must must be a material obstruction to reivers vision and in this case and in the johnson case and one other decided before that by this court in all three cases hum air freshener in this case was really no different then the case in markets where this court ruled that the officer did not have reasonable articulable suspicion doesn't do that and the officer must have reason to believe that it's a material obstruction and in this case as i said the officer simply said that it had to be immaterial there about the broken taillight lens but first of all the the officer i think most importantly said he didn't really stop it for the broken  driving carefully down the highway you can see the long distance that the officer followed him and more importantly you can see that he had his tail lights on and you could see the  point out a few key distinctions between this case and mots in mind and the other two cases are the johnson case and the cole case that this court both found that the air fresher did not materially obstruct order rather found that  the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to believe that that air freshener would have but surely if struck to the driver's view in mind the police officer testified that he followed the vehicle e stop on the vehicle because he noticed that the vehicle that not have a front license plate you later recognized that this was not an eleanor wait car but he saw that the car was kind of as the police officer was following him the car would begin kind of pulling over him and would have passed the police officer and seemed a little basis so the police officer in ma actually testified that because of that a base of behavior he saw an air freshener in the air pressure became what he was going to use for probable cause the trucker recognized that it the air pressure in that case might have just been  bat that's police officer did not have reasonable articulable facts to pull out oh to pull that car over but he might just use the air freshener as the means to do that and the police officer specifically testified that he was going to use that air freshener that it became what he was going to use to have probable cause also how's that different from this case well in this case i believe in and i was going to get there that i believe the police officer in this case specifically testified to facts that he saw as he was fo vehicle one of the things that you saw was that he noticed that the air pressure was hanging from a string the d v d actually confirmed also that it was an elastic spring and in the air freshener was swaying back and forth he couldn't confirm correct the police officer in this case testified that the dimensions that this air freshener was it was a handle about three inches wide five inches long that's also a distinction and mocked him on the police officer actually testified that the air pressure was about three and a half to four inches wide and about five inches tall in that case the air pressure was actually presented as evidence and it was a we've seen kind of a treat the tree shape and in fact it was about quarter inch at the surest part at the widest part it was two inches in model from top to bottom was three inches so one of the determinations of the core made in that case was a credible determination that this police officers testimony was not credible the dimensions that he testified to were different than the actual dimensions of the of the actual air freshener was presented as evidence there was also no testimony in mind as to how this actual air freshener obstructed the defendant's view in our case the police officer testified that the again the impression was hanging at high level that it was swaying back and forth and there was also testimony that a following this specific defendant there were four to five roadways on the right side that he would have passed in he testified that that air pressure would have material obstructed his view to those roadways as he's driving so that's specific  police officers their idea of the statute was that anything that hung below the mirror or that anything any air pressure would have would have constituted a material of struction now in this case defense counsel the question in this case tell us what it means by in this case the officer says i've seen before vehicles an air fresheners hanging from the meter but actually doesn't hang below the meter which wouldn't have struck one question and this one was hanging below police officers testimony communicates that even says that with regard to this air fresheners you believe is a violation of law him and the police officers yes in this case so i think the facts in this case there are that distinguish it from from bought story the police officer also testified that based on this defendant specific seating location and that specific vehicle that would have obstructed his view and i think that's one of the things that if you read enough of these material struct cases and i must admit i haven't before this case but i mean we can't look at a specific dimensions and say these specific dimensions are always going to be material obstruction so if this court finds that a three inch wide thing is a material obstruction in this case it doesn't reasonable suspicion who was through correct correct but i think the reason why i point that out and i think that it's easy defense counsel to say you know the dimensions of our air freshener exactly the same on the seating location and this police officer i believe and in the state believes that based on his testimony based on the facts that he gave the order and what actually did you know in my view it's clear that this case must have deferred the factual about we're just a minute is that this officer apparently believed that any air freshener that was hanging below the rearview mirror constituted a material  struction regardless of size so the zero point was in the regardless of any circumstances because because of the very testimony that counsel just pointed it at the motions press i was questioning the officer and i asked him did you believe that this was a lie they should a lot he said yes in this case and i said what's the difference why in this case he says because it's the first