case are a present situation or present questions of constitutionally portents unfortunately for mr felt's his trial attorney at the hearing on the motion to suppress fails to present the constitutional arguments to the trial court in order for the trial court to determine whether the strip search in question was constitutional they were including most correct and ordinarily counsel does not have to make every argument that's included in the motion however in this case the trial court tried to court and say well i actually rest on my motion or anything to that effect he simply continued to argue the statutory violations even after the court told him that that was not going to get his client any relief and therefore that evidence would not be suppressed wall or you saying this experience trial court would not have considered the constitutional issues with regard to the strip search their record does not show that the court did the court when in making  violation of the fourth amendment and of a us constitution and was a further violation of the privacy clause under the state constitution and in referencing or rather than looking at the fourth amendment under the u s constitution the supreme court in belfield that the test of reasonableness under the fourth amendment is not capable of precise definition and mechanical application and in each case is a balancing of the need of the particular search against the invasion of personal writing that the search ent the court must consider the scope of the particular intrusion the manner in which it is conducted the justification for going to shooting it and the place from which it is conducted the scope minor and justification back to its weight against the state and way towards finding that the search in this case was unconstitutional mr phelps was subject to the humiliation of a strip search that included an officer appearing at his private parts and asking him to lift his genitals and spread his  would have been transported from chicago they only found little bits of burnt up marijuana cigarettes that they do not even consider important enough to collect as evidence in the smoking they suggest smell kind of us found the cigarettes and searched his person at the scene and found nothing the reasonable ness of continued search diminishes the search because i know i'm reasonable as they continue finding nothing on him when they search they s the scene then there's no drugs on especially because the suspension drives or smoked up drives where if if he had drugs on him that he was consuming in the car they'd be in his clothes they are they find no drugs on him take him to the county jail whe there is discussion a good nature of the polls he was wearing a very close and there's also discussion of the nature of the searches that he was subjected to prior to the strip search suggesting that they weren't  straight from packed down to complete strips in determining the constitutionality of the site you have to come back to reasonableness and again as far as we get by then find their way from the car from the burnt cigarettes it becomes more and more unreasonable to continue searching him especially to the point of something as invasive as a strip search so you're saying arresting someone having someone and smelling cannabis in the vehicle on  person or whatever does not mean that you can subject them to a strip search you would have to have more than their best specially in a situation where they have searched him beforehand and found nothing and they don't have any fi information that if they continue to search and they will find drugs in his body cavity one of the examples i provide in the british people buses pettus and in that case the people who are arrested with a defendant told the police officers that he keeps drugs in between his but talks and therefore police officers in that case have reasonable suspicion to continue searching him beyond simply padding his clothes or checking his pockets because they have something that indicates  this first because there was no determination of whether or not mr phelps was going into general population yet two piles did not take the time to determine what card mr phelps is facing which would determine whether he may reasonably believe that he was going telling him didn't deputy commander campbell indicate parent he wanted him searched through only because we're looking for dope and we haven't found it yet yes however deputy campbell has no reasonable belief to to that they'll find dope on him he's simply telling him that because often a quitter has told him we where are we following this car because it's believed to be trafficking drugs from chicago his assumption that we're looking for dope and will find it on him if you keep searching it's not a reasonable it's not reasonable basis that can be compared to deputy piles they had found nothing of their original stock they find nothing when they keep searching him because no they found they found well yes collect them for evidence it isn't my further questions on the fourth amendment i'd like to briefly cover the privacy clause and that the state constitution so that article one section six of the illinois constitution which provides greater protections than the fourth amendment is a severe intrusion into a person's privacy at which which is the reason it requires probable cause and in this case there was no probable cause to justify the search even with marijuana cigarettes they found the car have held that simply saying those words is not enough the trial court has to put the basis for those points finding of consecutive sentences being necessary on the record which the court fails to do here and by the what importance does the fact that this investigation if it was the focus of business occasion this drug investigation he was known to drive his car he had previously so drugs to vehicle in the vehicle that we believe has been transporting drugs and he suspended i mean does that come into play we're looking at whether or not there was a basis to search him the strip search i believe some of it before in the past but not that night and that night was is what's critically important because they were following that car the warrant was on that car the appalling bad car they had not witnessed him by anything that night and so the information