court answer one question in this case the single question was was there for gaither authorized to act as a police officer on the day of the respective stops in late two thousand and twelve and early twenty thirty nine and the people submit and in this case as i said in our reply brief that issue was not before the court the record was not developed to answer any broader question of the authority and the interpretation of the statute why wasn't it developed history that says otherwise and therefore and that was the end of that and they proceeded to a hearing on the think of condition which is what the people state is before the court today so it's people can take our position that they that the state of the record being sworn in as a peace officer that the persons the applicants fingerprints must be sent to the department of state police and the department state police must check their records and notify the state's attorney's office if there were any felony convictions or convictions of moral request that the state police do a search of their records however it stipulated testimony shows that in january two days prior to being sworn in the illinois law enforcement training standards board person who's in charge of background checks had in fact got a background check  jeffrey gave her and found that there were no felony convictions and the whole convictions of moral turpitude because the fingerprints were in fact on file because there were in fact no convey actions and the fact that ground check had been done  people submit has it in their brief that there was strict or at the very least substantial compliance with their with the standard you know the actually are is that we don't know what kind of background check is done and i don't know if you can answer this but mike i am question about once your fingerprints are in the system or a background check this is done and you know all these and jenna hires is that include i mean running now is that included ability to conduct background checks the law enforcement training standards board the department of state police individual police departments when they're seeking to hire police officer and little fire departments there's never any distinction in the statutes and i pointed to a few of those in answer to your question i would think that they were all saying that specially since she has tried that she in fact used the state police records and that would be what the statute in this case directed at the state police me you know do a background check so i think it would be the same proper interpretation and i think because they specifically referred to another section which gives them full police powers then yes i think that you can envision only the state of the law personally i do not but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist legislature is clear language is that they want that to be the case they can put a waiver or an exception clause if an individual has as part of your prints previously on file then that would be wait and that's not the requirements here it's a three step process one is you have to have law enforcement spirits or have an exception or waiver second you must be fingerprinted you know the technology stays everything else never know whether or not the fingerprints they take now would be better than your prints they had before also when you get to the third point after that is that they take after you  the department state police the statute then threats that they examine the records and submit to the state's attorney any conviction information concerning the applicant so i think the legislature's intent was to make sure they had everything current to make sure the individuals that were going to  the special investigators had no prior convictions for crime of moral turpitude i think it's as i mentioned the record is clear that no time before his appointment his fingerprints were taken or transmitted that's quite clear were the information from these state police or the board of the military board that they had here dealing with the issue that their fingerprints were not required there's nothing whatsoever the statutes quite clear and this justice mit mention is reasonable soon that retired police officers would be excellent you know so i mean i guess i understand what you're saying but by basing your argument on the plain language is that it's required before i mean this is somebody who's bigger plans had been there before they were there they were transferred to the department state but i mean i just done what they did and more importantly whether that information was ever transmitted back to the state's attorney you have clearly if you look at the date in the transcripts that his appointment on i think january twenty first everything else follows after that the information came with stricter substantial compliance with two prongs to that one is the course you look to see the purpose of determining was achieved without strict compliance and the second is whether or not there was prejudice clearly the legislature set forth exactly what they did  prejudiced mr harris and we believe it's prejudice from the state fair comply is the term the statute result of that in gaiters invalid appointment and simply put gaither did not properly possessed police powers at the time he stopped and arrest mr harris the document out or more important was that information that they did was even submitted to the states training prior to him appointing the individual not so much that fingerprint card itself it's the running that background check then puts the use of fingerprints through the database and coming up with the information supplied to the state's attorney responsibility to investigate suspected illegal activity when does not adequately be dealt with by other agencies that's the factual question that we mains open that may have been part of the state's attorney's reason for using the investigators say that it's not reliable evidence as i said earlier in the legislature tasked many different law enforcement agencies with doing background checks of all the statutes task the illinois one for spring training standards board with  the duty of forming background checks because the stipulated to her evidence i believe that the question of whether she was qualified to do this is is cannot now be raised by the defendant that would ask the court to overturn