not an issue here because the justification that the he has proposed for making the trial is the community care taking function exception to the work requirement of the fourth amendment this were a punishment then deterrents might be a factor but it's not intended as a punishment it's intended as community care taking in the interest of public safety  it it doesn't provide for any kind of standard procedures or standard criteria it simply says that in our sister made her the vehicle when there is a there that's right your honor and that is a very large wrinkle that's why this is a violation of the flat in all of the community caretaking situations the vehicle has either been impeding traffic left on the side of a road or in an emergency lane or otherwise jeopardize the public safety or was in like they were likely to jeopardize the public safety here the vehicle was exactly where the police should want it to be which is in the proper owner's driveway it was my sense to drive and both registered and insured and there was no risk to the public safety whatsoever so this can't be a val and when not to tow the vehicle and that is to the purpose of that is to guard the public from an arbitrary decision and the unbridled discretion of to encounter on a automobiles number of situations after the benefit of the public they have the discretion to make whether that seizure under those circumstances is appropriate right but what's the what's the rationale that's why i said look all of the cases damage to the car or damage to some individual but when it's in the driveway of of the miranda's i don't see what the character can purposes to impound it well that is that bothers water so we have traditionally recognize that are responsible for it and then the balance is not served by standers acquiring sensitive case by case determinations of government need less every discretionary judge in the field be converted into the cage and for constitutional review wh continue a course of conduct when you think they wouldn't be able to just go get the car the next thing this whole thing has me a bit puzzled but your honor is there is are you puzzled because there's a licensed driver applying the fourth amendment under these circumstances and you defer to the officer in the field who makes that decision to protect the public safety unless they bring forth something that says he does that everybody regardless of any circumstances and there's no evidence of that driver who is just allowed the violation of oregon law sat next to the person who's driving the vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public and now if you ask us to tell us that we're required to leave the vehicle in their hands when the officers judgment on that occasion state and i run this track situation by all everybody i encounter because i'm a little troubled that they would tell it from the driveway on the other hand they all say well not all of them like typically the answer is well obviously they didn't convince the officer it wasn't think it is not an issue where the police officer had to make a decision about whether to seize property once the arrest was made that's the kind of discretion that an officer is expected to exercise in the field unlike this case where the property was seized as a result of unbridled discretion where both the supreme court  citation to impose whether to arrest somebody and that's an appropriate kind of decision to make under the circumstances and police officers have to be free to do that security caretaking function however is an overturned or changed anything regarding the decision in colorado versus birching because as i already said the function of the police officer assessing probable cause is completely different from the function of the police officer and applying the community caretaking function for the protection of the public and probable cause doesn't enter into the community church taking function at any point in the office or doesn't need probable cause what he needs is to carry a reason to protect the property or the community or the community by stealing that property but probable cause is never an issue in exercising that that function and between atwater and colorado versus perching and the reason why the csar has to be reasonable and standard procedure in that it probable cause to community when she has permanent close cousin who's right yes and as we said the police officer in this case could point the toyota vehicle could only have been accomplished using this community caretaking purpose and once we get to the community caretaking purposes the reasons for seizing the vehicle the