of these units cases relatively straightforward whether the delay or failure to hold the summary suspension hearing within the thirty days is attributable to the state i think you for asking that question in the most simple ways or would be no but here's the reason why these some respect she was set for days thirty one of the petition that was thirty three days after the defendant was arrested so we have this very narrow time frame and i'll be the first one to say the recession statute and the rules of discovery are not a perfect fit  clock is ticking the moment somebody is arrested for a deal like i could compel my well first off i had to wait twenty eight days under the two fourteen rule before anything was right hearing was set for day thirty one from the date of my petition and to fourteen being requested there was seventy two hours frankly and within seventy two hours i couldn't give anybody proper notice of a motion to compel well you could make a phone call or an e mail and tool one k contemplates that kind of communication between lawyers to of state in the best of this case judge after waiting twenty days which i think everyone would agree there i have to wait if i hauled in day twenty nine i would have been told that they had already ordered the materials the problem wasn't my failure to call the problem was not my failure to have a tool one k the problem was we need twenty five days to order the video when they had three more days to comply six more days for here and as the calculation go they have offered zero reason for waiting twenty five to make a simple order for a video it's a checklist so what tronic does their diligence and lack of diligence make a difference here absolutely and how had they may even see it in the timeframe first this means at most thirteen days from the date of warner to the day to receive the video this means that had they ordered the video heavy delayed even two weeks and then ordered the video it would have been there for the year or they're just in there it took them thirteen days to obtain the video so going backwards since the entire as opposed to just a blanket statement of judge we didn't give it to a one time i'm going to say no one because in this case we did have essentially hearing about the effort the state had gone it could have been just as easy that the judge after they said yeah we're going to until september eighth to order that the judge would  minute i'm going off all my excuses after the ruling the time to explain why you have not been able to comply with discovery is during a conversation about who is going to be assigned the delay what if any additional sanctions may apply so their opportunity to tell us why already passed they forfeited their ability to offer there is no need for a hearing because that's giving them a second maybe there's a problem with the machines ability to detect or not detect know though it has happened before so it's natural step we saw it like a laundry list that really didn't matter this is was important to this particular individual case on the specific fact basis and going back and finding to the issue of the diligence i think it is not beyond this course capability to say if you take twenty five when i would say the silence constitutes an admission here while because the state's attorney didn't say i don't know why it took so long he didn't need the person it ordered the material so if he coming down the highway is a decision on whether or not the delays could be attributable to the state where the defended to me that silence in this particular set of facts makes is old mission phone and call me and say you know what we did we lost this piece of paper this is why i don't fly again don't have doctors to tell me you are correct however it goes both ways i've written with a petition you had a farting here i don't know the alcohol test result and the subsequent result is under those circumstances then would be a red flag that any knowledgeable attorney in the to and there's where we have some concessions it was material it was relevant i filed a brief all over the place accusing them of be dilatory diligent and they filed a brief that the fourteenth isn't that correct over the coffee ruling with respect to the options that you suggested and said we'll continue this case till the twenty first and give the state the opportunity to produce the material our office didn't have the file open these are very speedy time limits and everyone is kindness and i'm back and we're trying to comply as best as we can and the court recognizes that the state is asking for documents from another party that maybe haven't been created yet we were able to get almost everything for the defendant by the first forty eight there were only two items missing which we didn't object to and we said we will get those for you as soon as possible excuse me this is being turned over discovery by the first co a small continue but you didn't ask for a continuance you mansard ready on that date isn't that correct you didn't ask for a continuance to comply with discovery so that both sides could have a meaningful hearing correct we were ready to go at that point but we also acknowledge the defendant was entitled to those items and we were trying to get him if he wanted his court date of his hearing on the thirtieth day that day he would have to go forward perhaps asking for a continuance would have been a better answer but that doesn't really make sense either because it just kind of wants to go forward he could decide to go forward without those items or he could wait whether he's going to exercise his just question or not and he has discretion to give us mall amount of time to toll train or for that short amount of time prevented to get the documents that he wanted which he did by the next court date they weren't destroyed we got them to our he was able to have his hearing he pled guilty that day and this hearing occurred people who are at this time or a suspension going into a fact which is the purpose of the short time and those you're looking at generally i want to go on a ten because it's a minor amount of time there it's one hundred and twenty takes so like we look at battles we have the state waited eighteen days to deliver the evidence the crime lab one hundred in four days  doesn't sound like from the record of not knowing that the attorney knew and honestly didn't know it existed but he knew he could get it he just didn't indicate on the record that he thought he could get it seemed that he thought he could get it within seven days if there'd been a motion for sanctions maybe there would have been more information about why the state wasn't able to get it with time frame why we needed more time but that just didn't happen in this case it was a little more objecting we weren't going to come by we were going to get it to him and if the defendant could move for sanctions we may have had a more complete record about why all those documents weren't available w exercising that discretion in this case and it seems hard to say that no reasonable judgment would have made the decision to give the people a small amount of time to told trainer and to get those documents with the stick to the chance for a continu that is the gamesmanship and why do you think i'm here on an appeal of a six month suspension that ended either ago because in thirty years of practice there is not one be that as it may this is a case that regardless for the specifics of this particular case it's very narrow the facts are very very much in favor of