in then the defendant argues that because the parties agreed to a plaintiff fifteen hundred dollars but the defendant actually paid two thousand six hundred ninety dollars that are mandatory fines one thousand one hundred ninety dollars or at the defendant should be refunded one thousand one hundred right that right and case all reflects that case law has indicated two things about this type of case the first is that the observation of powder alone is not sufficient to determine that it has an incriminating nature the second is that while many items have been considered to be corroborative of the belief that something is contraband for instance straws or our specifically related again razorblades mare's makers have never been state's argument would be because it was the cane because fingers are used to ingest cocaine it was ok but the fact of the matter is this court said in one nine hundred seventy eight lines that cocaine itself the nature of it neighborhood that he was found but there was nothing at at trial or in the state's brief this is just that this was a neighborhood that was a drug neighborhood and the same type of thinking came into garcia when the with that and the quarter in in that instance noted that there was no testimony nothing to indicate that this was a drug neighborhood so that context plays into it as well there was nothing to suggest that the defendant was at a restaurant rather read cases with some frequency where where they'll say this is a neighborhood known for drug usage and then there was nothing within this case to suggest that this was really was just down the street from the courthouse  for and maybe it's more of the transaction concerning the music but there was nothing so that there was nothing about stopping the defendant to suggest that there was a drug concern and certainly i  defense strategy but i would suggest that it was the wrong strategy the these stop is i think a very difficult one to try really these for failing to signal properly it's a fairly clear cut proposition that an officer's experience can help into identify something but in that case was burnt cannibals andrew cannabis has been noted by courts in illinois as as having a distinctive odor as experience was having been in and noting the and and then jones the court noted that the issue of a one hitter box and whether that was immediately identifiable as contraband had been something that had been discussed in court cases for twenty years there are no court cases that reflect that the finding of cocaine on anybody's person whether it's the mother of thing or is indicative of the use of ok entered as a separate war then there was an ordering of as well that included fees and mandatory fines and the mandatory fines total up to eleven hundred ninety dollars the defendant suggests the what should a career in this case is that the fine would eventually three hundred ten dollars in addition to the mandatory fines and in that instance he would have satisfied his fine at fifteen hundred dollars because of the negotiation with the state because in fact he paid next through one hundred i'm argument would be that the mandatory fines came in under the fifteen hundred and so the spirit is kept by the court because the agreement was fifteen hundred  counsel and the defendant received the benefit of his agreed upon disposition now for the first issue defense counsel didn't render effective assistance that he employed a trial strategy  wall so the defendant was stopped for two traffic violations but there was easy question as to whether or not he did in fact signal when out of his earlobe are safe is another question that did agreed i think the larger issue was the fact that he did not use his turn signal to make to make a turn client is charged with possession of a controlled substance and you are questioning whether or not the stop should have been made in the first place and the trial judge made a comment on record that perhaps this was a legal second the object is immediately apparent to him to be the evidence crime contraband or otherwise subject to seizure now the officer said that when the defendant had his name which driver's license he saw a white powdery substance under one fingernail his thinking now based on his experience as an officer he testified that out that is a common way for people to snort cocaine placing it on their finger whether that be in your fingernails or on your actual finger and it's snorting cocaine  that proves too good the officer under the plane the doctor and he ability to further investigate which led to the defendant's arrest after and this is invoking the trial strategy and it didn't include making this argument now as for it the second issue when it comes to the fines and fees out there was an agreed upon just position twenty four months probation  probation which included a fifteen hundred dollar fine plus ingestion all cars are mandatory fines now  dependent should receive a refund because there is no evidence that he's paid all of the fines and fees based on that new cos she leads us to believe that he has paid it but we would and it was used as an offset by the supreme or we were asking for the same thing that the the the actual be refunded to him because of the offset we can alter the mandatory fines they should be is the first issue and perhaps is the only or there was virtually no strength whatsoever to the one was almost more of a slow plea than it was an actual argument given that it doesn't have to be anything i was like a tree falling in a forest if you're in the country and you can't be seen this is a violation not so much because you're not going to get caught but because the purpose is for been an accident and if there's nobody else out there then the signal doesn't matter but the fact of the matter is it's required and it's easy to prove and easy to spot and you know so maybe you can make an argument but it's been made and lost in the in the other argument about pulling  from the curb and there's really no argument with me there here you have a very strong argument that you know the law is very clear you cannot discern cocaine from another white powder non narcotic substance just by looking at it it always has to be tested and experts have testified before the court and the court has relied upon that testimony to say you can't tell the difference without testing so when the state brings up cases involving marijuana to say well you can tell a drug well yes with certain experience an officer can determine if current cannabis is cannabis what you're looking at leave the substance i believe that was that as an and desmond product they drew the distinction between marijuana and cocaine to say this isn't like cocaine we can tell the difference with marijuana and the sheriff with experience in that case was considered to be able to tell the difference between marijuana and leaves that are simply out in this case there was no reason for defense counsel not to file a motion that has legitimacy and has merit and structure and particularly given that these motions are raised before trial there's no concern about creating a question in front of the jury's mind you're not going to poison that well it's a decision made by the judge and if you want the case is over there was no reason for defense counsel not to raise it with that not making a motion that would have been i suspect that he would also have been brought before the court and then the court heard the officer would testify i asked he said yes there was