with what we're looking at here is that public interest the guilt that public interest in these cases that that his kind of the foundation of what you're always look at we don't look at the underlying merits to we when we determine whether or not  you're doing to the different it is driver's license for his driver's he's back and say ok go ahead and drive i apologize i have a blood glucose monitoring system  very interesting to me when i started to critical project of the distinctions between this defendant's arguments and state's arguments if you work paying close attention it would be difficult to see that the state's arguments and the defendant's arguments were actually about even the what is it about these two cases in these fact patterns that make this one so unique and one of the things that i got to focus in on was when i showed you how to argue this was the fact that the purpose of this war report is it serves as the initial complaint basically it's a civil proceeding and it serves the same function as the complaint does so that the initial report serves more than one purpose for the states are in that if the only purpose that the that this war report serves is to provide notice to the defendant that forty six days from the date of this arrest is going to be some are suspended and this is the procedure he's entitled to a hearing that's the only purpose that the notice serves in the state's argument has a little bit more weight but the fact is that's not the only purpose that the notice serves this one report also confers the truck with jurisdiction over the summer suspension and it also gives the information to the secretary of states that the secretary of state can defender received notice stayed the same as his rest day now the date that he received notice with the date that the notice was name he also of stated that the way the notice was served also change because he said that in h because had the notice gone out on the proper date with with the rd of january nd the nd of june where the defendant actually would have supposedly have eleven days of notice or answer days of driving rather than simply ten so you say in your brief  amended sworn report serve the same function as an amended complaint and so because of that change the notice that was taking place on supposedly on shop on january th which we have no way of knowing that was accurate or not because the date that was stated that the defendant received the notice and the date the interested we've got more dates on this forum and two of them are an onerous burden on the police officer in fact one of the cases that i read stated that the information that is on this report is is uniquely in the purview of the police officer it's not an onerous burden on the police officer to require him to get the dates correct correct and what's interesting about that is actually i would say that the officer did what he was supposed to do the circumstances because what he did with the change the way the defendant received the notice because he did with the notice in the mail and in assuming that the original sworn report was defective then what this the police officer was doing was actually reinvigorating his one report by making it factually accurate at this point  y saying that not only did he dated the report the date of the arrest correctly he dated it but he changed the date of the notice of the original notice that he received it immediately he changed it to say that he received it by mail order i don't think that makes a difference and simply because most of the most of the cases that deal with the minute the testimony happens at the trial or at the hearing the secretary actually comes from the summer suspension based on the information's one report that rather whether the secretary could have done so how would we get yesterday well i think at some point in time you have to make a decision about whether the secretary of state  helped how many mistakes have to be made before it reaches the level where the secretary of state could not have made the determination of what the date was you also have to look at cases like places which says that the secretary of state should not just presume or guess what the date was there needs to be fashioned from ation front of it in order to make that determination and when the police officer is putting information before the secretary of state that is not for what the secretary of state could have done that way or the secretary of state could have looked at this and looked at the statute of five or one point line which says that there's two reasons to return it is defective one is the data to rest and to get with the the it kind of fish i thought i should have had the state moved to conform to the proofs after the close of the testimony i think they would run afoul of some of the case law out there that says that the time to amend this is either before