constitutional due process issue and then the other issue is whether this court would then address any other remaining issues and i'm going to address those two independently trying to solve them  know the court's schedules and law enforcement schedules and other matters incident to the orderly transition legislation and in this case instead of ensuring that mr dunbar had a proper hearing filed a motion to strike and there being no authority for the state's attorney's position on that the trial court inexplicably granted the motion to strike the court suggested that the filing of the form thirty days and the brief filed by the state of public prosecutor acknowledges and it is entitle to rescission of the summer suspension hearing of his driver's license because this rescission hearing was not held within thirty long time this courthouse sits on the corner of sheriff street and hill street cherry i don't know if they're named after these gentlemen but it certainly feels like you're being home when but anyway even though the state conceded the the rescission should happen that doesn't entirely end the issue the state filed a petition or motion to file a supplemental brief to address the issue of move this and in doing so actually did readdressed a concession on another issue and suggested that mister backed away from the concession i guess  said that if the defendant only raises whether he refused or not whether he was warned or not those who are grounds he gets the thirty days but the arc of was that if you raise this constitutional issues such as the fourth amendment then due process doesn't of bias for reasons please be backwards for me it seems that if you're raising a fourth of i mean that it runs right in the face of people be proved or which says you absolutely get to raise fourth amendment issues at support that position and krueger says that it's not and then we turn to the issue of move this move this actually comes up twice in this oral argument move this one on the issue of  said i believe the second district says we recognize that an argument could be made that this is mute he didn't say that it actually is moot but says if it is we're still going to  rescission is appropriate the second issue is and i recognize that this is a much more difficult issue is does the court then have any reason to address any of the other issues that were  it and i recognize that however there is an exception that's recognized and that is just so i don't lose my train of thought on this there was the the that the traffic stop based tinted windows at night by an untrained officer not trained on the issue of attempted windows and the evidence in that was not from other sources it was evidence from the officer himself on his training you have the forty five minute and reasonable bill a this is coming from any other sources this is from uncontroverted from the officers themselves and then you have the slightest issue where the second officer shows up to redo field sobriety tests has the ability to preserve the tape realized he hasn't realized that he has forty day forty hours to then fix that mistake and chooses to not preserve this video so those are the issues that are absolutely public officers who go by reporting traffic stops and know that there's a law that says they sure that's a those are matters of public nature clearly at least down where i practice you know christian county and then the third on that is the likelihood of a future recurrence and this isn't going to be the last time that there's a fourth amendment violation and not the last time that an officer doesn't record a traffic stop so these are matters that the court a defendant did not have a timely hearing and there's a wrong and the remedy here is much he gets to fifty back and you get something removed from his record do you like a system in in under these unusual circumstances where the court can craft a rule and say that we are going to address these other issues to to the matter public concern this is a matter that is likely to continue and i've briefed that on why this corollary of the matter that likely to continue and prosecutors and defense attorneys we all need guidance from and all those four issues noted above no i am cognizant of the fact that that the state has argued that judge cherry ruled that she didn't even make her private facia case you didn't ship and the theory is that well had had you shifted the burden then the state could have put on some additional evidence but practically realistically and honestly speaking this wasn't a situation where i called mr dunn liar and didn't shift the burden so the state doesn't need all its traffic officers my evidence came all the evidence is undisputed and came directly from the officers so this court has everything in front of it that it needs to to to rule on any number of those issues before and and as i briefed i think you are all very the evidence then just after just over a week after the filing the summary suspension lapsed and according to subsequent representations the defendant's license has since been reinstated so it seems and the question before the court now is whether th any one or more of the various fourth amendment grounds for recision that you argue with somehow serve to have sort of race judicata or other imperative fact on the underlying criminal prosecution however there are multiple problems with the defendant's defendant has provided no authority nor can i find any authority that a favorable ruling in a civil fields such as this would have can in any way affect the underlying prosecution third even if this court does reach the mare's the state would respectfully submit that the finally and perhaps most importantly you know even if this were to reach the merits and even if the defendant were to prevail on any water more of the fourth amendment grounds for recision that really mean that he had  presented a prime fasc case for recision meaning that he had produced some evidence of a fourth amendment violation will even if you have produced some evidence of a fourth amendment violation that doesn't mean that it's sufficient evidence to prevail at a subsequent suppression hearing which seems to be where these arguments  ultimately i i just don't believe that even a favorable ruling on any of the fourth amendment grounds for recision can have any impairing sort of in any sort of carry effect on the underlying criminal prosecution nor could it otherwise have a direct impact on that this was an untimely hearing and not backing off