take a little bit of information from him and asked him about his driver's license insurance car he then did things driver's license insurance card from where the motorcycle was he also taint his wallet and at that time i asked a very specific questions for a judge bailiff to send about what he noticed about the defendant at that time served anything about them that would indicate to him that he may be here it's our position that again question about whether he smelled any alcohol or mr quote indicated and yet he was questioned if he saw anything unusual of volume that would lead him to believe that he was under the influence of either controlled  i can this case and i ask you to consider the bloomberg case or boomer case people persons whom or which is a second history case seven fifty seven north east second second nine sixty and  smelled a strong odor of alcohol even in the hoover case court and what court found that that was insufficient probable cause probable cause is a key and reasonable cause for purposes of these suspension so our position is then that the officer what happened is he looked at the hospital record i think in the light was taken around ten o'clock ten twenty five pm that night for where the twist comes in in this case it was positive for opiates and in fact so in the transcript and hearing a question the officers see any signs of methamphetamine any signs of cocaine the officer unfortunately testified never seen anybody on methamphetamine or observing body so we have no experience there when someone will act like they were paired with that situation or high on drugs yes i asked him if you question hospital means allergy medications he just said no so it was at that point then that the officer after he saw that hospital test decided he was going to issue a citation he issues a citation according to the combination there's another issue in this case judge bailey most of them is heard to try out the evidence but judge bailey made a specific finding in the hearing that defendant was questioned by the officer actually placed him under arrest prior to wait until he got to the hospital and that that was improper for you often done so we are that is part of the argument too because he took smell any alcohol on him i asked him if his speech was slurred i think that's in there he said no i asked him if there was any other signs in any hiccupping anything anything unusual no no no so what happens the blood test without probable cause if that but he still didn't have my argument is he still didn't have enough them because he didn't pursue them but once he then walks in sees that there's some alcohol fine young officer i'm not here to tear into the officer but he just didn't do that he could if when he saw the opiates when he saw the amphetamine he could've taken the next step and said to the hospital personnel with the opiates be res the the evidence there just isn't showing probable cause or even admissions of a few drinks was not going to reach the level required for a breast for driving violation a drug dealer why in which there is no proof of impairment required therefore the officer doesn't have to have probable cause that the defendant was actually impaired when he was driving so therefore the fact that the officer had no experience with drug impaired suspects for example it doesn't really contribute or take away anything from the probable cause finally finding that was made upon the positive test results obtained from the hospital probable cause in order to request the hospital blood test results but it's a special stance that was cited above and dash five one point four dash one a douse the police to obtain that for the hospital to close fish in order tests a time request because this was the type of accident injury that had occurred so for that reason there was no even reasonable suspicion that would have been required in order for the because the violation requires that the substance have been used illegally however the case cited in the state's reach the salish is that it's not required for the police to explore eliminate every possible claim that would be consistent with the defendant's innocence and probable cause is not negated if there is fact exists a possible innocent explanation that might be consistent with the facts so if the defendant points out here that testimony that says this type of phenomenon actually happens in any event there is no claim by the defendant that he was in fact taking a particular end histamine that would have this impact so the only complaint really that defendant can make is well the right question didn't investigate further but yet for at least purposes of probable cause which is the issue here the failure it's nice to sort of dig deeper into these possible theories and it since it's not required so there's also showing by the defendant that he was in fact administered morphine and a time prior to the blood draw upon which the test results that support problem of probable cause was so those facts are even developed in this records to show that that this basis actually was meritorious let alone that just you know the only thing that happened was the officer failed to ask the right questions before jumping to the conclusion of finding a probable cause so for that reason his his argument is not meritorious there is a factual finding stated can see that was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the defendant never did tonight on these prescription drugs however this still consider the facts that are in the record as corrected by a factual finding on appeal to show that there was facts of record it's hardly do they know the review of whether the deputy had still the defendant would have to make some sort of fourth amendment showing of the fruits of the poison street in order to exclude evidence of the hospital tests and the fact that he was taking hospital independently  court can then rule on the merits of the judge's ruling case all right the relief requested and the final ruling of the judge not whether there was somehow a failure to acknowledge  even even if we switched which she doesn't see in this hearing to work look back to people that we still haven't heard of persuasion overall i think the facts in this case are specific if we did prove that overall  church medication my clients you know they can see this well i've got a question at what point you have an obligation to follow up on the question of whether or not that he didn't have enough at trial he didn't say i saw any any signs of that he didn't find any drugs at the scene he didn't find any drugs on the defendant's person he didn't have in any information that he was under any kind of illegal substances