defense outside the home doesn't move users not restrictions on that but that's a response a starting point here this is the fun the constitutional right so that can alone serve as a basis to arrest someone  me was the outcome of this a foregone conclusion i mean i think it was when he said i stimulate you know whatever happened to mr graham is trials completely different evidence completely of the facts we stipulated to in this trial was the facts necessary for is not sufficient you have to tell them that the time with your injury into this bill to please you have the right to actually plead not guilty to go to trial to have a jury trial for this trial and the rest of the rights and that clearly didn't happen in this clear here that we have two completely separate proceedings all the language that counsel cites with regard to stipulating to the sufficiency of the evidence happened during what was essentially a scheduling conference that occurred prior to a recess and before the official trial commenced and it was at that scheduled conference that counsel made that statement he did say i will stipulate to the sufficiency evidence which would clearly implicate four o two emissions however he also told them that he wanted to discuss this matter with his client they weren't certain that they were going to proceed with the bench struck a stipulated bench trial that they were going to take this lunch break the parties were going to come back and then they were going to commence with the bench trial and that's exactly what happened and once the court all the parties in order and commenced the bench trial as the formal counsel says there's there's no need for this formality in his reply brief but the the definition for trial here is that it is a formal judicial examination of evidence and a determination of legal claims in an adversary cd so when the court calls as we're going to commence the bench trial if ten seconds earlier or one second earlier they were talking about something completely different perhaps another case had been call that's a sufficient amount of time because the court has called the parties to work he isn't gauged in the be you know what it would have counsel had said that and then like actually we're going to have a regular bench trial where they use that as evidence against him as a formal admission to the to the crime was not his that's not the proceeding and all the parties knew that's not the proceeding they were simply getting their ducks in a row so that they could proceed with the stipulated bench trial with regard to the adversarial nature you're ours and mention that i think by stipulating that the evidence that was presented were really with a legal with the see the bench probably dealing with almost a legal fiction here because all the parties recognize he had possession of these items after the probable cause determination made the motion to suppress was denied the whole case hinges on the motion to suppress it there were two separate motions suppress here and there was run through the gamut of the adversarial procedure were not concerned with the after effect because if he wins on the motion to suppress all the rest of it is irrelevant and that was the adversarial proceedings of stipulated bench trial as is often the case with simply used to preserve acres and in this case we had a and in the entire record it's clear the defendant maintained his innocence he persisted in that not guilty plea rule for up to admonish once a designated for guilty pleas we didn't advocate the plea here is different than the cases that counsel cited specifically i think it's campbell campbell as you would the jury waiver but it was mitchell i think in there was a written guilty plea that was entered into that case and then he filed a motion to withdraw and so later on it wasn't immediately apparent to the defendant were at least is to make sure that you understand these rights you're giving up it makes no sense because he persisted in his heels in his not guilty plea so he must have known the same is true with a jury trial he waived the jury one day earlier in a written jury waiver and then earlier in the same proceeding to control drug buys over the course of that same day the defendant enters the vehicle the officers observed one or two traffic violations they decide they're going to pull over the vehicle they pull over the vehicle one of the officers notices furtive movements on the part of the van and it looks like because this is a situation where you know this is a lingering over maybe from some other place like he was in the vehicle with the defendant it's often possible that they were both consumer with montgomery it's possible they're both consuming cannabis but with a rock and a like that's mission to search the vehicle at least we know we can search the vehicle when we search the vehicle what do we see in front of the defendants see the backpack the backpack that contains loose ammunition a gun and i think raw cannabis as well as a blunt and so the presence of the blunt creates a reasonable inference that perhaps they were smoking we don't know if it was burned or not but there was at least marijuana that could be concern not consumed not simply in a roll form but because that stuff was in the backpack directly in front of the defendant who the officer had already testified i saw him making furtive movements the state police have offered a database of forty partners to the police they have this information available counsel said that they were in a league search i do not recall the record whether it was the lead search or whether it was just they said they ran it through the system we don't have a record at our office of this an longer so i couldn't couldn't find it when i want to look i don't think it's dispositive anyway because again this name doesn't return in the system that's suspicious in and of itself to look further into the defendant however he gets out of the vehicle and then the officer observes again so we've got an officer who knows that criminal activity has been occurring he knows that this individual gave him a fake name and then he sees a hand of course he has to take the handgun off the guy in searching because who wouldn't in that in any situation where you're interrupting in well the way this information i don't know that i don't know that you could not be in the system if you have a driver's license or any id or no he wasn't but his name was a present so i think a reasonable lease officer could find that no i'm saying that system is in this is an extensive system that can i don't know that you could find an adult in the state of illinois who would not return an address of some form it's not just the system that contains criminal information it's a wide variety of information that's contained in there i' certainly the officer has a right to disarm this individual once he sees that gun because it's very unusual if someone is carrying a weapon to not let the officer know and i recognize that they're not required to say they have a gun but i think a normal person under these circumstances would say something when they're being asked to get out of the vehicle simply because they would want to let the officer you know believe that there was some alternative intention and i think it's also important aside from aguilar in the right for people to possess weapons outside the home nobody has the right to  this guy might be involved with something here he's got this gun and then they searched him after the fact but i think it's all all the information happened before the gun was scene that is sufficient to establish probable cause thank you one of the bad warrant it doesn't have to be simply evil misunderstanding of a president it can come up in a variety of different ways i think it comes up in the situation because the officers have this knowledge of all these different factors that are reaching probable cause and then they see this g even if they didn't realize that he had a right to possess this gun or that they couldn't search in simply by seeing a gun all those factors that you have to be a good faith exception is the officers you know they were clearly surprised when they saw you know one of the officers testify  and reacted i think that's a fair situation especially when you can really perform a search of the vehicle what if you find something and you didn't disarm this person it creates is a dangerous precedent for police officers so i think it was inevitable that they were going to do that no i did not say that because they i don't think they knew that thing that i said in the brief is that they said they ran his information through the system and because the system has available for cardholders that if they had run his name through they could have known they would have known he didn't have one because a twenty year old with a fifteen year sentence which is a mandatory on the hill essentially serve seven half years of i would also know that this court people believe he rejected the attempt by a defendant to try to bootstrapped miller harris argument into the appeal process when he never presented any evidence regarding is brain development in the trial court level on that there's no evidence for the court consider it was specially said bakker sense a hearing with no basis at all to determine whether or not this defendant would