michigan and officer stopped it thinking that if you were from license plate and he didn't so certainly there are instances where a car can be registered in another state here but we're talking about we're not talking about pr why wouldn't someone have reasonable suspicion that in other words you're in california and car he's driving towards you with no front license plate ok by definition since there's no license plate you can't tell whether it's registered in california but don't you have a recent interview with the millions of people that live here and the fact that you know ninety five percent of the people who drive here have cars registered here why isn't that reasonable not necessarily a crime but i don't understand why there isn't reasonable suspicion to believe that the car coming towards you that has no license plate driving in california reasonably suspect that that's a california car well and the person makes yes it's taking all and it's waiting within their rain at four am in the morning why is that not reasonable cause to detain someone to check to see if they're under the influence of alcohol well i can certainly want to the because what the officer said was he had been following from the moment he saw all the party passed him for a split second without him was that he then began to follow him and fall him as he was following all traffic regulations as he was absolutely no evidence that this was pronounced we're going for substantial period and under collar and that's what is that that would be the only basis to to conduct a stop just driving under the influence and of course another it sounds like you're saying that justice virus opinion has to be incorrect because it doesn't apply careful it can't be applied retroactively is what we're saying and this would be a retroactive application of a  michigan license plate and he relied on a different vehicle code violation than the one it issuing here he actually believed in twilley the officer that the license plates in michigan had to be  heard them or rather if you look at the evidence your record as a whole it's clear that the inference can be drawn that it was the california license plate the car traveling on a california wrote the officer was traveling behind the vehicle directly behind him at one point and follow the vehicle for two miles and approximately five minutes it is a loss of the president in this day and time do we only just assume that the cars going along are local cars  absolutely true but the evidentiary record in this case supports the inference that this car did have a california license plate the coast action relied on by officer harvey was a california coast action regarding the issuance of two california license plates and i much has been made about this so called conflicting testimony i don't believe that there is any conflicting testimony here the testimony is actually very consistent what we have here is on one hand also harvey saying that the mustang was driving in a careful and methodical manner and on the other hand that it was swerving and weaving within its own lane those are not mutually inconsistent and that is a false dichotomy someone who is then chooses to get behind a wheel even knowing that they shouldn't will naturally drive in a more careful self conscious manner furthermore that if someone knows that a police officer is traveling behind him as a record officer harvey testified the driver was driving in a manner consistent with him believing that a police officer was behind that person also will drive in a more self conscious manner that's not inconsistent with weaving repeatedly over a period of two miles and and swerving within the lane and this case is very different in the case of united states versus college as the court rightly pointed out and that case the court felt that officer's observations of leaving over a three quarter mile period was a substantial just inside and able to support reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop well in this case the evidence is much stronger than both caressed and calling we have more than three quarters of a mile we have about two miles here and we have more than thirty five to forty five seconds we have about five minutes i believe that the officer had reasons of fishing i just want to point out the facts of that case in that case the suspect vehicle was pulling up to the intersection at the time it approached the intersection the police vehicle was already stopped at a stop sign stationary it was not moving and it just  d there the suspect vehicle then made a right turn at which point the police vehicle made a u turn and then followed the vehicle and then stopped the vehicle those facts are a far cry from what we have here what we have here is officer harvey following directly behind the vehicle the main criticism of america skulled was probably position of the police vehicle there's no way that this police vehicle could have been affected by for the officer to conduct an investigatory stuff and this court only needs to apply reasonable reasonable suspicion as to one violation it doesn't need to reach the question of all three of the doesn't want to but i submit to the court that there is reason suspicion to support all three violations i would like to touch very briefly on the supervised release condition relating to payment of costs i had a question about that  certain funds for payment are available the court may direct response but that language is different then the restitution act which requires that the court shall order restitution of the court shall order a schedule the court sh buoy argument that we have heard today do you agree or disagree with ram i haven't had the opportunity to fully brief that on a cursory review i disagree with that analysis just well settled that  is an issue that's probably preserved for this court i think the court can simply remand to the district court let the district court take a first crack at that issue and should the issue resurface again they would come back preserve as a second feel but just with regards to expose facto principles in general i suppose factor principles typically only applies to substantive changes in the law not procedural changes look or by its very definition is a giant procedural change we've changed how we're we're having the sensing guy lines operate and what utility they will be for the district courts so just on a very fundamental level i don't think that the ex post facto argument is well taken however if the court does want to address those issues i'd be particular sentence and second of all the plea agreement does allow the government even though it's bound by its stipulations to make certain sensing recommendations to provide facts to the court and probation officer so i take some issue