he's giving deputy candle his telling deputy counsel find probable cause to stop him if they have probable cause a reasonable suspicion they could have simply productive the stop themselves well they show him a picture of him and they say in his if this is the driver and continued searching has dissipated by the time we get to the station because they keep finding nothing and if you're fighting the balancing you're balancing the right of mr phelps to be not searched unconstitutional  the right of the legitimate interest of the police that's diminishing as they find as they don't find anything when they search him so by the time they conduct a full strip search any reasonable any reasonable ness that was from the cigarettes i it does seem like the court is saying to the defense counsel this is not a constitutional argument where is the constitutional argument is there an obligation on the part of defense counsel wants it's included in  before the court before the police the finding of probable cause is there we don't have to focus just on the smell of the marijuana the general rule is that when police officers are acting together information known to one is known to all even if the last guy in the chain of information is not told all the information you look at all the information there's a hole so if you look at all the information as a whole th this guy is a known drug dealer he's known to use this car this car is known to travel to chicago and back drug deals on this particular night has driven to ca good turned her pride turned right around and come back the the  taken together that does establish probable cause to search the fence and i submit that would extend to a strip search but you don't want to be conducting a strip search out there of the on the side of the highway that especially when you consider that given all this other fare and the pat down and the search of the cars not the step showing anything they have reasonably the drugs general population it was conducted the search of course says it was not a reason that he was going to be placed in the general population you say and yes i was she wrong and you're right on that question based upon what he was the the policy of the jail was to strip search anybody that was going to be admitted at the time of of this  that there was no six segregated there is no testimony as to any segregation between the holding area and general population that were for county you're either in jail or not correct  based upon the test suite and that was presented here there was no questions regarding the holding separate holding area with the test was just simply that whatever silly tidbit in the jail there is there will be a strip search was that even to put them in jail you had to have probable cause that that that was the only exception to allow the scriptures they did not they did not hypothetically let's say before the strip search occurs on the forty's heavy side is going to be charged two misdemeanors one to strip search then be valid under that the policy as testified to by the officer is not entirely clear as to you know that the policy is everybody's search but is that sometimes when the guy's charged with the and the testimony seem to that they were not put in generally general population leslie to exasperate all like options in terms of finding bond given the time of night that this occurs jail and he reasonably believe that and i think that either as a pilot part of the jail policy or of the probable cause the search was valid and counts i trial for his brother he was found in contempt of court for his refusal to testify on multiple days during the trial incentives on the trial court imposes consecutive sentences for the drugs and for the contempt as being mandatory and as being justified by the circumstances fess the on appeal they said no this is not mandatory and the truck the courts footings which were much less thoroughly and involved in this case were not sufficient and even if they were given the nature of the fest that this to allow his attorney even consider filing a motion to reconsider sentence and demanded an immediate notice of appeal so i would submit that the sago services cannot be considered either as waive wilson to begin i will address the statements by the state that we've made no arguments and probable cause we have did make arguments and probable cause especially as relates to the state constitution and the violation of the privacy clause and we co that there was no private probable cause to justify the strip search but furthermore to justice thomas question if mr phelps had been arrested in two misdemeanor charges and was not going to be placed in general population then there would have been  did not require probable cause to search and you still require reasonable suspicion that goes to the question that was left unanswered by florence versus the order of the chosen freeholders of burlington county it requires reasonable suspicion because logical interest have diminished from not requiring anything at all from reasonable suspicion to probable cause to requiring reasonable suspicion because he's been charged with a minor crime a misdemeanor and he's not going to be placed in general population there was testimony that they're held separately people who are going to put in general population of people who have to determine whether they're going to cross post bond and in this case mr phelps was placed in a holding cell that was not general population after he was searched a conference room i think it's  was asking was are you making a constitutional argument because i do not hear you making the constitutional argument and the council does not answer those questions counsel chooses to ignore or other counsel just chooses not to make the constitutional arguments and persists in the  so i'm not sure that the states argument addresses the argument that councils are not making the constitutional argument by saying that and just because counsel says the words reasonable suspicion probable cause less intrusive means does not mean the cons making the constitutional argument especially because again when the state when the court tells him to he does not when the state makes the constitutional argument he refuses to or either declines the court's instruction or invitation to rebut the state's argument and