these the council my name is christopher mccoy from the office of the state appellate defender and i represent mr ronda miller today i'd like to begin by focusing on the first issue regarding the fourth amendment to mccoy i have a that point when mr miller's first sees that it's at that point when the officers needed reasonable suspicion to justify this seizure anything they observed afterwards or anything roger jordan told them afterwards is simply not relevant to the inquiry in this case this this issue of the reliability of the tip become an issue in the end what do we look at to determine if this series reliability and really in every case we need to examine reliability so here the first thing affecting reliability is that really we should not think of this too much there as an identifying informant now it's tru does give his name during the tip however when the officer stopped a vehicle they had no way of knowing that he was who he said was they no idea that dr jordan was the one who actually made this call was not a nine one one call it was there's no evidence it was traced there's no evidence it was traced to a phone that could be linked to russia and jordan so again in there is no way to know that she was the one who made this call just as we don't assume that the substance car had a problem that would be pretty easily identifiable i'm going to go with the time which was kind of strange but you know if you want to run with burning lights you can and if one of them is out everything he said about who or what he was in we are he was and how he could be identified was accurate correct that is correct but those are simply we mere innocent details lose in iraq details pointing towards the any type of illegal activity and that in the cases  the more specificity there is the better correct it's correct but you still need something beyond the innocent details i've now been in his phone call to identify i then he said i just picked up a lady i don't know that you name it that time maybe not a first name or last name and she just for i'm bringing a lady and she just picked up some crack and you know what more do we need oh and then i've been talking to the other officer it was officer haas about it yes well the he i guess i would point to the case of people g s force which is a fairly similar situation the informant identifyin if you look at the actual tip itself and again go back to the point that what they learned from jordan afterwards is really not relevant here but you look at the tip itself and the basis of knowledge really isn't as strong as in my appear at first glance he says that he cannot talk because the defendant is quote going to be in the car well if it's so clearly they're not together when this occurred we don't know where he is you know where she is  authority over her opinion person and clearly we see that she's not free to leave at any time during this stop so he you know i agree it's not a typical case but still it is ok for him i would disagree with that i think in your typical confidential informant situation you have two people meeting and then from that whatever evidence is gathered from that then we have the arrest here we had m that she cannot leave the situation distinguishes it from the typical case where you know you just have two people meeting in a house or a back alley somewhere so because she is sees from that time the police needed at that time reasonable suspicion and the tip simply didn't justify that well what i mean i think maybe the point is that two people decide to have this drug transaction is in one of them  passenger seized in any traffic stop any place if it plays the same way here and i go back to what i said before in her eyes it's a traffic stop ok but if we have let's go back then we have a real traffic stop this we know is not necessarily but now we have a real traffic stop the driver's church was speeding the officers walk up and he's got two passengers the driver and the police walk up to the car and it's been my experience then it on a busy road they often walk to passenger side  because they don't want to get hit as has happened recently and when the window opens they smell marijuana big they get a whiff of something and now nobody's going anywhere but it was a speeding case how is this different they don't get away with it but they have a call from jordan saying i just picked up i'm bringing in a lady she just picked up some crack cocaine will i turn into the second issue then regarding first offender probation this issue is frankly quite simple i judge cannot impose stricter eligibility requirements than the legislature has written into the statute especially when it's based on the defendant exercising her constitutional right to go to trial here miss miller asked the judge directly why did not get first offender probation the just says quote the reason i didn't put the one that is there is an able opportunity previously for some sort of an agreement to be presented with that as a term of it and anything further explains this at the motion to reconsider sentence hearing saying this court feels strongly that those kinds of dispositions should be reserved mainly for people that have to be agreements and things of  agree that the judge can consider her lack of remorse character he came in but put all her continued protestations of innocence yes and i think this is you know if this were an excessive sen argument in this court we have to look at all the aggravating factors and the mitigating factors and decide if the sentence is justified but that's not the question here the question here is did the court consider all possible sentencing options and you from what i've just read plainly did not first offender probation or first offender sentencing quires compliance with drops in other shootings and didn't she say she was going to do that will she asteroid twice so i mean there's so much she said she didn't want to do i mean you could ask for it but that doesn't mean you're going to comply with the conditions but still you have to the judge has to consider this he was not considering it from the moment she went to trial and so you know maybe he did mention other factors but that that's really not not the point here he arbitrarily denied this form of population based on personal policy of not giving it to defendants who went to trial and you know i just point to the fact that you know she maybe she makes him comments in the pre sentence investigation for twice you know once in sentencing and then again in the motion to reconsider since she specifically asking for this form of probation so  i think there would be some evidence of the intent to fulfill that formal corporation defendant did not put in motion to reconsider sentence then according the state's reasoning this would be waived or secondly if the defendant did put in motion to reconsider sentence there would be really no need for a monument to my friends would be unnecessary because the defendant would already know about this form of probation so really the waiver doesn't doesn't seem to apply to this situation and unless they're in further questions name he gave the made modern type of this car and give the license plate and her id of other information that's easily verifiable so i don't think that his identity is really in question at this point and because of that this criminal issue or do we need to have information that gives some of the liability to the fact that this person may half criminal information where what's the most important thing we rest of the information which heavily goes towards the veracity and liability he laid out everything everything you could i don't think you can just dismiss these things as innocent details otherwise how are you ever supposed to call in a case where someone is in possession of drugs if there is a sitting in the car next to me is not enough isn't it isn't it one thing does call into the police defected my friend here his drugs when you're not yours inserting yourself into a police encounter as opposed to this informant whatever mr jordan or whatever his name was he's actually calling in something that he himself is going to be a part of he himsel compensation ball he just happened to be the person that was driving her and that's how he knew that she had drugs in her possession i think it actually had the reliability that he was present physically in the car took her there and was driving her back  point that he was upset with her because he was trying to plan his mother's funeral and she kept asking for a ride to crawford to go buy cocaine but it very well could be that trying to get her help was a part of that  statement well used to be that everybody had this policy where sex crimes didn't get on probation and lot of people wrote still a lot of that i do so nothing for you i think what we have here is a much more  made a very good record of how he feels issues and that is inconsistent i believe with the concept of discretion if he is not i mean he's come to this point this is what it's for and this is how i'm going to resolve it and supposed to you know i don't have to give the first offender probation because you don't seem to understand what the conditions are what's wrong with that all but i think what he was going for it kind of can join the two in his mind the first federal probation is for people that image they have a problem they're willing to take drug drops that limit their crime and fuel some re in response to justice hutchinson's question we're going what is required for them to ship a show or liability the court in jackson said that information must be provided but that's more than just innocent details of the suspect since reliability identification cannot be confused with the lives of many as to the likelihood of criminal activity so what's clear already here is only details of identification there's no details regarding the criminal activity and if it is wrong to joran but police officers when they pull the car over it simply they don't know that it really is him i mean there's no evidence to say that the person who made this phone call is indeed right your story and as i suggested said before it checks to him late and i actually don't recall that from the brief but right he gave out he gave the license plate number that there's no evidence police officers did anything to corroborate that that in fact was his license plate number that this car he describes belongs to him in a way and you know i mean it's possible even if it did i mean perhaps someone else is all in this car and no one's right or joran is describing the situation of what about a woman who calls  simply don't just accept tips at their face value look to see if if they are in fact reliable and even eat here and you need in the case of reliability as to the likelihood of