important witnesses of crime is that the quality of the content of the information that she provided is not in itself reliable or acidy of her information was an established to consider the informant allen where allen the police officers have prior contacts with with the informant and allen they were aware that he was involved in by narcotics and so there was a basis for that to be able to cooperate his information his followers determine whether this tip that he gave was consistent counsel was that the same here in terms of the ability to cooperate something information in terms of where she indicated they will be going where of you be coming from the nature of the activity that they were involved in and you know we have this information about the texting and the g p s tracking the movements of the vehicle now that isn't like in alabama versus white where if you are if the informant is able to predict another person's movements that gives indication that she has some inside knowledge of the suspect criminal activities and i think the problem here again is that she we don't know what exactly was her involvement in these prior trips to chicago she says yes i drove marcus out marcus gillia to chicago but what did she do what did she witnessed him actually buying the hero and why she's some sort of accomplice this is you know over and i think those factors are really important for the court to consider because this is not a case where showing that the information she gave had some is a problem because based on what she said in his dealings with or and what she said on the day in question to believe probable cause the boy that there's the in this that it's just something to consider yes she implicated herself but does that solidify her credibility and again this is one factor to consider him you put all the factors together there's just not enough to find her to be a real reliable sentencing factors the ag readings are going to factors receiving compensation for committing a fantasy is only applicable and the defendant has received payments to commit the crime counsel's this is the issue raised in  ends of the suit fail to present evidence that killian received money to sell the drugs and there is no evidence that he actually received payment for the drugs in his case to be considered proceeds and in this case the court before the court this afternoon is the justification for the police making terry stop which is not the same things coursers recently pointed out as probable cause for making an arrest this is a much lower standard that the police must have in explained the basis of her knowledge this is not something akin to a telephone call from an unknown caller who doesn't explain how the information was obtained mccormick implicated herself in the events that she herself was you know participated in yes that's how she knows it so she's opening yourself up for potential charges there her identity was no she her phone number her address we know by the police it's been suggested that perhaps she had reason or motivation to lie but the state doesn't understand the basis for that argument if she comes forth and gives the police false information that's only going to aggravate them that's not going to placate them or give them some reason to reason to lie in fact she has a great deal of reason to be truthful she also provided predictive information she mission to this gentleman who was already known to the police officer as having been recently arrested for engaging in heroin related activity everything she said she followed through which you know this is what we're going to do we're going to go we're going to be you've got a g p s device on the car she's texting in addition to that  seems that they're saying the police had an obligation to see that they were justified in relying on her information so apparently they can't use her st time they have to  and the reason that we have the waiver was just for this kind of situation if it had been brought to the attention of the truck or the trucker would have had an opportunity to explain what he meant by making that count are we  determine from this record how when it gets to the trial court relied on that factor i think so judge i think a fair reading of the court's comments as the court goes through the basis  this type of activity is particularly insulting to the court because of the harm it's doing to society and the harm to society is a reasonable aggravating factor in tra a money making operation so i don't think that the court considered that at all and if it did it did so only slightly and i think it did so in response to the testimony of officer peterson  needed to get in the pen and pick pieces of probable cause to stop the car if they thought they had enough did he need to tell that to the officers nd we're not saying that there has to be a higher standard to determine her reliably to be just to consider the nature and circumstances of the information available to the officers at that time again there was no evidence in the records that suggest that the officers knew that mary mccormick had been involved in the drug trade or have been considered once the the the case in peoria was adjudicated as to the state's argument as to the nature and circumstances whether the conversation was considered as a as and circumstance of the fans we argue that unlike mad and rios there was no evidence presented that this was an ongoing criminal enterprise all we heard from officer patterson and was that he had arrested due to several undercover buys and that was just to talk about the case that he was on bond when he committed the suffice if your cars have no additional questions we ask for the reason stated to enter brief