that it felt that its acceptance of the plea and the resulting in its eyes obviously lenient sentence was sufficient consideration for m here he refused to consider it further and i am not saying by making this argument that he has to consider in isolation from any other factors but we believe it was fair for him to refuse to authority to depart downward should not be made somehow mandatory just because it finds qualified cooperation but my point response to them is this when does that discretion  there are no further questions i think the point that we need to reckon with here years was there a downward departure motion greta two and one was one file we obviously have with regard to nomenclature five k versus rule thirty five of the motion was filed the motion is based on substantial assistance and assistance after we now know what the nomenclature should be in that motion the reality of the matter here yes that a motion for downward departure it was file objection are you going to look at it in terms of plain air if you are worse the question there is even the defense counsel then the second issue then both indicate that the departure is discretion it's up to the judge to determine whether or not that it affects the settings whether or not the judge should reduce the sentence in this case there's no question the judge realized what he knew he could go down he simply said you've got enough of a break here i don't think that i should reduce based on the substantial assistance that's my discretion i'm exercising it in that fashion if you buy into the defendant's argument you turn the discretionary language  under either standard under either provision and we've got to be careful not to go right into that statute that if the judge finds there substantial assistance then he must down the statute says if you find substantial assistance to us that's the first thing you have to have that but once you have that then you the judge decide what the appropriate steps should be and whether or not judge for this reason this is somewhat of an unusual case because of the bargain that was made up front if such a significant break it's unusual in that respect  i'm going to accept plea agreement i think that's enough in this particular case of course that's the judges that's the role of the judges to decide the sums and to exercise discretion and whether or not  i'm not going to discretion that's what we're talking about here because of the statute based on its language is what we're talking about here we're talking about a discretionary decision on the part of the judge prosecutor's standpoint when we're dealing with the fans council and defense council is dealing with us we don't know what kind of relief we're actually going to be asking for we've got guidance now from washington  but we want post cooperation or sense cooperation if we need it for example let's suppose we have the situation and let's pose mr glasgow and come to some  of speak and you give him cooperation under five for information he's given up to the time of his sentence and if he testifies against mr after sentence then the only remedy for constitutional rights in his missions before this court the first concerns his rights under the fourth amendment and not only the initial traffic stop whereby he was apprehended but there by a series of properly license if you will because ali had to determine was that sticker was identifiable and it had not expired and his argument was argument before the trial court that any have the point is that they didn't wait two very long and then they went on a fishing expedition after the fall in congress residence and when they got out there of course we get to the issue of plainfield and  does it change my home as well the court through a negative if you will inculpatory and friends and i say that's just good a good citizen saying one of my doing here when you sign a legal document as important can turn my vehicle around with my lights activated follow the vehicle for approximately one block observe no back plate on the vehicle but get i've served a temporary sticker which i could not rea of the vehicle shouldn't have had both it could have either one or the other on it and i also observed that the front plate was expired so that was my reason for the stock let me very briefly go to a couple provisions in montana law which would prove that the officer was justified in making the stop first of all it says that when he said transfer of ownership and other words when you put that several the sticker on that's a sign something's wrong this officer is out there of ten o'clock at night he sees a car coming out of the next fire place he turns around and it's also got a temporary sticker on it that's inconsistent with montana law something is them what did he do defense counsel would like you to believe that when he walked up he saw the sticker and he saw that the state was consistent with the time frame in other words the expiration date on the temporary sticker somewhere in march and this was february saw back in defense counsel's mind and what they want to persuade you to believe is that based on that observation everything is all right and he should have simply turned maybe something was wrong the stickers in the name of cindy converse the driver cindy there's obviously a female name the driver's a male it's a logical place we're ok we have an expired plate let's run it let's call dispatcher and find out about it see if they match the temporary suspect well what happens in the instance instantaneously there is he receives notification officer to do circuit i see your driver's license your registration information your proof of insurance by law in  certainly has the ability to ask related questions who are you let me see the ownership documents for this vehicle let me see your driver's license so i can sort this out there's something wrong here this plate in the front belongs to a different car this temporary sticker is here if the temporary sticker is here this place should not be here who are you and what is your relationship to this car and that's what the officer did in asking those asked who are you and very obviously determined that he was getting answers which were not any no i don't have a driver's license my date of birth is this no less this two different dates of birth that is the sequence that happens out on the street that sound police work as an object of faces to make us stop the questions are reasonably related to the stop and the questions about registration end he makes the stop somewhere and looking at that vehicle and asking the person who he was in preparation to resolve the discrepancy he gets a notification that the plate doesn't match that car  but let's look at every isolated fact and take it out of the totality picture and look at it individually and say it doesn't establish probabl didn't even mention the gun that's a tool of the trade of the drug or counsel said that the little baggies with a little bit of residue suggest personal use multiple with residue suggests dealer drug dealer and the angle the lopez case decided by the circuit drug dealers house is a logical place to look for the drug dealing i submit to you that a person who comes back out on a traffic  as one who is locked away from a controlled substance manufacturing violation further bolsters probable cause that not only will drugs be found in that house but evidence of manufacture will be found in that house coupled with the fact that you had methamphetamine odor at that house one final point i see my lights on there is no legal proposition which says that an officer cannot go and knock on a door at one o'clock in the morning to investigate a crime and i would ask you not to establish that legal principle by giving any merit to the argument that the officers did something wrong when they went out to talk to cindy converse after she said she would come in and never show up knowing  there and she's really deleon about this doesn't apply to my house she keeps trying to change the conversation had been hit by a car there was a bit to my knowledge there's only one car she says i'll be down she doesn't show so they go out the order that's production i think that's not proper you need to look at the evidence and seen the playing field they have one for the point on my frank's motion that is there is a serious problem with the transcript in the