a reasonable suspicion that the driver of the ford taurus in this case had violated a traffic law the statute at issue in the case is an arizona statute which requires a driver making a right hand interpreted the statute to require it turn into the closest right turn lane and then a movement over to the lane that you need to be on it's not with the statu shoot provides an ability for drivers to respond to traffic and other things by including the language as close as practicable and well but that is what the statute terms as close as practicable and we have a the judge in the district court making what i think may be a finding of fact the statute requires a right hand turn to be made as close as practicable the judge throws the statute to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway that did not happen so why isn't that a finding of fact by the trial court that's the subject of deference unless it's clearly erroneous well there's i think when you read that finding in context if you go down on that same page to line thirteen through fifteen you see the court indicated that she found the statute requires attorney into the closest right turn line and then a it your argument that it's what he did was the most packed it will be because of what he had to do after he left the road he was on and was going to go on to the road he was joining he was going to have to cross several lang's therefore is set for it for everyone coming off that road and not just for people who want to change over three lines and so this trip judge's decision that you should stay right to the closest possible of the practicable is what gives drivers flexibility to the snowbank there and you couldn't get you know it wasn't if it wasn't a full lane you couldn't get that close in a car but you would be excused but if it's normal under normal conditions there's no obstruction there and there's nothing to make it impractical to pull right alongside kermit you're pulling off the road as i understand your interpretation and i suppose fifty eight and sixty in the excerpt you can see that it's rise or in order to execute the left hand turn at the next intersection has crossed four lanes of traffic to get practicable and both the judge i think the officer believed that it was easily practicable to make a turn and then move into the left hand lane i didn't think i believe that's the district court finding by an officer that there been a violation of the statute why i mean it seems to made in the first illegal interpretation and terms of something being practicable meaning doesn't mean that it has to be impossible or that if he's not mistaken in his legal interpretation but he makes a reasonable factual judgment supported by the district court where is our leeway to do anything with that good morning my name is michael lee i'm a special assistant united states attorney from the district of arizona representing that district i'm out of the phoenix office does that mean you're a state prosecutor i actually prosecute in the city of phoenix city of phoenix that's correct so you're cross  method of making a right hand turn the district court made a determination that the officer had object and we reasonable facts and information before him that that statute have been violated the district court ruled that because he had those facts that he was allowed to make the stop that occurred and that it was a constitutionally permissible stop for that reason and my opponent here is just indicated that there was no mistake in the legal interpretation therefore there's no merit scale violation here whatsoever i asked  s the officer did not mistake the law he made it was a correct interpretation of the law and by seen a vehicle that shot across four lanes of traffic never fully entering the rightmost lane as required by the statu the method and position of turning the quote it required position and method of turning for right turns from both the approach to the right turn and the right turns shall be made as close as practicable the right hand curb or edge of the roadway as the district court found in this case that just simply did not happen district court used an example of whether similar to the snowdrift example whether a bus was in that right hand lane that would make it so that the person turning in that way that it was obstruct such the district court made a correct ruling my point also seems to be suggesting that there should be some type of subjective test here and that because the driver of the ford taurus wanted to make a left hand turn a tenth of a mile down the road that somehow that should be taken into account that somehow negates the plain language of the statute or that somehow this didn't provide reasonable suspicion once the officer saw that left hand turn was going to be then there is no subjective test here there is an objective i think the word practicable makes this different than other cases i think it makes it more likely merits call where the statute required a signal but not in every circumstance leaving to the discretion of the driver not to signal when it wouldn't effect other traffic as i was preparing i re read terry versus a high and noticed in that the language the court used to having a search warrant that being sounds like she was compelled to correct he was not compelled to butt in or mean he didn't have to know unless he wanted to make a left hand turn at the next intersection which is what he wanted to know what you see the problem is nor actually would it be safe to do what he did that's why they have this statue now that he just fired across all the lanes like this rocket ship across you know from here to the left internally and as far as i can tell from the record nothing required him to do that there was no snow bank or volcanic eruption or car in the way or bus or dead bodies or ambulances he just shot across right and i so that's why i ask you what practicable means and it seems like he just made a choice to cut traffic which is another well at least was he impeding traffic i mean it doesn't sound from the hearing that there was anything at all that suggest that he would have been impeding traffic to make the right hand turn and then move across normally there's nothing in the record one way or the other is i mean he doesn't have a constitutional right to make a left hand turn right there in other words if it doesn't work out because he would be a traffic hazard maybe he's got to go to the next intersection and your argument really rests on the fact that he has