of a controlled substance containing cocaine and sentenced to four and a half years in the idea of c there is one issue on appeal it's a fourth amendment argument addressing the denial of this track in its motion to suppress i think it's important at the outset understand what exactly justified police intervention in this case the officers in this case testified that they tended to initiate a traffic stop mr act is after seeing him commit improper lane usage they activated their lights and apparently just as in just before mr jenkins was pulling into a gas station they did not turn on the sirens they were not in uniform they did not announce their office and as they approached they did not give it really reasonable how many people would be wired away for the question whether it's reasonable i think you know i don't know if it's possible for civilians to get kids to convert their cars at it for that purpose but the point is this is this question has been decided in other courts and this simply wasn't playing in the looting which was sensibly the justification for the u s what we're left with then is a custodial harass for improper lane usage and that's important  which is what the basis of the trial court's order the nine motions press was now the officers in this case essentially testified that the real reason that they searched the car was because they had a subjective belief that there was contraband in the car that's  that's the classic example of a service rendered on reasonable for lack of probable cause a hunch a subjective belief cannot support a full search of anonymous feel the trial court done probable cause and supposedly  repeatedly checking his review mirror as they were driving behind him now are cases in illinois say that a furtive gesture in the car is not enough to support probable cause the first of just three will only support probable cause in situations where it's accompanied by other factors that also give rise to probable cause i'm provoked flight from police also does not support probable cause that is a classic example of reasonable suspicion contention in this case is that the police clearly there was suspicion in this please that in this case in clearly that that suspicion is reasonable but they did not rise to the level under or faces a probable cause and i don't believe that monitor their position as they were traveling and dish way the police officers that testified that the reason that they found it suspicious was because they and their car are well known peoria for being police officers they also testified that they had no idea who mr adams was they didn't know him they were familiar with and they didn't run this place before they stopped him they did not know that he was from the euro area any suspicion i possesses a reasonable belief that the subject is dangerous and might gain in media control of weapons and it's the immediate control that brings this out of the terry long situation long that the fatal flaw in a good deal of the state's argument in terms of the merits in this case the state's pretense to justify the search with terry long cases such as rodriguez when those cases clearly don't in reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it was reasonable to expect to find evidence of the crime of arrest in the car and if the crime of arrest that brings this out of arizona began because again the only thing that supported the rest at legally in this situation was improper lane usage this was not playing in a looting and the police officers knew or should have known that it wasn't planning and looting and so the question becomes is it reasonable to expect to find evidence of improper lane usage inside the passenger compartment of the car and i do not believe that as a reasonable assumption that because there's no theory available to support the search the cocaine in the car has to be suppressed then the question becomes whether the other hash cocaine in the case which was found in his dragon's apartment must also be suppressed and that following consent but in a post miranda supposedly consensual search that question becomes whether the police used the fourth amendment by a nation to gain sense and in this case i think it's clear that they had the ox's specifically testified that they only pursue consent to search the apartment because the lack of a post from motion in terms of that argument we have cases that have excused forfeiture in these situations in which the only mistake made was that the  hadn't was talking about all of the cocaine and had intended to move on to the cocaine found in the apartment at one of the initial question the argument alleging that both men and violation in short  you can't divorce that those two issues the issue of the the for the boys is free from the fourth amendment violation because you have to have a violation to apply the doctrine to and it's unreasonable to ask the attorney to move on the fruit prosecuting attorney and have pressed your mention in passing a gesture and that preserves the argument that is not what the law requires a lot of fires that you preserve whatever they ar is you can't just say hey i'm intended or you can infer from my conduct or what the argument should eventually be that this is what i intended to and therefore it's  the far as and what your defense is going to be you can say well i'm raising this defense but you should have known that my other differences were there but the fact that it was the first point i don't have to raise the other things that's not the apartment and suggested that well ok i lost the initial i've lost the initial argument i love the stuff therefore i don't have what he says the other the other cocaine issue is is just  they believe that they that he was bleeding from them because they got back in the car and she's them chasing them that's left they fled exactly so they stop and they jump out of the cars and they do what they do and trial court but even if this court doesn't accept that if there's any merit to this argument that this was in fact this is the assistance of counsel not one that is why it wasn't for for the he because there are cases that have it's used for future in situations in which the defendant brought and litigated the issue to the trial court another in other words for filled all of the purposes of the forfeiture rule  other than the filing of the motion to to avoid forfeiture it's it's not it's not as it's not a statement that that motion is the end merits of the issue here in terms of the merits starting with the uniform in this case there was testimony about uniforms and the officers testified that they were not in uniform they  plain clothes they knew they were playing those and the the problem is contrary to what counsel had argued a moment ago they didn't need reasonable suspicion of language of the sashing the feeling of the living statue tells us and and as it's been interpreted by other other courts in illinois precludes prosecution for even the looting against  the uniformed officers that's even with the lights and frankly even with if they turn on the sirens that you cannot clean the loo from a plainclothes police officer and as we discussed before there's good reason for that notice that these were police officers and thus when he fled he was committing fleeing in a looting or at the very least they had probable cause because again it has to be probable cause to believe that he was fleeing and looting the officer must be in uniform shall be in uniform and whatever the limits of the uniform requirement are they're not it they're not in question here these police officers explicitly testified we are not in uniform  i would also point out going time is up that that there were no findings of fact in terms of the circumstances of the stop this is the trial court explicitly or at least purposely avoided making any sort of it's and ultimately the argument that you know the smile means that you knows who they are and doesn't care if he didn't care or they are why did he stop at the stop sign why did you not