that defendants brief touches of those lines these cases are vastly different from each other second if this court finds that miller controls this case that decision should be reevaluated ultimately a bad as contrary to legislate language statute and the purpose of the code is to promote safety on the roads which cannot happen at the definition of lane includes to include a dividing line allowing opposing vehicles to legally occupy the same  on a straight urban runway which is designed to not have any form of deviation within it in the event that there is no reason for it i what time of the day or night did th darkness play into your discussion about you know the flat you know a straight road i mean it's dark because the vehicle well when the vehicle should be at night time vehicle should be using your headlights to  well you indicated that your you know that you're saying bueller can lead to absurdity and and certainly not safe conditions as noted by the minnesota court because it t hard touching that particular line that is truly unsafe correct well if there isn't any on coming traffic what what is the particular issue eighteen ok if the legislature didn't wish to abide by that definition is it possible or even probable that it would have an act implanted emplaced stated somewhere either in the statute rule of regulation of what exactly a layman should be defined as as opposed to the definition  so although i don't think we're bound by i got regulation or rules of the road you're not aware of any changes are you know i'm no where any let's anderson may please the court i have a few points i would like to be in with st it appears that the state is conceding a number of  in the st brief by the state the brief the initial briefs there was an indication that no good faith argument was made to the trial court at all there's a concession right there as well secondly judges i would indicate that the law from mueller ms anderson's case a lot remains as it was as can be seen in lyon decker and hackett linebacker would indicate that an individual d to commit improper lane use  lane deviation by ms anderson and the trial court reviewed that and made that a finding of fact that there was no lane deviation so that there can be no reasonable suspicion of improper lane use as required by people versus half rd point i would like to make to your honor's is that the illinois supreme court denied the petition for leave to appeal in people versus mueller says in two thousand and nineteen that's important because had mueller created new rules or new law or or a new test then certainly it would follow that the illinois supreme court would take up that petition to leave to appeal to correct any sort of discrepancies in between  circle back to the initial argument that i made that in the state's st brief they conceded that they did not the state not make any sort of good faith argument at the trial court level and i would like to expound upon that further essentially your honors the state put all their eggs in one basket where we as lawyers were taught that you don't simply don't do that the idea is stemming from our time in law school that the litigants are to make all of their arguments to the trial court the purpose for that is to promote finality in litigation they simply there is no additional bites at the apple here to allow a good faith argument when one was not argued at the trial level would be akin to for the absolutely to have this motion to suppress evidence hearing question the officer have to state cross examine the officer and rest have the motion denied and then ask the judge well your honor if you are going to rule that way i would like to put my client on the stand for testimony there that d this simply doesn't make any sense further your honour's there's not anything in the record to say that there's there's good faith or bad faith because that simply wasn't argued it would all be su assumption and speculation at this point or this a lot who would argue good faith i could say well there is bad faith and who's to say either one of those instances is is true it the idea that somebody has not left their main until crossing over a line as opposed to touching is not a new and novel concept this wind dekker was decided in two thousand and three anderson was stopped further your honour's as far as if you're the court boy were to entertain a good faith argument there's officer buckle does not indicate how he knew of what the law was at the time he sort convolute convolute some arguments in two into one to the point where he had to be questioned by the trial court self the court conducts its own examination and then later on indicate that well that's not what he said before trial court comes back around and finds that there was there was no lane deviation therefore there was no reasonable suspicion for improper lane use thus the stop of ms anderson was improper and so for all of those reasons we asked your honour's to affirm the decision of the trial court upholding the granting of the sentence motion to reconsider the denial of the the lines and you mentioned something in in line and decker that it was as nearly as practicable i think that was correct right yes your honor that is my lane deviation and practicability and linebacker that would be found there ok now there is slightly different language in this in the statutory authority i don't believe it's as nearly as practical bull but it mentions within safety or something of that nature is in the limits of safety i have that correct i'm not from such lane until the driver has st ascertained that such movement can be made with safety now understanding that your client did not leave her lane were there any safety considerations at th particular time of the stop i don't believe so your honor there i don't recall any traffic coming the other direction were not a lot of vehicles on the road at that time it was later at characterize it as urban i would characterize it more as suburb and going into a rural area ok officer buckley have had a good faith basis to consider the stop the proper your honor st was not argued at the trial court level nd i would submit that under lyon decker and hackett and even to an extent people are smit that there was no way in deviation at all anderson was still within her lane except on the outermost boundaries of it and never crossed over going into the other lane so without the lane deviation  under people versus hackett which is two thousand and twelve there could be no reasonable suspicion here of improper lane use because there had been cases that have addressed what is required prior to mueller and that was that her has to be a deviation from one lane in the st place and that just simply didn't occur here ok and the other question i have is the tr repeatedly talked about the credibility of the officer my concern when you review the transcript in this case here you know he found several contradictions yellow line he had some issues with the officers testimony there and the fact that the officer and his initial examination did not say the vehicle crossover but then when he was brought back for his requestion he specifically said the vehicle had in fact crossed the center line and then the judge  deciding this case or was a soley based on new look i think that may have been a factor in the decision on this case was while the trial court judge did find the officer credible and that's  a differentiation between here and mueller there was some slight inconsistency but what can be borne out in the video was that this touching of the line was momentary and it wasn't as council would suggest a situation where ms anderson is driving along in heavy traffic with her vehicle touching the center line or a fog line  to the point where it's causing danger to other vehicles this is a different situation compared to what counsel has brought up i think it may have been a trial court for being flippant here we have the benefit of the dash cam video which can give the finder of fact the trial judge and an accurate indication of that has no legal bearing whatsoever what the electric or chooses to take or not to take makes no difference as to whether that doesn't make it in the court decision or it was miller as understood by both the officer and the tribal court was that when you drove on the line that you were in violation of the proper lane usage statute even in the initial motion to reconsider by the defendant that was tied again it's self can be limited to its facts in that case there is obviously observe all reason as to why that defendant cannot remain as nearly as possible with in their lane due to the conditions of the road itself and that questions yes i do i think just one mr taylor if in fact there was no actual definition able lane prior to mueller  in this particular appellate district there were at least the prior cases that talked about lamed although that by definition and as nearly as practica lyon director and i think the highland park case how exactly could the officer have been acting in good faith well your honor the the prosecutor cite any case at the time of the initial decision to establish this definition or this because it seems to me that what you're arguing is that the police officer had a good faith believe leif that he had probable cause as opposed to a good faith belief that there was a holding on which he could base an opinion and come to a conclusion as to whether or not he had a good faith belief as to probable cause and so is that a distinction without a difference or is there a difference and a substantial one that would suggest at least as i think justice hutchinson's questions imply that unless there is some case law that is directly on point that has a holding in it that the police officer isn't or doesn't have a good faith belief in the law which is a face in the whole the he would have a good faith belief that he has probable cause and i don't know that there is ever a case that has honor if exception is to not punish police officers who are acting in a barrier that they think is justified by the law what you're trying to suggest is that because no case  they're trained to as police officers to protect us or community until someone tells them no you shouldn't do that they're going to be on the belief that all this action is not going to be correct until tom tells me just thank you there are no further questions and we have heard from both parties to the fullest extent will take the case under advisement and render a decision in half