it may please the court mr harris for the record my name is patrick daley i'm here on behalf of the people the state of illinois this is an appeal brought by the state from a judgment of the circuit court caution arrest and suppressing evidence the basis that was asserted by defendant and was the basis for the court's granting of the motion to suppress was that a stop of a vehicle in which defendant was a statute where the court upheld based on a supreme court case of people gates and they at a trailer ball which is not a basis in which to charge an individual with a violation of that statute there has to be an actual basis of arguments here on appeal that the officers had at least in minimum a reasonable articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle which defined it was a passenger and i was on the basis of an observed drug transaction and information provided to surveilling officer of drugs and packaging inside the vehicle and defendant's possession your honour's are of course aware of the facts having read the briefs but i do think that at least the arguments that were made below were the trailer heads now your arguments are going to be about probable cause to stop you think that's an issue in the trial court you're in these arguments no i don't think so your honor in fact that's it's an act it's an interesting question because the state's argument below was was in fact of that the basis for the stop was justified on the basis of the observe ation of the of the drug transaction and the testimony of the officers at the hearing largely focused on that aspect of the error from the state's perspective that we rely upon an appeal is that the court simply didn't consider any of that  didn't even mention in its orders if it was never even presented and that evidence having been presented and not been rebutted in any way should at least should prompt this court to reverse the judgment or at least at a minimum this court to remain and the cause back described as a hand to hand transaction wire then received information from his confidential informant that the defendant was observant possession of multiple bags of individually wrapped suspected contraband methamphetamine inside  black bag wire then communicated to other surveilling officers to conduct what he described hearing as a choreographed stop that choreograph was the basis for the presented evidence from several witnesses two witnesses that there was well really dwyer's a principal witness because dwyer is the one who actually received the information from the confidential source that was passed on to detect jesse thompson and he and officer baldwin then a gauge in the vehicle stop defender was told at the time to stop at the basis of the stop was this obstructed license plate but thompson indicated at the hearing that it was in fact what he described as a by bust where a drug transaction is observed and a stop is made in order to recover contraband or or or you know money that's being used in the transactions usually when money they mean by that like mark money or money have been provided to the confidential source for the transaction and this money more money was never recovered there was really no testimony and that regard i don't think your honor but there was if it was  on to the officers i mean to be to be perfectly frank the state didn't really get into a lot of those kind of you know surveillance bust details maybe not as much as it should have which would have maybe clarified some of the issues for his for example a question posed by the court was why didn't you just stop the car for the judge transaction why did you have to choreograph the vehicle so you know the vehicle traffic violation i think it's a fair question to stay positive below and you know i based on my experience as a prosecutor and i with the caviar this was not was not testified to as a confidential sources are typically protected and so you know that's it's not always a wise idea to protect your source by arresting someone for a drug transaction minutes after it occurs it's going to be pretty apparent really it's really simple is that your honors i think that that what we have here and to defend its principle argument is going to be that the court implicitly found in its ruling that the state's evidence was not credible while this court defers to credibility determinations by the court below the fact remains that the court never made any credibility determination is in this case because a simply never never even consider the evidence that the state are presented which is somewhat strange given the fact that the state's argument was almost wholly devoted to evidence related to the drug transaction the state did not in any way or shape or form attempt to defend the stop on the basis of the traffic violation i guess  conceding that was probably a losing argument and most likely would be a losing argument based on age but their being an independent invalid and under budget basis for the traffic stop to occur the trial court should have at least considered that evidence and if it was going to determine if that evidence was improbable or on believable it would at least provide some basis for this court to ascertain whether the court's judgment was reasonable under the facts presented but there was no contravening facts there was no opposing facts there's no other version of events  field wait but those charges could be amended later on once the crime lab comes back with specific findings but those don't usually come for weeks later so the only reason that was brought up is because it never got that far yeah i mean at this point at this point we are right i mean consider probable cause because the judge specifically asked during the hearing why they