officers knew very specific facts about the instant defendant and the vehicle that he was traveling and specifically who that two male drug couriers had left santa ana california not to risk thirty first twenty eleven planing to make the trip to chicago within thirty hours of street through driving the officers also do the meet and the model of the vehicle which was a black dodge ram and that the speaker would have california license  see for this particular defendant isn't that your primary argument as to why this suppression order was iranians because he had no expectation of privacy in the search is that your my secondary argument which wrist my primary argument is that there is probable cause to search this vehicle in to arrest the stuff and then some to tell you the circumstances the surveillance had been going on for a long amount of time other than his and it's your position that if they have a point there was probable cause based upon the information that they had been retrieving in addition to the specific information about this car coming from california on a road to people it now were the conversations that were actually overheard by the two individuals in the car and mr garza prior to the stop yes your honor and i was with those conversations and of the conversation was that you want to be going north don't take to ninety that's not the correct way to go she spoke with one one individual in that car but he couldn't understand exactly what she was saying so he passed the phone to the other person in the car so you really one of the issues here in addition to whether or not he had an expectation of privacy is whether or not when they can help him placed him behind the car and conducted a search that there was probable cause to arrest him and the legal right and there was absolutely nothing recovered from the defendants present as the judge pointed out on during the hearing the statement there was nothing nothing was he was fingerprinted and he was photographed and then he was released  illegal police activity yes already so miss is that does there have to be a connection between putting him in handcuffs detaining him taking him to a station and the recovery of these substances  here and that's i mean the judge said that there was no probable cause to arrest him for these particular charges that's a big issue from whether the stop was legal your honor yes the issue is whether there was probable cause search and maybe detain him to agree where you do the search but it doesn't give you necessary authority to handcuff him fingerprint and photograph once you know the suit  yes regardless of the alert and regardless of whether they recovered the drugs leader at the station and regardless of whether or not someone tested that substance to actually tell the police yes this is a we're looking at the the ultimate issue of whether there was probable cause to know but any findings of fact we review for me in this way you don't believe we're doing then you're going to be trying to include found the officers who testified credible in the group and we have in the last found that there was absolutely no probable cause in the trial court it appears from the record that this example and mr nolan the state's attorney in the public defender agreed that he wasn't arrested that night deep what is your contention that he was arrested and november first or that he was arrested some time later and in any event there's no probable cause to charge him or arrest him based on the drug information based on this long investigation based on the fact that they were listening pretty much contemporaneously with phone calls indicating ok we're getting closer we're getting closer are you want to go or exit off of you know it isn't it still that you're saying that he was a passenger based upon a mere traffic arrest and therefore there was no reason to extend any detention of this person because all this was was really just one suggestion is he may not have been in the car does not make inferences of probable cause then that's the case law just because you can say or the state's attorney or the judge just how do we know he was in the car from california that's not the point the point is what was the evidence that the police had after months of investigation and the fact that there were going to be two people two guys coming from california now one so there is an inference whether whether we like it or if people are doing a good job of hiding their drugs it might take more than a few minutes to find them or to conduct a search even if you might need a police dog like they got here you might have to spend some time getting under the car i've never personally but i can imagine it could take some time is it your position that unless there is definitive proof at that moment that an occupant of the vehicle is guilty they can detain that person for any length of time they just have to let everyone go other than the driver in the case where the troops are right available to the passenger before this will search took place i'm not familiar with that but the record indicates that she was secured by the police and yet the presidential for itself that's in the record but at the hotel yes yes yes challenging here so you have a challenge to the search that's a stress one of the bases below when you say you're challenging probably the probable cause to arrest you're talking about people who committed months later who are you talking about the arrest that night talking about  interview was a recovered because they putting in handcuffs but was it recovered because someone else the driver said you can search the car  recovered because the driver said you can search the car ok so don't you yeah they have a connection between the recovery you're seeking to prevent the use of the substances against him a always yes to be a connection in the first instance between the recovery of bad contraband and the illegal activity so what i'm asking you is in this case was the recovery of the contraband was that the result of them putting him in handcuffs and arresting him or was it the result of something else that has nothing to do with illegal police  or that they be tested on in a lab and that that puts a book there's absolutely no such requirement for moving on here they didn't have a written consent to search the car in addition to the probable cause that they had for the car to search the car  cited several cases however all of the cases sated by the defense were mere traffic stops there was no separate probable cause to search to be a cold or to arrest the ark humans and in addition all of the contraband in those cases had been recovered on the dependence on their body in their mouth or in their pockets so those cases are entirely distinguishable from the instant case where he reframed to cases serious and punch list yes there was no evidence here that's also mere speculation what the officers knew at that time was this man was in that car with another man in the car with california license plates that was getting off at the time that the beef with the would get off the interstate i would say immediately city of chicago where there were many but at that specific period of time taking that exact exit with california license plate matching that description so closely it's again highly unlikely that there were many other blacked out officers believe that there was a hidden compartment inside of the vehicle and had probable cause to search that vehicle and the court found that even a delay and moving of that vehicle to a police station to search that vehicle may be take it  that was completely fine as long as there was probable cause and that is what this court found is that there was probable cause and that search was entirely proper what the big if and i think that there's something certain here that at the moment that they stopped them they haven't recovered any narcotics at all and they don't even have an award at that point it's your position that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support probable cause to stop that car absolutely right so how do you how do you explain that to the panel the fact that there wasn't an actual recovery of the substance at the moment to stop there was no need believe that he was participating in narcotics trafficking he was in the skies he was traveling to the presidential hotel to deliver these drugs to gaza but you haven't found the drug shipped to the world ok i think we would all agree you don't have to conduct d n a testing for finger fingerprint testing or lab tests at the time you first place someone into custody but you say you don't have to have any evidence of patrols other than your intel before you pulled over the car one there was extensive surveillance information that there were drugs in this car sure once the canine hit that compound that there were trucks and that there was the after they had the sap and i think there's a concern here that your argument and i think i understand it is that based on all the information that the police had under the hotel many of the circumstances that was the actual probable cause to arrest him at that time which is what they did now the question i think it's being asked here is well they didn't know when they officers knew that this was a right to steal narcotics transporting operation that was coming from california all the way to chicago through the drugs were going to be in plain view they were going to be hidden which is exactly what happened they were hidden so do we have to wait evidence was recovered as a result of some illegal activity and if it doesn't there's really no remedy for suppressing the evidence in this perhaps there is another remedy as justice ellis pointed out but the remedy thought here is to prohibit the use of the contraband and a trial against this particular defendant so are we are we going through some kind of academic discussion here yeah to me anyway whether there was probable cause when even if we called an illegal arrest the substance that was recovered was not result of putting him in handcuffs so the evidence that is being sought to be suppressed under the exclusionary that the activity here did not lead to the recovery absolutely your honor as i pointed out earlier the defense cannot point to a single illegality involving the defendant that led to the recovery of these are contacts from that car will be saying that he was unlawfully unreasonably detained him from the arrested and brought to a police station and as a result of that i think the argument is is that that somehow the evidence should be suppressed but again