passenger looks just like a fugitive that stopped was reasonable but moments after walking up to the car the officer realized that the passenger was not the suspect that concert was away and moments after that found that day and those are the charges that are pending below the trial court so the question that this case brings is when does an officer have probable cause and does the fact that the legislature that is not correct your honor but you are on the standard correctly and officer has probable cause when the officer believes that a car contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity this is a different case i now contraband is the finest goods that are unlawful to import export producers is that that's the black's law definition i'd quite difficult to find a clear definition he saw or comment on because it is entirely fact dependent and so you'll so when the legislature passed these laws even though they did provide a clear framework for the courts and for the officers even though they explicitly say contraband that can this is not contraband i think that necessarily that logical result believe that cannabis was still contraband because there was no reason to believe that mr hill's passenger had violated any criminal laws unless the officer saw a very large about cannabis as many of the cases i've cited to  would be kind of well if you think that they require that they stuff to know how much was there before the show was difficult if not impossible yes just by looking at it you know how much is the and so even though the office may never how much is a person or in a person's car by odor or by seeing it there are other factors that the officer should consider before the officer makes a generation that  it is about to occur because the officers good face objective believe that he has that sufficient suspicion a justified intrusion is insufficient to establish the problem was that was the case i cited where he the court makes reason to believe that there was more than thirty grams of hands i know this guy hangs out with dealers he hangs out with gangs he said earlier were drug deals go down those are other factors that would increase the totality of circumstances so that an officer could say i if that's what we're talking about yes that the dog would only know the presence of marijuana the dog would know the amount right yes that's right and i think if that were the case here my argument would look a lot more like the argument from colorado and eagle colorado now those facts are different from the laws that were affected or mr bill is the because the dog was legal the search was in violation of the constitution because the dog was a worry to something that wasn't contraband a product that people agree that either this isn't always possible or say that there's just this disconnect and it should be contraband because it always has been i would disagree with your holding if it came out that way but i really see that those are the hurricane and i think that this court can't even turn all the way back to the probationary period eight cases that i cited in taylor and johnson to talk about that that odor whatever  is back then it was out of all of whiskey production in one case and the opium use in another case but the johnson court says that the odor must be distinctive to identify a forbidden had dogs and i can't canines in the back is the problem are any of those factors would have increased the fatality of the circumstances case the officer simply stop investigating children and he decided to search and that violated mr hill lying you did you hear mister rosen is that right mr rosen's in answer to the question what i said if it appears that we have a different situation i don't know if the result will be any different synonomous is of the same thing on i don't think it wonder in january and do we need to be careful in how this opinion is crafted not to prejudge what might happen after january one i think you're on the  what about the good faith exemption yes i do not think that the good faith exception applies in this case and i think that's because the decisions and people view before people he burns talk about precedent and then the police can search for it i think that simply does make a lot of sense but then the question follows that if a defendant can reclaim it under forfeiture what does that mean is it still contraband and i think that that's important to consider this is not the state also says well you know no one presented a medical card obviously there's no precedent yet it was really the fact that it's those look at the civil penalty is of no consequence so the state argues that you know no one presented their medical card and i do not argue that either of those individuals had a medical card that day but the passenger did say that he smoked cannabis before getting into the car and so that again goes day so in conclusion your honor i will rely on that language and want to beat gates that talks about criminal activity being important probable cause requires only a probability or substantial stand that substantial chance