under the statute evidence of defendant's refusal as it was not admissible because it occurred after the dui arrest section eleven days five one point two c one of the beautiful quote states that if a person under arrest cause to believe in a mobile motor vehicle is being driven by a person under the influence the officer shell requested that person shall submit to testing to determine if the term in the driver's blood alcohol content under those that circumstance would we be if you leave out to them we're not submitting this case involved a single car accident to fleece on the evening of october twenty fifth two thousand and fifteen the one that got to preserve what was taking place as the court knows the trial court isn't the best position to judge the credibility of any witnesses that take place because the judge is actually there watching observing and listening and what's taking the problem with officer the human in this case was not just that he was new it came out it was very clear that he'd been on for years and i have a fairly was on his own this was his first edition but it was also just his demeanor there was going on there with the judges observing and i'll get to what her phone was on that but when you get into the testimony what took place what he's observing he may succumb at that he's because he found nothing else and he didn't are investigated and he's under his own testimony as you investigate us slightly he disassembled he was going too fast nothing else and when he talked to my when it came to asking about this and arthur people don't you have to ask people can they do the test he's like in this is on on cross with the prosecutors asked him did you ask to me say yeah ask him about the do the test blah blah blah blah this is the loss of feet this is what the judges i'm assuming that's how he's going to handle these standardized tests is he could care less about the standards it's just i'm here i'm going to do what i want know things after watching to this newsgroup when he was doing the test and i ask you would you put all of these things into your vision or if you observe them yes but they're not in there so he tries to go back and say well i saw all this  client and he said he testified that following the walk in turn test included everything he used to determine what he was going to use so it was red blood shot small the alcoholic fight that isn't true you there's no way to tell how much somebodies had to drink based upon the smell and all of the governors and he goes well yeah i guess so what standard did you use to piles i didn't you just made it up talking about through the lobby alcoholic beverages and a short amount of time in the state this was seven hours three or four beers and so we're not talking about over small amount of time which was just talked about rea he even said the woman at first when i asked him i said this is oh is having a wreck in a vehicle and indicated intoxication he first testified it was not and the prosecutor asked him then he said it was so we've got conflicting testimony again as to that and it wasn't just about his age the court said it s his credibility i find quite honestly both times i heard the officer testify be doing was lack of experience and the court really had some also mentioned that there were more experienced officers on the scene but then there is no requirement that the younger officers necessarily ask those officers resistance he may have felt that he had sufficient training that he could handle with the u i he wanted to make this effort on his own obviously had some attitude when he was testifying on the we're not going to discount that at all and he was not the best with this one could ask for so i can't begin to tell you what he was really trying to do he's be perform those tests there is just no way in the world and if you listen to the instructions that were given for instance on the on the walk in turn test he did tell him to stay in position until you hit in the street but defendant didn't seem as if he just yashin happened somewhere between approximately twelve thirty something like that we have no evidence of there than our believe his wife testified that he may have had a beer or dinner which she didn't give the time frame when he turned the other beers and she was needing sure about whether it was impeached with what happened on the video then he says ok i didn't do this right or do that he got the fishing before he started i don't think he ever told them what the right position was  you know kind of those things that he tells two different stories almost on each one of the tasks and then at the end the judge says did i respond make this you know very clear that his credibility was called into question as it related to his testimony about the investigation that was conducted the scene with this back to the act that as well as the way conducted the field sobriety test i mean i don't think there's any question that her we at least we tried to put it as much as possible and certainly not trying to hide desperate in the judge's ruling again he was he was not the best witness he did waffle with the video is your best objective evidence you'd given pristine instructions he still would have failed those tests and that's just clear on the video in of course the the actual signs the definitive didn't mean bloodshot eyes the swing is you standing to the officer that's all probable cause