have ten minutes for their argument the opponent will also have five minutes you'll see the digital timekeeping device on my screen when time has expired to hit the gavel please remember only the clerk of the court is permitted to record these proceedings today dollars slash four fourteen dollars the defendant filed a motion to dismiss arguing limited immunity a hearing was held on that motion and the trial court found in order dismissing the charge finding that the defendant bowl had the burden of proving she was entitled to limited immunity and that she in fact did the state filed this timely appeal the state raises just one issue on appeal that the defendant made no showing of seeking or obtaining medical assistance which would trigger the limited statutory immunity and the evidence supports the opposite conclusion this issue requires a mix standard overview the interpretation of a statute presents a question of law subject to denote overview but challenges to the trial court factual findings will be only reversed if not be charged or prosecuted if that charge was acquired as a result of the person seeking or obtaining a mergence the medical assistance at the hearing on the defendant's motion to dismiss the state presented testimony from nancy schneider the owner of the property and aunt of a potential overdose victim lauren gibson she was the one who called nine hundred and eleven miss rice net or she testified that gibson appeared to be overdosing and so she told her she was going to call later she was fine but proceeded to get into the passenger seat of a car with the defendant driving rife's niner testified that she had told the dispatcher that they were fleeing kurt st clair county sheriff's department testified he was made aware of the call about a potential overdose and that the car was heading west on north belt eversmann testified that north to the west intersects with route fifteen where another officer deputy calvin savage was following the car the police affected us it will miss and safety check pulled the car over eversmann testified that he observed heroin on the passenger seat heroin on the driver's seat and floorboard hypodermic needles on the passenger and backseat floorboards and heroin on the back seat floorboard further when the defendant exited the driver seat three pills were noticed by the officers one on the driver's side floorboard eversmann testified that gibson was coherent but had testified he did not recall anyone in the vehicle mentioning anything about seeking medical treatment he testified that memorial hospital is one point six miles from the residence where rice neither made the call where the victims  potential victim insurance from and that two ship regional hospital was it five thousand nine hundred bond avenue and that the old st elizabeths was open at the time it would have been closer than to shout essentially eversmann provided  location of three hospitals two of which were closer than two shut deputy calvin savage then testified that he had been following the car and around fifteen that no one in the vehicle mentioned anything about trying to get to a hospital  go to a hospital or seeking medical treatment anyway savage testified at the time of the vehicle stop it was on highway fifteen that double memorial hospital was nearby but the vehicle was heading away from the hospital investigator kevin koe curry testified he conducted a recorded interview with the defendant after she was placed under arrest her testified the defendant told him she had no idea where they were going only that others in the vehicle wanted her to head towards the highway coker testified the defendant never mentioned anything about heading toward the hospital seeking medical attention for herself or any occupant of the vehicle and specifically coker except the defendant said she had no idea where they were going and this was borne out in the the conviction they held that section four hundred and fourteen did not apply because the evidence of the defendant's drug possession was not acquired as a result of the defendant seeking or obtaining emergency medical assistance and they said even otherwise the statute would not extend immunity to the defendant because the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on evidence that was not obtained as a direct result of the defendant seeking or taining emergency medical assistance in other words the court said defendant is not entitled to munity under the plain language of section four hundred and fourteen and even if she were the section would prohibit the extension of the immunity because the police had probable cause to arrest her based on information they acquired before she obtained emergency medical assistance the temper court gives us an example of a situation where the statute would clearly apply so section four hundred and fourteen b would clearly apply to a situation in which two friends are using drugs together one friend overdoses and the other friend calls for emergency medical assistance the statute allowing the friend to make the call without the fear that he or she will be charged with drug possession as a result provided that the specific requirements  ding the amount of drugs were met here the police were called because a car whose occupants appeared to be fleeing and they were called not by the defendant but by right schneider from a residence according to one witness and they left the residence with one or more of its passengers actively overdosing vehicle was stopped for a safety check on the truck or found there is nothing illegal about the stop officers immediately observed drugs strewn around the interior of the vehicle they observed at least one individual in the back seat who was  responsive unlikely overdosing despite this unrebutted evidence demonstrating that she never claimed to be seeking medical assistance the trial court concluded that section five hundred and seventy such forward for applied the trial court's order states the defendant was driving in the direction of two shot hospital which is known for its drug detox program and she was seeking medical attention for the passenger suffering from an overdose but there's simply no evidence of either the defendant heading to that specific ospital other than the fact that she was on a route that could ultimately end up at that hospital as opposed to simply driving it cheryl direction when she was questioned let me ask this question you and that not only did the evidence to the testimony presented by the state you know overwhelmingly prove that she was not seeking medical assistance but that she presented no evidence to show anything to the contrary so even if the burden had been on the state to prove that she was not says opposed to the defendant to chair the qualified immunity that the state would have still proven that she was not seeking or any medical assistance she didn't show an express or even inferred intent seek medical assistance for the passenger or knew by her own testimony in the video when she was interviewed by investigator kirk she said she would know where she was going she was listening to other