from stances justified the search despite the faulty warrant or that the police executed the warrant in good faith whether the state claims that there is a missing piece of the complaint and try to tristram missing really and the procedure on the procedure is set out by the act it don't say that any procedure that stated that the procedure say it was the procedure on friday yet and they were talking about it in they said that i think there was this suggestion that the defendant yes this court to establish a bright line rule for the search warrant to be justified by a warrant the state produce the warrant for a reliable copy of that warrant in hearings before the circuit court and they said we decline to write such a rule because it would frustrate and illinois sta court to restore documents under certain circumstances so what do you think the court was talking about when they said they would not create a bright line rule regarding producing the warrant the actual warrant or a reliable copy document itself but a copy of that document but in order to be a reliable copy of the state still has to prove up it's a reliable copy and that's where the at comes in and is it your understanding that when the state seeks a warrant from the judge that they execute more than one copy in other words does the judge sign multiple copies or is it your understanding that one search warrant is executed then a copy yes to be delivered upon the person served but is it your understanding that the act happy that they would deliver to the address is copy of a signed warrant and the complaint signed copy would be that as opposed to only one executed search warrants only one complaint is ever signed by the judge i mean that's my understanding but if the state has to prove it's right was actually executed or that's what it is that issue here counsel can we just get back to wealth just for a moment so justice m the warrant was apparently or allegedly issued some twenty seven years before that was that document was nowhere to be found there was no copy there was nothing and the court reviewed whether the trial had abused its discretion when it conducted a hearing and determined that the evidence presented under the act was not sufficient to create or to resort this alleged search warrant so i mean i think your reading of the case is a little stronger than it is but let's go to the federal rules of evidence i agree that the  we don't get to that point first the school has to prove that this this document is a copy of it was given to the judge no one testified to that this right there this morning was the court's basically looking at the and looking at the original search warrant the actual search work is is in the record yes and then the original first page of the complaint or search for its was also produced it was the second page that the state put forth a copy so the judge in this case as i recall what he did was say terry said well we've lost the crappiest the officers cannot find the copy first of alleged second page and he compared it with the first page and the search warrant itself they all had certain legends notated on and after he reviewed the legends that were the same specifically the date time search warrant number and the assistant state's attorney who apparently approved the warrant for the officer more than the officer to actually submitted to the judge essentially the state that introduced rolls into the argument and they're on their motion would you consider this a court record right so what about this other section of the restoration of the records in the search for the simply section three bottles to which says in case of the destruction of no good for india in this i mean there's no reason in the trial court for the judge to reach that question because he ruled against the defense on the question of whether there is probable cause but had he done so wouldn't the next step and to determine whether there was a basis for exclusion do you think it's an automatic exclusion just because the second if we agreed to the risk with the second page was not restored we greeted i think everyone agreed without the second page there's probably no probable cause until there's a complaint before him and officers sworn the information in the complaint contains probable cause and then and only then maybe at trial judge issued the warrant that's we're not supposed to are now in this direction case one of the issues was whether the trial judge who issued the warrant actually accepted or that there was an actual birth oh  that was the case i mean that's there would be no cases before the court does it matter that the documents according to the trial judge actually seem to correlate with each other because they have the date from me just less question would you oppose so is it seems that there was no request no one ever suggested the words courts restoration records act was never even mentioned anywhere in the trial record that perhaps if it's mandatory which i don't myself but in terms of the exclusionary rule and the most recent supreme court pronouncement on the floor doesn't this record at a minimum suggest that there would need to be some kind of hearing to show that the officers it didn't they had faith that their conduct was or that actually their reactions were more like misconduct in order to exclude the evidence because if nothing else the record shows that this trial  judge who wasn't asked to do a hearing under the sea had made certain determinations and he concluded that the second page was actually second page that was presented to well you have to at least show a reason for the exclusionary rules use i mean that's what all the cases teach us and based upon this record there's actually you know a suggestion that the officers executed a war for the second page that the judge signed a a warrant based on probable cause and i think as it takes to make a determination that the judge in this case can pleasure signed a