these he observed the defendant stopping his car leaving it running getting out and walking fourchon apartment building entrance you then doesn't he go on didn't he have to testify that just as he was about to get out of his car the defendant out of his car and started approaching the apartment building yes as far as that was clear  question but also i think that the more overarching question would be whether you reasonably believe that this reasonably suspected defendant was violating this or when stopping what approaching defendant well but that would depend on he would be more well founded because traffic traffic accidents or most safety in the public because again they are already laws for the some agreement regarding the who force for that ordinance of private property it does not mention it again the only testimony or evidence presented the city engineer testified that there are certain written agreements express agreements of certain public or private properties like the mall i think the only example that their police you know she testified that there was just like a loading zone that it was not an no parking zone right i'm against along with along with the city engineer i think you have to if they train him badly yet that's that's bad if they train him to do something that you know he didn't have authority to do you can justify what he did by the basis of the bad training i'm not again i would submit this wasn't this isn't a bad policy because all it does is and force traffic laws on roadways that are open to the public but on private property i don't think that anyone would argue with this policy being bad i don't think anyone in that apartment complex would be angry with the current police department officer writing a speeding ticket for someone speeding thirty miles an hour about speeding you know how about if it's a young mother with three little children  including you know a couple of babies that couldn't walk into the loading so the save loading zone and got her kids into the apartment together with her groceries before she moved her car and that hypothetical a child taking control of the vehicle would be what's the difference between her loading in the loading area as opposed to her unloading in a designated parking spot well i think those are i think these are two separate the unintended vehicle with no parking violations or two separate violations in the officers  eyes i don't think he was saying i don't think it was double on the tinted vehicle because that he thought he was parked in a no parking zone i just think that along with the defendant leaving his vehicle on the offended officer bang property manager who testified this yellow striped zone was more of loading zone so no parking zone there was no sign of either way and i think defending conceded that usually this would be an indicator of parking of yellow stripes and you go for me no parking there was in there was no sign of saying it was a loading zone or saying indicating otherwise and in his experience as a police officer yellow stripes usually meant no parking coal makes it pretty clear that mistakes while were mistakes of fact i would submit this is a mistake in fact that this court of course stated certainly the trial courts terminations should not focus on whether an offense was actually committed but whether in arresting officer reasonably suspected of the time stock or criminal activity was taking place or about to take place it shows that this court takes into account the reasonableness of an officer of the state whether the law again it was reasonable but a police officer would think that there was a more oh no parking zone then a loading zone and it was reasonable for him to assume even if this points the ordinance  policy i don't think that the city managers testimony that he merely was not aware of a specific agreement between the two overcomes defendants burden of proof especially when officer bang testified on her body but the policy of the police department and the procedures of the police department working this stop the state argue at the trial level that the actions consider violations of the city ordinance which doesn't need to involve the person at all it only involves ticketing the car as officer baker testified he likes to leave tickets are cars that are idling in driveways that doesn't he doesn't go knock on the door way doesn't he just tickets car there's no law enforcement interest in a parking violation is the actual driver that's distinguished from a general moving violation where the officer any such needs a ticket the person say for speeding what is the nature of the violation for leaving  follow the car and stop it in order to serve the parking citation that would be a different scenario here let's assume that the officer here so that they get out of the car and walk around i was questioned by the defense counsel said to him so he didn't make it even twenty or thirty feet in the off side yes he did not make it even twenty or thirty the trial court order contains a factual fighting thirty seven that he made between three and twenty person in charge of motor vehicles this certain expand leaving their vehicles out of tended the motivation is not states are punished rather it's interest public vote for for protection of persons they don't want people walking away from cars that are going to be running i think danger is pretty obvious even if he just walks as far as building but your point earlier is a good one as he's walking away from this this proposal came up and someone said well senator is this some reason why we shouldn't have a broader application of the end of the motor vehicle policy such as why is it more dangerous this strip mall parking lot submit the difference between hypotheticals that this was not a driveway this was not private open to the public people's driveways are open to the public this was presumably a a public road where if it rolled down the driveway here into traffic where is with an apartment building many times you pull into an area and it's more secluded where the parking is to approach the apartment walmart or a mall or something like that that's how i envision this this roadway being again open to the public more of a roadway th because he got out and walked towards kind of apartment building if that was thirty feet away then i think it's pretty reasonable to infer that if it was going to at least ring the doorbell if go inside and knock on the door and get at least thirty feet away i would also argue that the whole this was an investigatory stop pursuing perry yes for defense identification i therefore think the state argue terry principles at the trial level and that this argue was not forfeited this argument wasn't forfeited again this was conspicuously consistent with any terror stop where