should be reversed mr mckinney was convicted of possession of a weapon where either the weapon or any photographs of the weapon ever showed up in court and holding the officers holding and clinton's testimony regarding the mckinney's report of the in was thoroughly impeached the only evidence that was left for the state to rely on was the impeach officers superficial testimony asserting constructive possession because the superficial testimony was uncorroborated by the crotch area of his pants and demonstrated it limp while he walked mr mckinney then walked behind a parked vehicle that was positioned between he and the officers and after a brief cat and mouse game with mr mckinney behind the vehicle the officers parked their car investigatory stop when they got out of the vehicle they said they heard a cleaning sound coming from the ground in the area near where mr mckinney was standing but critically they did not see mr mckinney actually drop any objects and they did not see him holding a objects let alone a firearm officer hold the men detained mr bikini and officer clinton walked in here where she heard the clicking sound of recovered what she described as a forty caliber handgun the state did not introduce the gun into evidence nor were any photographs of the weapon introduced into evidence the officers arrest report said that mr mckinney invoked his right to silence and did not make any incriminating statements yet a trial of her hold and said that prior to being given miranda warnings mr mckinney it needed that he did not have a ford car and after being given a miranda warning mr holder mr holden asked mr mckinney to officer had the gun for protection before all that asked him if he had a ford car which he denied officer clinton likewise admitted that she did not describe these events in her case incident reports holding clinton's credibility is critical and the only avenue for sustain this kid is conviction there's no other evidence to support the state's case no gun itself no forensic evidence no photographs or surveillance no other witnesses and the purported admission actually undermines rather than supports the officers testimony clearly the state cannot prove the case without their testimony but the but their testimony is fabricated and fundamentally reliable and the  of the court below may have found the officer credible it's our position that was a fundamental error where they were so thoroughly impeached and their own reports directly contradicted their testimony at trial and so if they were otherwise credible or there was an absence of a weapon that would be a different case that we took on that's correct the court below did find them credible yes it's our position that was a mistake and it is i y that's absolutely correct and yes you don't there is a clear law that you don't need those things when there's also other credible testimony here it's our position that because there is no other evidence other than so again turning to the officers credibility which is critical the the st area where they're incredible is their incredible claim mr mckinney made this a cup or statement about possessing a gun now we know that they think it's fair to say that he did not make that statement because simply the officers own contemporaneous reports expressly contradicted that allegation in addition their testimony contradicted each other about the timing of when the statement was made now the nd aspect in which the officers testimony is incredible as they say that mr mckinney denied having before card and again their written reports dispute that assertion the officer's own accounts various to when he reportedly made that admission and so then we look at the critical claim that the officer said  gun mr mckinney was asked and there likewise we can assess we can determine that that assertion is not true and how do we know that setting aside the fact that they never saw mr mckinney actual possession of the weapon photos no functionality tests no specifics about the gun beyond a generic description and critically no gun itself in addition makes no sense to mr mckinney would have dropped the weapon when the police say he did because again they unmarked weapon it was night time they were engaging in what mr mckinney may have perceived as a threatening b his behavior so if you truly have the weapon for protection as you logically said it runs contrary to common sense he would drop it before he ever knew if the campbell case and the holding regarded dropsy cases as instructive here because if there is a slight difference between this is a classic what it's a classic dropsy case because the officers here to testify that they actually saw him throw the possession when they find it that if the officers were testifying credibly and they were not impeached and there was it was believable that i think that there would be enough to say that's constructive possession based on his proximity to the firearm  but again i think given that the our position here is given the lack of credibility for the officers combined with some of the other issues related to the constructive possession that that adds up to be ins evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client is just a start and again there's also testimony about them the number of people in the area etc so in order stablish all the elements of constructive possession i think we would dispute that that's been proven by the state in a case like this her he will be campbell and in that holding where the court said it is critical whenever an officer testifies that a defendant drops contraband in plain view the question then is when the officers detention or search of th have violated the th amendment if you're she had not seen the defendant drop the contraband in plain view and if the answer is no then there's less reason to question the office of credibility the answer's yes then both the trial court and courts of review should take care in life the credibility of the officer because the incentive to lie to avoid the suppression the evidence is at its highest it's our position that that is precisely what happened here and that the court below doubt apply that careful analysis of hold the clintons credibility but then when that and it's appropriate for this court under campbell to be more judicious to be apply that extra level of scrutiny to the credibility terminations of  we're below and when that's done here it's our position that clinton hold its credibility crumbles and the conviction cannot stand if their credibility is not if they are not credible now the state how credible holding claims testimony years that the trial court simply judged the facts incorrectly and again combined it specially in a situation like this where the officers have the motive to fabricate to avoid suppression of the evidence or otherwise t and this court are obligated to carefully analyzing credibility officers because that incentive to be dishonest when analyzed carefully and with the proper critical eye and when viewed in concert with the utter lack of physical corroborat utterly incredible and as a result the state's evidence was insufficient to prove mr mckinney guilty beyond a reasonable doubt thank you thank you the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the people whether we establish each element of the offense got a reasonable doubt and that's really where defendant traps because he's asking this court to how they observe the defendant how they approach that hearing about flying going and then actually recovering a firearm there was really no question in this case of the object was a firearm it was a simply i saw a handgun and that's it another thing i just want to briefly touch on is that much of play defender talks about it relationship to the th amendment issues which he's trying to insert into this case simply fire an effort to insert a square peg flight much of those questions simply weren't asked in fact when defense counsel started asking questions of that nature and cross examination we have checked it because it wasn't relevant towards the trial and so attempting to ask that makes everybody on the street people who have legal guns illegal guns police officers are confused about what they can and can't do so this court has recently said that we're inculpatory statement doesn't go to the officers credibility or doesn't go to the serial issues in the case and again i mean i think that's that's the our position that's just flat wrong the officers only testified about a limited number of things and they obviously felt that this was important they say it is much on their testimony that these details about statements because before statements were important and they do go to this question about whether or not they're telling the truth about a purportedly inculpatory statement that was or wasn't made that is critical to assessing whether or not the officers would have fabricated or misremember info details about the reported possession and self doubt the state's counsel also makes a point there was no question this was a he said there's no question that this guy was a firearm but that's not that's not how the burden of proof works the state asked to prove that the object in question was existed a and b was a fire and i mean if we look at the parallel to the narcotics cases you know that the state is in it's not sufficient proof for this to just say oh i saw what i suspected was cocaine i saw what i suspected was there when they are required to prove that what they recovered was something that was prohibited by the statute and here all we have is one officer who was there early impeach saying this is a gun no no other evidence whatsoever to prove that it was that the gun that it functioned as a gun that it was a replica or anything like that to t reasonable hypotheses and again the state seems to suggest we're trying to put the th amendment issue in this case i wouldn't say that's a surly case again we are saving campbell for the proposition in the instructions that it would go to the potential credibility determinations what an officer might have a motive to fabricate here the th number didn't come up this early because the officers didn't from there know that there was there was no indication prior to trial that there was going to be an issue related to that then suddenly a trial we have the officers testifying again incredibly and thoroughly peached that there was a post arrest statement that was made that was not real prior to that point in time perhaps if it had there would  so i thank you very much