down one deals with whether or not the officers testimony regarding whether the defendant was in a right seeing how it's attrition of the time the driving was erroneous leads clue to the knowledge was revealed in the state's case and then in cross he indicated that he did have knowledge of the subject of a rising cac and let me just offer frankly i don't  take his posture as the whole ball of wax but most people understand the idea that it takes a while for alcohol to be fully absorbed into the bloodstream but he has specialized knowledge on that foolhardy i was never going to get to the point where he was a tax and how just even if you try to put him on before the judge city then to tax colleges there were some things that you needed to establish more theory like what he certainly don't dispute down items of knowledge of that area but they did not object to have foundation so i don't believe the court could say well you missed all these other things you should have done if they didn't object i don't think i number three which they admitted shows only one of them for march seventh and twenty twelve there were three sets of to test her set but only one set of two tests shows up on this document that renders this untrustworthy in unreliable and incomplete that's step one forget about all the other foundation i mean do i really have to go that far to ask you to understand that that i don't believe that there's an issue it's a fair and additionally that credit result of point one zero seven the defendant that is his choice to put that into the record and you know that's his choice only that people are not allowed to and so i was that was his trial strategy and in terms of that there is an initiative that people were allowed to use that was at the end the day it was his choice to use it and it was entered into evidence when he wanted to explain why it was important and he wasn't too long to do  this is the question we're consuming here why is this thirty minutes after driving and now another forty or fifty minutes go by we're twenty or twenty five depending on who's terms of the difference between the point one zero seven the point two i think it's important to look at what individual is attempting to attack a breath test in terms of whether a breath alcohol content is rising or falling your honour's have been quite clear floyd from this district is quite clear that if you want to challenge it in terms of whether breath alcohol content is rising or falling to extract needed that there is an enormous amount of foundation that must be laid by a witness that has particular knowledge and expertise in the area of rising and falling breath alcohol contents what what does it what did all those who were on about the physiology and pharmacology of alcohol on the body where what does he learn where that's a good question and we would know if those questions have been asked at the trial court in terms of the foundation accounts attempted to lay with officer broke it really was not interested you could tell from the record there wasn't really that many questions in terms of specifically what that officer and his employer and in terms of the effects of alcohol on particular individuals just that he's had merely some training in that he somehow understand such as when an individual last consumed alcohol what type of alcohol i think you consume any food how much weight the individual weighed how tall they were but obviously none of that was contemplated and none of those questions were even a the officer well they weren't asked and that was sort of the purpose of my question and what point did the stephen g act was the foundation complete as as it was perceived or were there are questions that come from wanting to ask when the objection was already made and the judge made a decision in terms of the people who had objected on multiple occasions and the court allowed the defense to continue to ask further questions in the that's when judgement didn't see stated that he did not believe that the requisite foundation had been met and at that point counsel had asked for further for their opportunities to continue to question the officer because i believe and i two tests that were tested not only they were taken very close in time within thirty minutes but as i said earlier just because this officer had ability to look at two tests he still isn't an individual who is qualified to give some sort of opinion  whether an individual's press content is rising or falling obviously a court can take notice and give weight to the fact that ok yes we see the breath out all content was point one zero seven within a person in thirty minutes of driving and then within forty eight minutes of driving is a point one two that is an argument that is a nice being made by defense counsel and the court allowed that argument to leave it goes to the weight because in this situation officer of road just simply was not qualified enough to make the police station and i think that's important because that that progeny of cases has been continued to be held so i think even if you look at just what the crackdown on content was back at the station that that was absolutely sufficient to find the defendant correct and i still think that in this situation just mogens he didn't not allow counsel to make that argument and like i said earlier he actually welcomed that argument you can tell that through the transcript that is soon argument the defense argument technically was waived as you can tell that in this case you need to make that argument during trial in your post from motion and counsel quite frankly did not do that and so in terms of that issue of the difference between the t and bring it into evidence to certify that the bread machine was accurate it would show that the defense present alcohol was point one to zero so i believe you honestly said in my briefing just now that that argument specifically was waved and he was the one who certified it accurate that was on march seventh two thousand and twelve and in terms of mother and other sort of certification matters that once again was not an issue that was fully raised and the trial  an issue that was waived and that's an issue that if the counsel believed that there was some sort of issue in terms of the we realize believe that machine you know obviously defense and deem that these accuracy checks for it were improper or that these east they were the easier she was now working appropriately on march eleventh to march twelfth two thousand and twelve that was something that he should have done it to trial but has waived it now is arguing before you out what should we think your is i believe that in a situation where there is waiver at the end the day it was harmless because in this situation like i said earlier there's more tax records then that was something that as i said earlier he very well could have subpoenaed the trooper who did the certifications and brought them into asked what the difference between why and there's apparently three logbook entries and why the people on apparently what march seventh reflects he didn't create is own piece of paper how did that happen steve you know that but there is suddenly a human being that showed up on the seventh of march so although it superficially seems like everything is good that's necessarily true because this record appears to be the jury had record and what do i mean by that let's go back again to the business record which used to be called the shopkeeper this rule has a business record you would look at  did not deal with it to prove it did not raise the objection that it was in matters observed by law enforcement personnel to rule a different reason the objection that it was a computer generated record of a private corporation nothing about how the record was created because the record belongs to a corporation in missouri and in a case which the court would find people versus