all right and this anderson how much time we feel like out of the about fifteen minutes i'd like to reserve five minutes for a bottle ok and ten minutes are right and whenever you keep in mind that we have read of what the burden of proof as to whether he was drinking on the public way he wasn't actually ultimately charged without offense the issue is but that's after the people as i understand the burden of proof mr brown comes in and says i was rested without  also cited several cases where this court on appeal has taken judicial notice of either administrative or fire department rules and regulations even though those administrative rules and regulations were not presented to the trial or were those were those regulations taken judicial notice of in a case where we reproduce i don't recall the outcome of either is it doesn't make a difference i don't think it makes a difference  what makes a difference is whether this is working in sidor be an additional material in reaching their decision and in this case be argued that they can and furthermore the state has failed to address or distinguish the cases that we cited in our opening brief that say that this court can take judicial notice of the directives furthermore the directives here are consistent with the municipal code so even if this court does not consider the chicago police correct and our position is also that when we are considering the perspective of a reasonable police officer a reasonable police officer would know when all of the chicago police department rules and regulations so the police department rules regulations and directives have a direct bearing on whether officer roberts mistaken belief that brown was on the public way was in fact reasoned about the fact that the officer had been called to that area many times and had apparently previously arrested individuals for going to get another activity at the same gas station but that is not relevant to the officers reasonable belief here because the officers all testified that they had not received any calls from the gas station that evening that would indicate that brown or the other men he was with were trespassing or otherwise engaged in unlawful activity and because the gas station is privately owned you know they were allowed to be there  police received a call that would indicate they were trespassing so that's not relevant as the officer roberts belief regarding brown however the fact that the our police officers did receive fire calls about drinking at the gas station does indicate that this was not a new situation that they were suddenly confronting in the field they certainly had time to determine whether the gas station parking lot was the public way or not well in advance of being  property because somebody started as opposed to this situation where there was no call and please do this on their own that is correct that is certainly a different situation if someone from the gas station had called the police that evening and said hey there are these guys drinking at the gas station we don't want them here and the police would have had every right to arrest mr brown because he would have been trust pouncing but here the police had no on indication whatsoever that mr brown and the other men he was with were indeed and getting to justice mason's question the the burden of proof to show that the arrest initial arrest was ok would have been with the state because it would have been an element of the violation of the chicago ordinance  these members of the public don't drive through the gas station and the scene manner as you would for example a street or a highway i don't we know there well for example the chicago musical code actually prohibits driving through private property to escape use of a traffic control device i so know that people drive down my alley all the time they use a dissolute is a thruway in the newsroom called says you can't do that how do we know based on this they stop they conduct business there you know usually they get gas so sometimes they don't even have to go into the building but a gas station parking lot is like any other business parking lot someone goes in the parking lot they stop they do business and they leave it's not designed to be used as a street or an alley and even if members of the public worries in the gas station lot into miss a bully that doesn't transform private property into a public way so what people say i want i'm sorry what what about across the different definition of public highway under the illinois vehicle code now public way under the chicago municipal code i'm sure the illinois vehicle code a property is a public highway within the meaning of that statue if it's both publicly maintained and open to use for the vehicle public or part of a school zone but in that case the state the defense presented absolutely no evidence for guarding their burden of proof  saying this was a warrantless arrest and the state says we arrest you because you were drinking on the public way and he says then i was not on the public way isn't they have heard this pertinent proof to show that he wasn't on a public way i believe it is the first of all i believe it's the state's burden of proof but even if it is and the evidence here simply does not show he was on the public way because a property is only a public highway if it's public they maintain and here gas station parking lot here honestly i just don't think that the evidence shows that he was drinking on the public way when he was on a privately owned gas station parking lot when we have no proof that it actually was publicly maintained or not i'm sorry but we also have the sort of commonly accepted notion that owners of private property have some obligation to monitor what's going on on their private property and as has been pointed out if they don't want to stand in their drinking they should call the police and said hey this guy is trespassing but they have the right to that and the right to say that automatically means that it was private property because they did not have any right to stop a guy who's drinking on the sidewalk or on the curb or in the alley and call the police and say hey he's on our private property got arrested they might have called the police will board him that he was drinking out of public way the fake that gas station always had the right to call and the police and say this guy's on our property arrest him he's drinking we don't want to hear that defines private property that is absolutely correct your honor the fact