ruling of the district court denying the defense motion to suppress and we believe that this decision by the court overlooks the arizona statutes which are applicable regarding a traffic stop judge roll the district court in this case decided that he would not consider the statutes that are applicable regarding the right of a police officer to stop someone first traffic violation there are two competing statutes one says that  from another source usually a different agency and the problem that i hope the court should have with the ruling of the district court here is that the judge completely overlooked the fact that that  reason and the only reason that they had for making this stop in this case the judge in the district court in this case decided we're not i'm not going to rule on the issue of whether or not the officer had to witness a traffic stop  ruling is based upon the fact that i believe that there was reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle no matter what the statute saying and the problem with that is that the factual situation in this case realize that that decision by the court because the questioning of the officer hammers from who is the primary investigative officer in tucson police department in this case he in minutes that they had to have the traffic stop in order to persue search this vehicle in other words he says in the question and i won't go through it specifically but i ask him i said if you have a reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle we want to just stop it and and do what you had to do and what he admitted in essence was well you can't arrest somebody based upon a hunch that maybe they're carrying narcotics in your vehicle and it would have blown our investigation if we did that is that well isn't that part of what you just saw the reason they gave as well  questioning off for hammers from responses to my questioning he says they'll just blow the investigation he was he they wouldn't have used a traffic stop i don't think and if they had a reasonable suspicion mentioned it when i questioned him that they didn't have the reason the suspicion yet they wanted and what they wanted to do your honor is to stop the vehicle they have twenty two minutes to bring a canine over to the vehicle to do a sniff on the car which of course is good up how many times we get there all the time and that's what they were going to do with you now the problem is that my argument is that that the judge in the district court my passing over the app i don't think it's restricted to a situation where there are simply statutes that are in acted after the occurrences in the case but right there are courts and said that if there's a stop based on based on the information supplied by another agency and the truth is that the facts in this case are so thin they do not even begin to approach the situations thomas and robinson which is court said you know you can't offer who didn't witness a traffic violation cannot make a stop basically information supplied by another agency that is there is this in this case your honest deputy that in that here's what he knew he knew there was some sort of investigation going on he got thirty hand information from an officer on the radio saying we're going to get probable cause to stop this vehicle which is ok i guess but but the point is when he pulled him over and he was questioned on cross examination he didn't know what violation he committed he didn't know he didn't know what where they had happened and when i if you look at the record  i said that's about three miles away from where you were is that correct in fact he was in the office rooftop and was incorrect it where the violations even occurred so he was uncertain as to what the violations were he was uncertain they occurred and and all it besides that was that the officers who originally communicated with him or were conducting some sort of the investigation assuming i guess it was in our colleagues investigation but  so your honor the answer to your question i think lies with what the officer who made the stop no and in this case basically nothing i mean he was out there he was somewhere behind the officers  as he knew what he had been told over the radio and over the radio is we have seen two traffic violations yes that's that's true but if you if your honor if you if you look at the thomas case and the and the robinson case you cited by this court that kind of information is insufficient for him just for him to make the stop i mean he's got it in the box case if the state relies on earth and the government relies on a pardon me that's a different factions situation too because you have the officer who is making the stop following directly behind the officer who gave the instructions to make the stop in that case the evidence to establish founded suspicion suppose we disagree with the district judge do we do we have to reverse i think at best if you disagree with the district judge in the remedy might be  short term visits driving to bar is making waiting and ministers exactly that kind of thing and then ultimately observing that it's purple k convenience store what the officer described did not personally observe the traffic violations does not affect the validity of stuff and in fact the arizona court of appeals in the fox case made that in basically interpret once you have that that is certainly very consistent with the collective knowledge concept that applies if you look at the knowledge of the totality of the knowledge of all the officers involved and not the knowledge of the officer making stuff so in that again in that scenario he started supporting focus on in that scenario is what is the knowledge of the officer strains million the information not the knowledge of the officer receiving the information and actually making the stop and base of the case will recognize reality that mean here he goes so little if the recordings damages the record i believe i've cited the appropriate places that that this officer really he really didn't know what was going on all he knew was we're going to give some probable cause to stop this vehicle and there was a traffic violations i don't know where they occurred but deputy rodriguez got some information from detective hamlisch from it's getting to me third party or third hand and i'm going to make this stop and the record also shows in this case by the way and i i can't cite a specific place in the record to the court but that they also never even issued a citation in this case at least until apparently some time there was no talk of that i mean he stopped the vehicle there was no suspicious behavior and they detained him for twenty two minutes until they got a dog there and there was some stuff that happened in the interim that caused that caused the police to be suspicious because mr goulden you tried to flee the vehicle but but