people in the backseat  her it is possible your honor but we don't know nobody inside out what they were saying there is not and as the defendant will point out in their answer brief that there were interviews conducted with two of those are but they're not part of the record they were not admitted at the hearing and so the state would maintain that they're not relevant to this analysis at this point your honor thank you ok so for the foregoing reason the people respectfully request this court reversed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing the o'connor i'm an assistant a public defender at the office this datapoint defender air present miss catherine o'malley in this matter this case involves a very important statute one that is designed to save lives no one should ever have to decide between seeking life saving emergency assistance for someone experiencing you know overdose helping law enforcement render the proper aid to save someone's life or going to present for possessing a small amount of drugs here after the trial court held a hearing and heard the facts and evidence the court made the reasonable finding that therefore it description affirmed the trial court's decision in this case the trial court was in the best position to consider this matter and make credibility findings and the trial court's decision of immunity is supported by the facts as the state pointed out miss o'malley gibson and revived her at that point right schneider who's gibson's aunt came to the home saw it was going on and stated she was going to call for medical assistance and miss o'malley decided that because gibson seemed to that she came back to the situation she could leave me so now i do not encourage anybody to come with her however raney gibson brooks and allen all rushed to the current do not leave without us as a state pointed out the only reason that missile mally was pulled over was because of the ninety one call that right schneider initiated and officers are not observed any inherent traffic violations or any other reason to call her over so here at the state focuses on two points of why the trial court's decision is against the manifest we have evidence however both of these arguments fail first wellness somehow i did not state when the so now is stated she did not know where she was going it does not mean that they were not going to the hospital the trial court made a credibility finding here after hearing all the evidence and the courts inference that mr malley had intention to help her passengers is supported by the record as your honor pointed out mr malley was being directed by her passengers on where to go and th statements are not included in the record even though counsel did attempt to include those that that motion was never heard unfortunately and they were heading in the direction of the hospital which is known for its drug detox program to sho k the state nd argument is that miss o'malley was actually heading in the opposite direction of the closest hospital however this argument is weak these all three hospitals are thin we're within minutes apart of each other and there's evidence that to shut regional hospital is known for its drug detox program so in a situation where the passengers know that there are two people presumably experiencing an overdose and there's a hospital known for its tribe detox program that would be the best program officers were asked this question however they just stated that their job was to take drug abusers to jail and not to treat them and they were just going to the closest hospital and ambulances were the ones that would need decision that the defendant herself never made a statement or testified as to she knew that one was better than the other further detox program no your honor the only evidence of what mr malley was intending and the situation was in that interview and she just stated that she did not know where they were going and the passengers behind her were directing her and everybody was yelling and freaking out however again and the court made reasonable inferences here and was in the best position to consider this evidence in the trial court is presumed to know the law from hearing that miss o'malley provided gibson c t r they were heading in the direction of t shirt regional hospital the trial court's findings are reasonable here and the state has failed to meet its high burden of showing that the court's findings are unreasonable evidence the purpose of the statute again is to save lives no one should ever fear seeking emergency medical attention when a life is at risk and we never want to discourage people from getting help in these situations and the state's nar reading does not go with the purpose and spirit of the statute as the state discussed tepper is one of the cases that has precedent in this situation and a clear example of when this statute does not apply and there's another case people versus marco which is a clear example of when the statute does apply as the state pointed out in temper the police had independent probable cause the defendant committing a traffic violation which clearly the legislature intended to bar this protection because of that situation and nobody was actively seeking help for the defendant it was two people completely unrelated who went to officers in call nine hundred and eleven said hey there somebody passed out walking traffic on the other hand  it was a situation where there were two friends doing drugs together one started to experience an overdose and the other one commenced c p r and call nine hundred and eleven after the ambulance arrived and the defendant was seeking medical attention he asked the officer to go and get his wallet and the officer found the drugs which were subject to the charge that he was charged with and the court held that the trial court's grant of immunity was proper in that situation and the markham court specifically held this is on paragraph twenty of the case that in order for the act to work and save lives those witnessing or experiencing an overdose must have immediate an absolute assurance that the courts will uphold the provisions of the act prohibiting prosecution for items observed by st responders at the scene after being s  to that location to prevent a death by overdose and here the trial court reasonably infer that miss o'malley was seeking emergency medical help for her passengers this furthers the spirit of the statute and the state  the trial court heard all of the facts and ruled that mr mallock should have limited immunity from prosecution for this charge this was a reasonable decision and it is not against the manifest weight of evidence do you have any other questions i'd just like  idea that other defendant was seeking medical attention it's relevant here to know that the defendant is not the one who called nine hundred and eleven when the defendant and miss gibson were made aware that ninety one lead merges the medical services were potentially on the way they left clear that the defendant was doing anything to assist him also this is the state would just point due course thank you thank you your