that the individuals who own the gas station have the right of the police and say we don't want to hear oh absolutely indicates that i have a property it's clearly not maybe they didn't care maybe it was a great customer maybe they loved him maybe it was a we don't know if they didn't call the police but the fact that they had the right too defiance for us a fact that this is private property the other thing that's important to me is the municipal code it's very specific that has to be on the public way they created an element of that offense and by creating the element of that offense they made it the state's burden to prove that element i don't think that we can shift the burden to the defendants on that is absolutely correct and i absolutely agree with you it's the state's burden of proof here and correct and they would not have had to prove to prove that he had possession of a controlled substance bought for the arrest for drinking on the public way which he wasn't actually doing with them just as missions and then arrested him whining so it's not really relevant the issue according to the opinion is this defense now six discourse review asking whether the defendant was required to present an affirmative evidence to make a prima facia case recession we were dealing with someone who was driving someone who was in a vehicle here we're dealing with the chicago municipal code which is also a completely different body of authority and it deals with the term public way differently than the illinois vehicle code deals with public highway and now makes sense because we're dealing with someone who's standing in a parking lot not someone who is behind a vehicle there are very different things and as a chicago police officer you know it's very important that officer roberts understand the scope of the chicago municipal code and how it defines public play because that because that's important to how he carries out so many of his duties as a police officer and so he is the question of the officers reasonable belief a question of fact that is a question of law under high and it can be a question of founts if for example for example there was another illinois case where the appellate court addressed the officer saw someone in a vehicle and thought that that person was the subject of a warrant that was a mistake a fact here we have a mistake of law because officer roberts mistakenly believed that this law him pumps in the station cashier center who believe all of these factors taking into account plus numerous illinois political or cases where the term public way has been argued meaning different type of meetings we the sites all those definitions in the ordinance oh i guess if some parking light is a public way under all circumstances under some circumstances under one circumstance but i can't show you how the c m c doesn't specifically li gas station parking lots can't be considered a public well i think that's my main contention here and also there's certain cases or statutes in illinois where they to find other term public way i'm not asking about statutes i may ask about this to have an apartment building and there's a parking lot in the park the privately owned apartment building right and there's twenty four hours ingress and egress people can come in their life they are night and this i mean there's a if a police officer does know the difference in public and private that that's a pretty clear definition i made and i'm going to police officer not know whether something public or private but he had to know that this is right because i've been there before and to ask your question i would look at the case people keep you which is the first district illinois public court case in which the victim was walking to a private parking lot she was kidnapped and beaten at the defendant was subsequently charge of battery which is enhanced station life like a sidewalk a street an alley or a highway because the says or other public thoroughfare or other public thoroughfare so the eyes this is private you know this right and i believe the accessibility to the public the fact that it's a place of clever use of the public every time i help my driveway is a cesspool of the public right they could drive in my driveway very soundly when you invite somebody confuse anybody and what about this is maysoon to the question coming real wanting that have any relevance or believe that this case is a mistake of law that the biggest difference is reasonable mistake that this officer made as opposed to the one case that in our situation that all of the factors to bring them combined combined them together showed that anybody could have made this mistake  that all of these things in the aggregate it's a curse maybe you might want to have it both ways you started out by saying the parking lot was a public way at the time and now you're saying well but the officer made a reasonable stake it was a public way but he was mistaken honor i have just a few brief points on the bottle first the state has argued repeatedly that this gas station is somehow special and different and it was reasonable for the officer to think that under the circumstances this gas station was part of the public way even though it really wasn't but they've cited absolutely no authority that supports their argument that a gas station parking lot is somehow different than all other parking lot to the point where the officers mistaken belief was reasonable and secondly as to reasonable miss the touchstone of the fourth amendment and hyun in general is reasonableness and overall the fact pattern here shows that the officers actions overall are inherently unreasonable this is a group of officers that pulled into a gas station parking lot and immediately searched several people who were just standing there despite receiving no complaints and despite no evidence that these guys were doing anything other than just standing there peacefully in a group they immediately searched two of them my client being one of them there is also the search against the other defendant were suppressed because the search was not reasonable the only difference between my client and the codefendant were the fact that my client was holding a beer but as we've already discussed that legally should not have made a difference because he was not on the public way and the state of his and the state conviction for possession of one pill of a controlled substance thank you thank you ok i want to say i think this is the first case ever to come in on time t