the fact that all these obligations are created using the same phrase shall does not mean the court mistook all of the interests of those obligations served as being of equal significance there is of course a hierarchy of interests in the criminal context and so when the court uses a directory rule to protect an interest which indicating is that a fair violation of that rule does not itself support the dismissal it doesn't elevate that interest on a ticket within fourteen to sixty days of issuance and this court said very clearly it's it's a rule the rules are not suggestions they are obligatory duties placed on parties but w directory rule the court has determined that the interest protected by that rule in both rule five zero four and the rule five get to an administrative interest in moving cases along an orderly and smooth way that that interest does not trump the public interest in protecting itself from prosecuting crime unless it's also supported by due process violation and it's not there's a certain aesthetic distaste the same will this is the rule of rule has to have consequence but that's only true for mandatory rules director rules are by their nature selected because they are not rules that alone will support a violation and it's it's easy understand why there are lots of different parties with lots of different interests but those interests are differing weight in different contexts for example there is no question that the appellate courts have a legitimate interest in being able to easily navigate the briefs of handling the briefs is superior to the defendant's interest in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction and i think there's there's an important point to be made with these direct rules and  the kinds of violations that show up with respect to these directors a clear consistent pattern is not evidence of defiance by the police there's no suggestion that the troy police department in this case knew and clearly understood that this was a could only do it on mondays and fridays well so in the record detective hayes said he demonstrated a misunderstanding of what the rules actually require so there's no suggestion that they were doing that defiance they were saying let's stick to the circuit court and only deliver tickets twice a week rather than four times a week as the rule fires and my understanding having reached out subsequently is that they are now in compliance they now take them over monday wednesday and friday and they have a supervisor standing in line at the post office saturday mornings to ensure that tickets issued friday night are receive a postmark that will put them a strict compliance with the rule those tickets are then subsequent actually arrive on tuesday so somewhat later than they would have had they been delivered using the old system the trick police department has a tries to have an any given shift to officers on duty and a supervising department necessarily do or you take it to them to the post office and stand in line and mail it but that necessarily means that the police department needs to allocate and choice is one of a third of to spend a certain amount of time standing in line post office to mail this thing if we drop your prejudice requirement well this just encourage police departments not to comply with the rules and then how would a defendant try to imagine the chicago police department saying you know what we're tired of delivering our tickets within forty hours of issuance we're just going to once a month back a fleet of trucks up to the county circuit court and and dump this avalanche of steel tickets on that would clearly prejudice the ministry of justice of the county and likely would impose due process violations of a number of defendants as their tickets with then be processed months and months and months later they could no longer post the cash bond  license back other their various hardships but in cases like this where there's essentially substantial compliance very few of these tickets are actually received any later than they would've been for compliance had they been mailed for example the tuesday citations that under the old system in troy were always going to be untimely outside of forty eight hour window were actually received by the court and certainly any later than they would have had they been mailed in strict compliance with the room there's no suggestion on this record that the madison  circuit court was in any way prejudiced that they were having difficulty processing two batches of thirty to fifty citations a week rather than three batches of twenty five cities the court did not only was there no evidence of the courts and make any offhand remarks in dismissing the charges that saying yes this has been a problem or even sort of vague sentiments like that it simply was here as a rule there was a violation there needs to be a consequence and that's simply not how direct rules putting a forty eight hours statute of limitations on all crimes chargeable by uniform citation to try and and force police departments to strictly comply with this rule where there's no evidence that they're not mechanism to enforce this rule well one of it apparently effective mechanism is is to tell the police that you need to do something differently which does not need to be done by dismissing basis for example troy apparently was able to this alone isn't it's a directory rule it does not support dismissal but the supreme court doesn't make rules for no reason so even though we understand the nature of a direct rule we still feel like there needs to be something and so they try to cobble together some sort of  e prejudice to the administration of justice and in some cases it may be prejudicial as chicago have that all for example would be prejudicial to the ministrations justice but that uniform presumption doesn't seem warranted as evidence by the facts in this case there's no suggestion that the procedure mistakenly adopted by the troy police department although in substantial compliance with the rule was in any way possibly it's possible that a mandamus action would be would be a way of getting around the circuit court could i suppose it seems odd to bring a mandamus action against the police for failing to abide by it violations pattern violations of flagrant violations of this quiz rules not for director rules that don't show prejudice unless and i have not game this out and unless i'm an i guess a man director woolsey to provide guidance and they use mandatory language they say shall because we're not saying you might consider filing with this is a best practices do this do this this way but not all  foresman alone is not enough in defense briefly suggested that the public has an interest in seeing law enforcement solve follow supreme court rules and the best interests would support dismissal but elevating the public forty one a the side of the brief that is founder of the color of the ink that is used there's no question that those rules are in service of a legitimate interest but just as those rules would not violation those rules would not support dismissing administrative procedure to get tickets from one building to another building so that they can be stamped and processed if that doesn't violate a defendant's due process rights it is oh not sufficient to dismiss a criminal charge i'm missing something doesn't  office refuse briefs that are not in compliance with the rule it could it could say that you need it well now that we have electronic filing in this court this court would i don't know necessarily that in the district courts for example the pro se defendant filed a brief that was stapled on the tile or that was in blue ink that would necessarily be bounced but if it weren't wouldn't be a dismissal of case they would likely say your  them to file a brief if those errors were correct right right now the problem with these sorts of timing errors is there isn't a way to correct them in an individual case there's no way to go back in time and mail it twenty four  did so the question is now we have an error there's no way to correct it by having a do over what is the appropriate remedy and in many of these instances the appropriate remedy is if there is no harm then there's no foul and it's again this is not a case where the government entities are trying to thumb their noses at this and forward for them but the local are not trying to make life difficult for anyone they're simply failing to strictly comply with with these rules ticket within forty eight hours i don't know what personnel situations there are like but there's no indication that these police departments are not trying their best within their understanding of the rules and there's no question that they could do better but where they fail to do about that failure does not require that the circuit courts sacrifice the public's interest in prosecuting crimes and for those reasons you know for the rest match with the hand of case i feel i've made my best argument in the grief if anything i would ask the court to adopt a statement in regards to clear and consistent violation to actually give the rule convenience i think that negates the rule itself  to create worth to their rules i think that goes pretty prejudice with in the general public you know i would ask the court at this time to uphold you know the previous rulings the appellate in the lower courts level if there's any questions that i put in answer i will do my best to try to  not think there any questions ok thank you very much inability to enforce its rules when directory rules are violated is based on the public's misunderstanding of what a direct rule those were the rule simply does not represent an effort to protect the interest