trial a proceeding to disport strictly on the nose of peel which is the state points out the little ball and make her then rely simply on plane air and she would face waving several of the other sought there was really no basis i believe of record that would not require the trial court to demand that that sentence be served in the manner in which defendant throws that motion it's kind of stuff but it just doesn't i think there's has to be an exception to that in these circumstances otherwise i mean you're you're stuck between a rock and a hard place and that just a specially a police officer telling the jury that she was suspended that is certainly prejudicial to the defendant next he  noticed provided to the defendant he was simply being a rummy a century on the abstract and not of any of that and we believe and the people cite the people vs jackson case not for this argument for the argument that valid driver's license that was issued by the secretary of state as a record the problem was the secretary of state's office made an error in issuing that license because years prior he had his license and i believe you they revoked or suspended and did about a summary suspension i q i strictly defined it as a suspension and then we get into whether or not there was a conviction i believe by all the summer suspension is not counted as fish and there are certain proof requisites before that becomes enough that i experienced typically officer would either provide written notice at the time or within days following mail it to the different record on drive size that evidence was not presented trap or fact the only evidence presented at trial and that circumstance when that issue is called into play after the trial and the facts are presented that there is some evidence that notice was not provided that structure has to be right jury otherwise it's meaningless to have that provision in the law and then only if you don't have that instruction to the jury then defendant's testimony that she received did receive notice it is rendered meaningless in there they're  prepared the state and the proceedings before the officer testified i think it was detrimental to the defendant as well there was quite some contentious conversation about the witnesses familiar defendant and in fact i believe it was considered that the only time that the officer had any dealings with the defendant that the u i stop that was the underlying basis for the summary suspension  yet the trial judge wanted to make sure that no one brought that up and instructed the state and suggested that we go along with that the officer surely those the defendant as someone in the here that to provide the senate notice that she suspended but also provide her notice of her rights of c review of that in the search for and this particular circumstance she was able to see review of that by hiring counsel and not heard the hearsay testimony with respect to the two judge's admonition the judge gave the defendant a choice and the defendant postponed that choice for a while officially the judge just went ahead and a not in effect on that date we've what the defense is referring to is another abstract they tried to submit showing that the suspension had been rescinded subsequent to february twenty first two thousand and thirteen which under the factually speaking the whether the defendant is driving license driving privileges were suspended is a question that but the elements of the legal effect of the rescission that as a legal component to that this gets to the elements of whether this is an element of penance the the fact of the suspension is the sense and what the defense is trying to do you say that that the only should actually be that it's not just have the skirt but this is a limitation imposed on the officer and the prosecution don't bring out the fact that you busted or for the dui some months spec as to why to explain why you were suspicious that she was driving on suspension saw her that wasn't necessary but it seems to me that's an entirely appropriate thing to do with regard to the but i understand their offer booth babes is permitted this is what i intended to elicit from the officer we have that this record i don't believe so explicitly how are we supposed to reverse the trial court without th based upon your claim that it was improper to prohibit me from pursuing this whatever the offer proof was made in regard to the abstract and also if we did touch on the fact of the decision being as a result of the officer testifying three times under oath once with his certification to the secretary of state and in two separate hearings that he provided her  actually refusing the test she's saying she didn't get the notice who are you going to believe that the gentleman that stole the sport unequivocally three times that he heard her say that she refused to testify or the defendant to so i think that was very key and i believe the record would show in fact the defense severely limited on what she would be able to examine that officer about