upon every qualifying conviction they find that that silence creates an ambiguity and then they look at the the implementing regulations and those are very interesting the routes the court made to important points about dogs and with your honor each section is qualified with the language if the qualifying offender has not previously had a sample taken so it ties the the collection to the offender not to the conviction of those cases that say that the statute on theirs that there's a legitimate purposes for multiple collection but i've been leave that the statute is not being but i don't believe that there are those rights women that especially when you consider paragraph a which says when a qualifying offender when a person becomes a qualifying offender then you collect the  a i believe that language combined with the on the the subsequent subsections and which they say if his d n a has not previously been collected i believe if you read those two together it's clear that and especially when the language ties it to the offender and not to the conviction and i think that the commonsense approach which this court took and the example may be needed and then they read that in those just cases into the statute itself and there's no where in the ministry regulations in the statute to talk about reasons for additional samples i mean  the legislative intent is to have a complete database if you're only taking new samples from people who have additional convictions then you're not having to have a complete database with new technology because everybody who's who's in the would be for for why someone's d n a would be different under new technology or how that would be affected but again i think that's covered under five four three i two that if it's inadequate for any reason we can take another one and if that circumstance occurs that's another issue but here it wasn't what didn't because and the field was imposed because of his d n a was inadequate and i court's common sense approach has been caught reinforced by the court's decision in race beat which looks at the statute and looks at the pieces that have been decided contrary to eventually stop and stated that the justifications for the collection fee is tied to the collection it's to cover those costs to cover the costs of and i think that that has is definitely in a state of flux but these court does have this same issue before it and hopefully it will be resolved in its favor and consistent with this court initial take on just issues that common sense dictates that are a person's d n a doesn't change and the database doesn't need samples of the same thing and the defendants don't need to be repeatedly charged two hundred dollars for these reasons your honour's we ask that you take the d n a order know something about d n a and we all think we kind of have an idea that if it lasts forever why would you ever need it again and when you fall into the ask you start really to do exactly what we're not supposed to do and learn turning and say actually and that is to go condone what's right in front of me that when they say that if a person did something to get a fact that a person can be found guilty of an offense classified shall be required you know you're right i would think that there would be that and it's not an exception well i may ask counsel didn't i thought i felt that in marshall there was some introduction of speculation of what could happen to this sample to the logical one can't what we're doing is we're speculating i mean they're speculating just the opposite when you go to risky and say well you know it can't last forever so there's really no good reason i mean we're getting kind words of the statute in saying that we know that there are no see does or does not collect if they don't collect it that it may be that they are actually not understand the statute themselves that doesn't meet the decision doesn't provide to us there into many of their regulations and i  from one entity department to another who in fact that's what happens when someone is transferred from a county jail to the department of corrections and it will rain down to some one place and the department of corrections to another place and partners corrections they're the already been taken that sort of implies that it hasn't already been taken by another agency when they were first brought into the jail or where they were in the jail once they were convicted and i think that's the way that the dissent is reading that and i think that's appropriate i think that's another reason why the reds even if you went to you know and looked at them for their interpretation i don't believe that that makes a difference aspirants their language about when you know if if the person is not already here have taken but the army and actually more importantly i think again you've got to go back to look at the language there is no exceptions it's written the way it's written out of the legislature doesn't mean that then certainly and as you know made a mistake here then certainly they can correct it but it's after us to go beyond something that has no marshall it really says that is it's looking at what they discern to be the policy and said oh well you know in certain circumstances certainly wouldn't want to take in more than once but then again if something's happened and it's been expunged with them we would want to 's going with the one of the exception which is really provided for which is under this tension which is that there could be an expungement and when you look at the x there you know clearly there could be an expungement and if that happens you can imagine that ask and find out that it's most likely to be argued in march so they will be coming up very quickly and you know and we thank you for the argument today because but we feel it's important to look at this as a new and to realize that there is a reason really to hold it in advance not to follow  time and i would just say that there aren't even be a reason for doing that and the reason for doing that would be more to do with the find which is going to you know to and this to the fine is tied to the taking of the sample which certainly goes to this d n a database which is very say and i believe that when you look at subsection i too which says that if a sample is not adequate for any reason another sample can be ordered combined with the implementing regulations in which it ties the collection to the offender and says when a person becomes a qualifying offender not upon conviction of a qualifying offense and then also instructs agencies to only collect it if it hasn't been previously collected i think this begs the what next for you and him in light of just common sense that once a person's d n a is in the database it's home i absent circumstances that can be covered by a two i think that a single collection is appropriate and a single collection feet now you're gonna raise the concern about the expungement which was brought up in marshall but i believe that this is also covered with the state police is in charge of the database the state police they're the keeper of the records of a person's prior conviction if there is an expungement order they are where instantly whether there are other qualifying convictions they can either i think if this provision going to is broad enough they can either just sa transferring the label for this collection this is a d n a sample to qualify and conviction or they can sing to the defendant your sample is no longer good for whatever reason and we need a new one and i think those are circumstances that are providing the the the administrative code talks about as you said multiple samples are duplicative d n a samples who do use the