if we don't have this officer saying that he observed the red light stop we do have information that somebody is selling drugs out of the chaos there's testimony it was white and there's testimony is just specific number of the it's a male driver and it's also in the lead up district but self based on there isn't isn't that even isn't that enough for the officers to stop the car that according to more here i would say we have less all your weight specific when when the i mean are you saying the officers can't even go up to that after they're given a number and they're told it's white and that the person selling drugs and that they're in specific area i mean aren't they obligated to investigate at least and stop make a reasonable stop here and then the difference between f lorida case florrie versus jail is that we have testimony that the officer says he sees on  moving force doctrine then the officer who did the stop had to him have personal knowledge of the traffic violation but isn't there a whole body of case law that says that they have the knowledge of even if there was a red light stop well under pennsylvania vs men there's a question that i would say under the circumstances perhaps you could have asked of him but i think they went t to step out to give us your life strictly limited to the reason they pulled him over and the court i don't think the court issues of per se rule that you could always ask for stuff because based on the circumstances here we have three officers there's no indication that he poses a threat they and they go beyond they put their hands up they pull back the terror i think we've beyond that and result of that as a result of that  worn all said and that's that a forty nine in the record officer hardman testified that officer simpson sadik bennett go through the red light and since an issue to him a traffic citation for it that's at eight thirty nine a record officer this course all of itself even a police problem cost to stop and rest a friend has to defend his argument that officer hartmann did not personally see him run the red light and he had no authority to arrest first of all if the court mentioned this morning there's a basic doctrine of criminal law that one police officers knowledge simpy to another second it's clear that the officers in this case were acting in concert they all converged at the same time they communicated patients case because in that case the defendant was seized because he was driving on a suspended driver's license and the police did the stuff there they then conducted an investigation and they found drugs in the car so in that case the court found that it wasn't a search incident to arrest because it was totally separate so in this case the search that you had first of all there was no search because the cocaine was found in plain view so that's no search and to the extent there was a search later and fifteen hundred dollars was found in the car it was certainly incident to the arrest because one search just made once an arrest is made in this case on the basis of drugs the police could look to see if there was estimate of the car and i would point out that they had to ask the tenant twice to stop his car he kept going until he almost at the current front of them so they told him twice to stop the car he got out of  you agree that the case law is clear that when we consider probable cause or reasonable suspicion and review it we can consider the entire record that that the acts that were testified to at the motion and the trial record absolutely that's and that we can consider testimony of one officer whether he refers that to another or not in other words whether he imparts that knowledge we can still consider whether that is part of the equation to determine whether probable cause absolutely there's no he doesn't have to tell the other person this is what i saw absolutely forgetting the red light are you of the mind set that the tip that this tip didn't even rise to the level of a reasonable suspicion that's a cab driver selling  area and the cap number and it's white and it's a male driver i mean isn't that if if that isn't reasonable suspicion you know what if your father's in salinas yes there was seems to me looking at the photos from terri and looking at this case look you need more than the fact that someone is here with drugs there there needs to be the basis of the knowledge there needs to be some provided believe this informant there needs to be addictive quality and there are cases as i say salinas and write her from this district sparks from the fourth district chip much more in the way it much more and with out some basis for you didn't just to show to show world that may have drug my wife my child anyway my wife is at work so at twenty southpark she has drugs that's all the state's theory would require but that's not what's the point says that's not what this course so you're on