in question he's on duty yes he goes to his mother's house and drop off the table correct going to his mother's house was that a matter of personal business or was it a part of his official duties to drop off the table as a role officer it is a community pieced house where the officers are essentially a mini police department they move in with their families in a safe in a house that the city developed you know and that's of course in the course of doing that they live there and they're available to the community do you do community stand that but so what i'm getting at when he went to his mother's house he was not called there was not a part of his official duties to go very good time he's dropping off a two well i would respectfully disagree from the standpoint here it's returning a table that he had used for the two years before at the g s tree wrote street house use moving to the raymond street row house he was returning the table that he used for more we're trying to get the connection between returning to the table in his official job to be he had to move out of the rope house make that row house he was paid for three days elgin rented him a truck to do that he was able he had other officers helping him to move to table that he use his police work but the computer on do is record keeping in the various things that he needed to do at the road house they don't actually live there and that's their their station so to speak they don't come down to the main station or any other precinct stations they do their work there and so they process their reports and all of that kind of thing so at the time of the accident he was returning the table that in your opinion as i understand it's part of the fish will do is yes very good table to his mother was part of his official duties that were correct announcements never taken despite dispute with that in fact the diversion argument from elgin standpoint begins at the point where he's returned to the table when he begins to do it perry stop runaway the day before and returned the day before he was investigating his runaway status and he also noticed that he was he had a cd player zhan which based on his reasonable suspicion he believed to be stolen so under terry and this is what the testimony was in this case he had reasonable nobody takes issue with the fact that he's on duty twenty four hours a day that he has to investigate crimes there isn't an issue that there is no standard operating procedure of the elgin place department as to how to investigate alleged crimes of family members and with respect to to this issue there is really no contrary there was no evidence they came that that was of record that suggested that what he was doing at the time was not an official police function or not a terry stop arbitrator kettleman found that was based on the evidence that was produced and then the other the only officer that really talked about the specifics of this incident was officer young and officers uncontroverted testimony was that he was doing a terry stop he did not he was trying to develop probable  did not have an opportunity to call his supervisor he also because he got attacked and stabbed a puppy or so and a bunch only had a last read liver and went right into surgery  the only issues that were raised in that conversation and in the past i'm only in this case as between rob or in the admissible evidence as between robber and alan young was the fact that he was investigating the crimes and apparently robert took exception to that and came a knife to multiple times about the torso and and i so i mean is that what you're hearing in your head and that's obviously something we have to decide you're saying th theory that because of the unique circumstances it turned into a sort of a criminal investigation so to speak had a good one there to return to the table and got into a fight over something totally unrelated to his work as a police officer then arguably it would not be with with peers say with conclusions and findings that are not of record that are pure speculation for instance paragraph twelve of the decision says another witness for respondent testified that he interviewed petitioner's brother robert there was no evidence in this case that supports that finding and then it goes on to say robert who heard voices who told them to put a knife in his pocket because petitioner was coming over and was going to do something or that robert did not like petitioner told robert that he could not keep the cd player because he got it well he was on the run when robert indicated he did not we did have a police report was replete with what the charges were infections statements hearsay statements of various other people including robert robert never testified i this is this finding here fits fully within the duran case there was no evidence on that particular phone i was looking for the commission noted it was skeptical of the plane his contention that he would have confronted a subject who was in possession topic the only evidence about this entire situation was that the discussions concerned the two crimes relating to the runaways at us and also whether he should do under those circumstances which elgin could have promulgated which could have made it ultimately clear what it was some of us do under the circumstances but i can't deny that his family members were there i can't deny that that with robert there's no evidence that he ever disciplined him there's no evidence that he did anything is a familial fake father figure essentially and there isn't really any evidence that there isn't one alarm went on much to begin ok any officer questions a family member it's automatically not compensable because as a matter of law then it means it's purely personal simply by virtue of the relationship or the fact that it's in the  arbitrator that was the best under the best evidence for it was recording in a statement and it was transcribed word for word we tried to admitted into evidence as a business record and all that exception to the hearsay rule since it was an a for word and that document did say that at some point in time this is the detective asking him officer young at some point time you told him you were going to take the headphones away from him and the officer answered yes that that's one place where  an aggressor and not in the question was on page twenty two counsel asks there is no evidence that you gave excuse me there was no evidence that you were aware of no credible evidence that alan young was in any way the first progress or in this incident and the answer from detective work out of the is there is nothing to state that he was the aggressor next question no basis that in any of the investigation that you perform right then the answer other than it got into officer cation and the answer that he gave was well according to his statement he's talking about the statement that he gave officer you are quoting to statement he acknowledged that he got into a pro golfer patient with rocker over the cd player he was challenging him on whether or not it was stoner or not and that al or al young advised that he also didn't like the fact he had been a runaway and was listening to it so he listened to music and got to walk around the house that page last section well if you're looking at the the personal because well first of all he tells the talks about he had no relationship or didn't know anything about him he wasn't a father figure what the record shows is that robert  lot although there was no record he didn't know whether he was actually convicted of stealing he did not like so he knew all these things about him and then when he actually talked to him he didn't like the fact that right away all week while he was allowed to listen to music and walk around the house he thought he might have stolen those things out of the cd player he was and he was going to take them away from them so i guess this argument the city's argument that this is a personal dispute which is not it which is what the commission the commission rely on the fact that the brother was not charged with aggravated battery on a policeman that he was charged and convicted of domestic battery did the commission rely on them they said in their of the decision they talk about the commission found interesting but really not dispositive that robert was charged with an aggravated domestic battery aggravated battery apparently pled guilty to aggravated domestic battery and all of that is from this exhibit to which  government because a policeman have the right to talk to a citizen if they're willing to speak with them without justification is a terry scott they have a right to speak to them sure policemen have a right to go up and talk to somebody ask them a question and then they can respond very prevention on the no he's not required to have terry versus ohio requirements to do that is instance this policeman do the young man did not have any prior headphone or anything else in the past i sumi was aware of his financial ability and then realized he had these things why wasn't it reasonable for him to do that potest stated that police officers are not authorized to remove property from suspects unless they know for a fact they have some confirmation that the property stole so even if he had a hunch and said hey this even he was acting as an officer which we don't even you agree with that no i'm saying that in this set of circumstances given these factors and the abbot and some record not the things that the commission wrote about about charges and convictions and whether on please all the all based on speculation and inadmissible hearsay the sole fact and that's why i rely said this before is the fact that they are related by adoption and that's how that this is a result generated and it's obvious person that they say who's not credible is robert because and why they made a finding that in that hearsay statement that they're reviewing a hearsay statement and then it's not credible i want to work on it really suggests that the position it why can't it like it because i understand what you're saying it's not based on the evidence but why can't they simply reject the claimants testimony he's on duty is walking around a big bear he claims something phone of this guy needham in the head there's no evidence they can disbelieve it they have to find it's compensable they have to believe the claimant's version is that what you're telling us now what i'm saying is that the only evidence in this case that they can rely on to indicate that to back up that that finding is a simple adoptive family relationship and that's it so that we come to a bright light that has time for them thank you