choreographed the stop instead of using the problem instead of using the drug i mean how do we know in light of the fact that he asked that question and he didn't consider it when he entered his order well i think your honor that the question the question itself doesn't really reveal what the court's thoughts were with regards to whether believed or did not believe that what happened it happened as far as the state's version of events but i would think that and it just is a matter of a matter of of a logical progression that they had if the courts i towards the next level and judges credibility determinations are essential indeed if the court to come out and held that the state's evidence was not credible that would have been you know might change a complection of this case altogether but we don't have that finding and for some reason or another not against the manifest way to be evidence so from our perspective soon unusual position we find ourselves in for most at st but this is pretty straightforward the trial court's factual findings are some conflict internally in his own testimony and of course with thompson's affidavit which did not come in hearing but you know there was he was cross examined about an affidavit point out when the shoe was on the other but the fact that testimony is under but it doesn't mean that it has to be accepted by the court as true the trial court was one of those in the best position to observe the demeanor was and to decide except that the defense version that it hurt and here the state makes its position pretty clear in the reply when it says that the only relevant credibility assessment to the extent one should be done in the absence of a trial court findings is whether there was in fact an observed transaction if so then any traffic stop was reasonable so what the state is asking the court to do there is to make its let me stop you moment we know that the money wasn't found but we do know that in support of the credibility the drugs weren't actually found in the vehicle were they found in the black bag or soch as described by the confidential informant they were here and some kind of believe so a black so what the confidential informant relayed to police officer then would have been substantiated by what was isn't this court allowed to look at that kind of fact even though we review it light favorable to you are we allowed to look at the fact that in the information provided by the confidential informant was sure and the reason for my asking that is when did the defense ask for the information that was tendered the night before the hearing from was it asked for prior to that or was it that was not asked prior to that and if it wasn't asked for this  no real objection or protestation raised by defendant at the time of the hearing is with regards to proceeding forward with the hearing i'm bases what the state intended to present at their hearing so i mean it's hard for me to to characterize that as far as whether they have to form some sort of independent basis and i don't would not agree to the proposition that somehow it impugns the credibility of the will of the witnesses and much it may relate to whatever mechanisms were in place to provide information to the state the st place which obviously turned it over as soon as i got it at least became aware of the problem that i have i guess from credibility of assessment standpoint as i understand the argument that this court's not in a position to make credibility determinations and that's not really what i'm asking this court to do what i'm asking this court to look at is that you have a set of facts which are rebutted which are not considered by the court and they are therefore they stand as they are and as they are they stand for the proposition that the officers had justification to stop this vehicle if this court is uncomfortable with that then i think the appropriate remedy would be to send it back to the trial court of directions for it to consider the state's alternative argument so that findings could be made on the record so that at least the parties including the state would have the opportunity to know what the court just thinking and then provide whatever argument might be necessary to to attack that in this court sort of the state's challenge in it regard to be greater but at least at this point you know we're left with a case where the court simply just never answered the state's  position my gloss on this is i was about to sort of get into at the end of my initial argument as i think that that the court viewed this case as a pretext stop where the officers had stopped this vehicle on the basis of a traffic violation that the traffic violation did not in fact occur and that the some result of that is they were darla's so what other motivation that the officers had what other facts the officers had and to stop the the front of it at the time you know number one your honor it's not a pretextual stop because they had a valid basis to stop the vehicle on the basis of the drug transaction so pretextual stop would be to stop for a traffic violation and try to dig up a drug transaction or drug evidence in this case there was no pretext needed they already had the basis to make the stop well no this is  there's a legal tug definition not an officer definition in the legal definition of a pretext will stop is that you engage in a stop on the basis of one reason to look for evidence of something else the officers didn't stop the defendant here to look for evidence officers already had information that there was evidence they simply used the vehicle violation stop in order to as i my position would be to conceal the nature of the stop or the origins of the information that prompted the officers to make the