and in light of the order oh that is are there are there cases that actually discuss what constitutes probable cause to make out a violation of an ordinance not to be found or honored certainly not case for that proposition they cite the city of chicago the powell case but all that stuff it says nothing about probable cause it only indicates that soliciting a lawful business is a valid offense and the people can be arrested for it it doesn't indicate and  five one person to the other like an invitation was there more needed but the important thing here what's interesting about drug cases since that's what they were clearly going after here is that there are standard classic condition of drug activity that we've seen store any so we don't have to put this this ordinance allows for a solicitation that's that's so i'm asking you know neither side seems to look at any of these other cases  distinct from the scenario of just discourse you describe there you have a group of people who i believe in your scenario are clearly engaged in prostitution and you have someone approaching them attempting to navigation the question is the person thinking that he would be soliciting even th night i think that might be closer than this case your honor because again the lack of standard drug and disha i think are very important because we tend to see that here the officer said that they were going to this area to observe drug activity and the fact that none of these standard classic  were present should have given them pause even if they heard him say throat throat once maybe that led them to suspect that something was going on but then they should have looked around consider the fact that he doesn't have any actual drugs or drug paraphernalia he's not gauging  transactions they pursued straight to a full blown warrantless arrest in this case and the state pretty much concedes that that's correct but they do not argue otherwise and officers hate people's testimony in any case strongly indicates that this was an arrest here  whether mr grant's uttering drove through a single time constitutes probable cause even when you consider the officers testimony concerning his experience with the term whether he's credible or not does not establish that this is enough to execute a full blown warrantless arrest and we can see there might have been reasonable suspicion here in light of the officers experience he might have had reason to wonder if maybe something was going on however that would only have allowed them to make for their observations are they could even have detained transaction there simply was no probable cause in this case yours whether it's through violation of this ordinance or for any other we just don't have enough here all he did was say throw throw a single time to a single passing car and  observation of an individual yelling rocks and blows to see what develops that's pressure and that's exactly what you know that should be done in this case and that certainly could does suggest that more is required than simply th lies in words alone that certainly our position your honor and if they were concerned that some sort of illegal activity was going on there was nothing stopping them from waiting and observing the situation longer just to see what develops but they didn't do that in this case they simply jumped the gun before they do most ordinance concern themselves with public matters as opposed to private matters so i'm not sure that standing in a public way says anything other than the obvious irrelevant if this ordinance itself that's why but it is generally don't concern themselves with matters done in private right so i don't know why standing in a public way would say anything other than  that the city of chicago should go about arresting everyone who yells out rocks close and take them into custody without any evidence of illicit substance on their person well every time anyone who uses those words the city of chicago or the chicago police department has the right to arrest these individuals and pick them off the street when it's said for the purpose of soliciting on  how the city should not have to wait until an actual violation of real criminal law occurs and then arrest the suspect is there some problem with that statement not words it's like saying there really wasn't right here so but they can and they should have to wait for that to occur and yet they're saying it did occur that make any  that solicitation has to be or prostitution i'd like to think so you're up in this particular case there's more than just the words so it would be a different case if all that happened was a man going up as the example was earlier and said which she charges we have the of the business that he is gauging and you can not i would suggest use the same words as meaning as satisfying both and to the extent that we need something else i'm not sure that there is anything else in you to say about that leads by but that's the weak spot in the mind of the officer if it's that weak spot in the mind of the he was talking about in this instance you know we have no doubt that the officer knew exactly what he was talking about there's no question about that is pure in question is whether it was legally sufficient for a court to say that was enough to value where the nature of the goods or services is i'm off we don't have any evidence of an exchange here not a single bit do we nor that requirement of probable cause means that the officer has enough information to believe reasonably that a crime was committed and that the offender committed that crime now we have a definition of unlawful business awful business in exchange we don't have an exchange here do we still supplying that intact but i'm lawful exchange or unlawful business is fully defined here it tells us it has to be an exchange it doesn't say it's let you know not limited to it specifically defines it as an exchange can we have probable cause to solicit when we have no evidence of an exchange he didn't walk up to he didn't put  probable cause of a violation of that ordinance requires a whole lot less and how far class are we going to get we are there's no caseload indicate that that's the case and the intrusion on mr grant the situation is the same in any situation  we don't have any evidence showing an actual transactions we don't have him engaged in any of the classic conditions of a drug dealing activity to be out there the state wants to offer additional information but that additional information is in the mind of officer not in the officers if they're going to look for drug dealing activity they should have been on the lookout for classic conditions of drug activity such as actual transactions running or discarding objects in the police approached the fact that none of that happened in this case strongly indicated that whatever mr grant was