search warrant they didn't have means we're going to presume on this record that the court didn't file with statutory and constitutional obligations to issue only an executed warrant based upon probable cause so i think there's nothing here for us to then further perhaps at a warrant is signed by a judge and the complaint is signed by a judge is it your understanding that then copies are made of the i'm not aware of what will happen if it was presented it doesn't have a signature on the judge does it right now do that but the actual first page does he have the signature but that's the original first page is whether the court abuse its discretion in what it did the trial the judge can just look at a document with no time no evidentiary counters no sworn testimony affidavit thing and just say this looks to be part and parcel the same documents i'm going to admit it as such it's retrieved from philly review if you look at the site first page it ends mid sentence it doesn't end with punctuation clearly this is going to a second page you have the next page and it picks up where the first one left off and they seem very consistent and so the judge essentially is authenticating the document and the restoration doesn't require witnesses to take the stand it just in fact is very low standard it just says to the court's satisfaction so it doesn't require the i mean would you would you suggest that was the stanford line was it was the papers were basically thrown up to the judge and then he said well i've looked at the third page and the search warrant in the first page you have a certain legit date time place search warrant number and then the name of an assistant state attorney second the first page of the link and then same legend the third each hit that same were presenting a donkey they were saying this is the missing second page this is what it provides and this is what it says here is a probable cause that that's missing that is they said you may have the state's attorney putting their own license on the line by issuing the war and there we can assume that the police were were acting in bad faith i mean in the standard is they had been acting deliberately recklessly or with gross negligence or there has to be some would be a very simple manner to just have that officer there and just look at mine and say wow this thing was supposedly last really simple absolutely because you know the officer did think that the illinois supreme court saying in wells when they said first of all they will through this entire evidence three hearing that the judge did in that case and  sure that the complaint that he was relying on was even the complaint he presented to the judge who at that time had died and was not available for a hearing in the way so this went through this through evidentiary hearing and they said that the trial judge did not err in concluding that there was not sufficient evidence under the court's restoration the courts record restoration act to me store this purported search warrant then they went on and they set depended yes this court to a stamp wish a right line rule that for a search to be justified by a warrant the state must restoration act and we conclude if the original search warrant is lost or destroyed the prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures will not be undermined by proof that the search warrant existed at one time so my question she was what do you think the supreme court meant or but were they talking about when they said we're not going to drop bright line rule regarding the actual warrant or reliable copy but what do you think they meant by  i think in the purpose of the court statement was to retain the circuit court's powers effect trying body and allow it to have the flexibility to resolve situations such as the one that we have here white boy do we have t necessary to restore that document but i think there's even a third route i mean there's only the evidence ten or four says if you haven't lost or destroyed the original record can consider all the evidence to establish its contents and there's a really a straightforward evidentiary funny recently this federal rule was interpreted in the case of the first district that the accuracy of a duplicate resulting from the reproduction of the intense up and original is in most cases no longer a significant issue we also will at this time of course the fed rule  unfair to admit but as it is arguable here that there is perhaps an issue is to the authenticity of the or alternatively that it would be unfair to admit this duplicate  this case it may be present the issue that we have trouble with the authenticity of it so we're sure next step you have a circuit court make a room and that's what we have happened i mean the court just assumed they would just accept that this blindly of testimony and officer an employee can come in and in testify that's fine that's an acceptable way to do it i don't think it's necessary in this case to do it because even if you look at the restoration act it doesn't require a live testimony it just requires something to the satisfaction of the circuit court here the court for satisfied i'm sorry i don't believe you need life testimony by that if this court disagrees with that then that's an acceptable resolution to it i think that would actually be better than reversing than finding that the motion should have been granted because it seems to be going to find it especially when we're all we're discussing is really an evidentiary ruling by the circuit court and further nothing more your therefore the warrant should be washed and accordingly any evidence recovered upon the execution of them should have been suppressed so we have to the state comes forward with a copy that they argue is an actual duplicate and then they give their reasons about the you know legend on all so if they have point one state presented that information in the court considers it did the defense then come forward and