the concession at all really i was just trying to explain and i hope it was clear at least to this court that you know given the fact that i believe if i'm not mistaken i think three of the four grounds that he asserted forth never grounds for given that those were you know non statutory and given that you know the this whole statutory scheme is really based on the on limiting grounds and here we're going outside of that now i'm not at all suggesting that that in any way actually as a matter of law justifies the time here and certainly not all i'm really trying to suggest were frankly just to be clear what i was doing was addressing counsel's assertion that this was someone scrupulous you know how collated tactic by you know the reasonable action and certainly not indicative of any sort of again it was an air it was an error i can see that but i'm i'm really just trying to point out that this was not any calculated tactic to due process which i think was the basically the claim from the defendant who we really don't know or we certainly don't know i just think that factually you know perhaps it was i don't really know what was going on below course but i just think that actually given the circumstances the pleadings that he faced i think he was just doing really the the request for a continuance i mean there in mind this was based on the presumption of validity of the trial court's ruling right so the the the state files a motion to strike the court grants it i believe it probably had based on my research anyhow and based on the presumption ability of that ruling the state reasonably believed it had thirty more days it requested a continuance of the matter within that new thirty day period which given that the motion was improbably granted the hearing was that ultimately held just outside the thirty day period so again i think that there were just some mistakes made below but i really don't think that it's necessarily fair to attribute any sort of concession that it did appear that the hearing was in time now with respect to the exceptions to move us you know based on my based on my reading of the of the briefing and i could be mistaken but it seemed like the defendant's arguments that the cases not move were more directed at the basically the sport's ability to reach the fourth amendment grounds where they comes to the actual exceptions to moon as it  seemed as if the defendant kind of shifted gears so to speak and then focus those more on reaching the end timeliness frowns any event he argues that two of the three exceptions to move to supply that being the public interest exception consequences exception now for the the public interest exception requires the defendant to make a clear showing of all three different criteria and those include that the question is of a public nature that there is a need for future guidance and that the issue is likely to reoccur now as to the first one that it's a question of public nature this that this requires a defendant to clearly establish that the issue is either a sufficient breath or that it has a significant effect on the public as a whole and here we're in my opinion we're dealing with quite narrow and isolated circumstances which are just addressed of basically this confusion that happened below as to the trial courts you know erroneous phrasing of the motion to strike and then the  request to continue the matter which happened and ultimately being just outside the thirty day period and so based on the narrow and isolated nature of these facts i believe that this is not a question of sufficient breath or that has a significant effect on the public as a whole such that the first criterion is disposed of and similarly i think that that would also dispose of the third criterion that this is a factual situation or an issue that's likely to reoccur and then so that in a i just i disagree that this is a matter that we really need guidance on because frankly it seems that the law was quite clear at least in my assessment that the state has a duty to ensure that this hearing is held within thirty days of the defendant properly filing his request for a hearing again mistakes were made below but nonetheless it seems that the last quite clear on that point and so i don't believe that the defendant is able to make a clear showing as to all three of these criteria as required now with respect to the collateral consequences exception this applies where the defendant has suffered an injury that's traceable to the state and it's likely to be redressed by a favorable decision you know initially the defendant just basically asserted that this exception of five about really explaining or giving any specific examples which i point out in which i pointed out my event of a subsequent arrest allegations of increased the possibility of increased insurance rates or difficulty finding a job or difficulty getting a pilot's license now first of all it's not real i don't believe it's really  are political in this case and even if as to this particular defendant and even if they are the defendant has not provided any authority that these are indeed accepting the lateral consequences that justify application of the exception but this court really needs to only address the timeliness of the hearing which again we've been seated because it appears that there's really no value in rendering a decision on the fourth amendment grounds of why that that's where maybe creatively maybe the fact that i'm not here very often is why i came up with that corollary to this published public interest exception is that under these unique approached is to say normally we would not address two issues because one of them is good enough that's enough but in this situation we are going to address why there were these fourth amendment already granted recognizing the fourth amendment issues are facts pacific the piece that makes it unique is that we are addressing the senate way and then once you get there your right to answer that question i think that if i was not a trial counsel i wouldn't be able to answer that bullet but having that trial counsel the facts are the facts there's two witnesses to and officers there's extensive testimony on this issue there are no other witnesses that could be called and perhaps the ruling is this is all there is if these are the only facts there are then we're addressing the fourth amendment issues in the class issue if there is something else then addressed in the summer suspension and i completely recognize that i'm asking for some you