is under the unique stuff we're dealing with the defendant this week for this case emanated out of an incident that occurred at work twenty nine twenty sixteen in which he john mark former was arrested for driving under the influence of vehicle and from there they went to michael's ever center former in stevens went and picked up some lunch at a i guess you call it a tavern in the area of south peak and or manit stevens was the passenger the groom to a location in the south side if you want to and it's there it is believed stevens went into a house alone purchased heroin came back out the next thing that happened was they both did  in addition to prosecuting for driving under the influence of drugs which was a class a misdemeanor and i think it's important based upon the arguments asserted by opposing counsel class three misdemeanor be meet the top find twenty five hundred dollars possession of heroin in this particular case i also think it's important to note that john for her nor anyone else was prosecuted for any controlled substance offense as a result of this thousand dollars for a john forward who testified in the court and nothing credible indicated he put up fifteen thousand dollars in cash for this vehicle although the truck was a much variable i think the question is was he forming the vehicle for some other reason and under this statute you know was sweet i mean de facto rice he was the owner but was this really think that the argument being many regarding the decision the fifth when you compared facts in each case is very persuasive in this situation and would suggest that the them in the world of pro should prohibit when her husband was arrested for a fellow the bag first miracle we've established is forty one thousand barrel the value presented in that case of the motorcycle was thirty five thousand dollars there is more on this phone first thing i'd like to address is that i have a disagreement with what the evidence was this here on i heard council we first took this truck was it worth forty thousand dollars that is not in this record there is no evidence in the thread that this truck was worth forty thousand dollars he attempted to establish that by handing to his brief a photocopy of a that mr folder testified that he purchased this truck for fifteen thousand dollars nobody disputes the fact he purchased the truck council didn't it that he purchased a vehicle and put it mr shellings name because he was having problems with the workman's comp case he wasn't supposed to be driving and if he so i read this order that she finds that paragraph though mr schoen testified he had no reason to believe mr holder would use the truck for her criminal misdeeds the court is completely skeptical of this testimony i guess is that you know so that is what she is using as the  purchased the truck pay the truck was in his career he kept in his garage he had to keys to the truck he paid for the insurance on the truck he licensed the truck you pay for the license he paid for the service on the truck he never had to ask permission to use the truck and the day that he committed this fence he wound up he's not in t never discussed either but mr felder tells the police on separate occasions that he is really distraught indeed didn't buy it from this to show on having some financial problems with the workman's under these circumstances because you're going to lose the well and that was the reason behind the death penalty through was to dissuade people from killing people because he said used so i want to clarify that i believe the value was not disputed by the state was actually agreed to by the state as was the fact that michael shell was the title holder in this case the you when you let's say for the sake of our economic discussion today that the kelly bloom of can you have missed it was not sufficiently you look at the taking the lead to display during the peaking of property under circumstances such as the us their strollers made them a violation here that's a lot of money compared to a misdemeanor situation no matter what the supreme court those in that harley davidson case keep in mind that there was at least one felony charge in that situation none in this situation and you know when you're looking at the a presidents of the heart of the case the based upon the amendment and i don't think the supreme chorus is more specular with what they were going to do but i think the facts in that case are far more egregious than the facts of the present case credibility fighting that the vehicle was actually in the name of charlotte so we know for as we sit here today i think the court was saying why was it in his name as opposed to for hers that's where