tended frontside when you are in violation of california vehicle code twenty six seven zero eight now the facts in a nutshell are mostly uncontroverted with the exception of the the most operative one which is whether the windows were even to off at approximately three o eight am that morning the police officers first ran of a license check a plate check on the vehicle and determine that the car did indeed have sufficient registration and insurance eighteen minutes later perhaps quinn sadly perhaps not so quick and only the officers were waiting at a red light at the intersection of parts parkside revenue and mission street in a dimly lit residential area of los angeles when that same vehicle traveling approximately twenty to twenty five miles an hour went through the intersection you know based on what both of the officers submitted during the evidentiary hearing to be big a split second observation they determined that the the passenger's side the front side window of that vehicle was unlawfully tended as th won based merely on a brief nonobjective basis and that's precisely what happened here you know there was no additional corroboration regarding the tenth of the wind under twenty six seven zero eight d the window is allowed to have some tending our house a police officer supposed to do what you just proposed while the cars moving twenty five thirty miles an hour or whatever it's made your honor is that under some ambient circumstances it would be permissible for an officer to make an objective observation that the tent was it in is always a crime your honor but the question is whether the officers have a sufficient objective basis under the under the particular faction particular factual circumstances to make they have additional factual circumstance here that might be different from hysteresis is that they were shining a light in the window right and couldn't see you that is correct your honor that they that that is an additional bit of testimony you know however under the circumstances  traveling at twenty twenty five miles an hour you know the upper in that range is twenty five mph is thirty six feet per second so this was a see very quick fleeting observation and so without additional objective in disha near those very difficult circumstances there simply wasn't an objective basis as this court had required because even though the officers did particularly officers soriano did make the additional observation that the headlights were shining it hit the the window at that fleeting second and they were they were not able to see the occupants of the vehicle that you know under these very difficult you know neighborhood ambient circumstances that simply wasn't sufficient it getting back to judge not as question under under different circumstances like in united states v wallace in which the observations occurred over a long period of time during daylight hours the cynical police officer in that case at first seen the car while the officer was parked at a gas station that he then followed the car for for approximately quarter of a mile pulled up alongside in broad daylight and then made an observation that the the tinning appeared to be a lawful that's an entirely different circumstance and  what you said that there was nothing that they had in terms of their experience and looking at the transcript the officer testified based on my training experience it was obvious and evident the tent in the front window was very dark and extremely surpassed the amount of percentage that's allowed by the vehicle code and i know that they always say based on my training experience they kind of comma before they say anything but that is the testimony and the the court credited that testimony so that's correct whereas we're sort of in the situation where either you can you're almost suggesting that an officer could never make that judgment daylight and supplemented by corroborative expert testimony in the other end of the continuum you have this case in which i have to say i'm surprised that you think this is a matter of expert testimony i mean you know that that would not it does not require specialized knowledge to know whether a light shine a light in a car and you can see through the window i mean this is pursuit been witnessed it's not expert testimony and i would agree or i accept here the observation was literally as both officers testified it was it just determined that the officers were able to see the defendant's car windows even though it was night time and that was because the officers had light headlights were shining on the defendant's car as it passed through the intersection perpendicular to the officers and then th second factual finding that the district court made was that the officer saw that that tenting on the windows was so dark that they were not able to see inside and third the trial court found that based on the officers background and experience this inability to observe the the occupants inside the car indicated that that tinting was darker than it allowed so the only issue on appeal because that if the defendant says that he is not contesting those factual findings is whether those factual finding because some amount of window tinting is allowed under california law the mere fact that you see some tent on windows is not in and of itself sufficient to establish that there might be a california window tinting violation wallace says if you see something if you are able to articulate some additional reasons why that particular window tinting was not compliant with california's regulations on window tinting then that is reasonable suspicion to stop and wallace was clear about what type of additional facts an officer could articulate to establish that reasonable suspicion wallace says and wallace the officer testified similarly to the officers here which was that the tent was extremely heavy the officer was unable to see in car and that's exactly the type of testimony that we had here and again the district are credited that testimony and so the only issue is whether that testimony establish reasonable suspicion and because it's identical testimony to what was in wallace wallace control law's wasn't there an expert that testified in a while if there was an expert who testified the implication of as to the implication of the officers testimony so the expert testified that if the window tint w compliance with california window tinting laws you would expect to be have a clear and unobstructed view into the windows and therefore the fact that the officers were unable to see into the windows indicated that there was a window tinting violation also was clear though that that type of expert testimony is not required and here the officers testified that based on their background and experience they knew that the fact that they couldn't see into the windows see the occupants inside the windows even when their light was shining on the windows meant that there was a likelihood of a california window tinting violation and wallace relies on to a california case nearby hour and in that case the court said the officers background experience just includes their experience of viewing vehicles making traffic stops and so there is not a requirement that they be scientists or and wallace says that they don't need to be to testify in an expert fashion about light transmissions and how much light you'd expect to go through so although there was that expert testimony and wallace wallace was clear the same time the expert testimony in that of that nature was not and so a lot of the defendant's arguments about night time and the fact that the this was just a brief observation of the officers made those really go to the credibility of the officers and that is something that the district court all of the district or considered all of those circumstances considered the fact that it was night time it resolved conflicting testimony between the two officers about the position of their car and the way their headlights were shining and it credited officer source a story  testimony that they were able to see into the windows of the car to fight the fact that it was night time despite the fact that it was a just a brief moment and because the defense says that they are not challenging those findings those those are the facts and the question really is just based on those facts was that reasonable suspicion and that question is controlled by wallace and so unless the court has any additional questions we'll submit thank you  discredit testimony but it never actually considered ruth for these testimonies so unlike many of these other cases that we've discussed today and in and in the briefing i know the the central question of whether there was any tent whatsoever on this window is is  the argument this morning the case just argued of united states versus