had this case but the car was parked in the middle of private property somebody's front yard was not related in any way to the driver arrest on private road but it's blocking a tractor trailer truck who needs to get out of there suppose it's mercedes benz in a very high crime neighborhood well you are and then and there and regard t things must happen one all reasonable efforts to provide the vehicle driver with alternatives to a pow and have been unsuccessful in other words you have to see if they can have an alternative or that is impractical due to time or staffing constraints in the evidence to support that there were no other officers available to to stay with the car if it had been significantly longer all the other officers had to go to their duty stations further investigation needed to be done in the case it was late the it was a high crime neighborhood so the officer didn't want to leave the car for any length of time that's there and as i think that card referred to it was a tractor trailer driver who needed a lead don't all those facts indicate that that the impracticality  wasn't parked there he left it to go to the r v and was arrested on his way to the r v and it certainly wasn't abandoned other words this isn't a case where someone just leaves their car and it's sitting there and the police come across it or a property owner calls and says hey there's this random car in my property i mean this situation seems to squarely fall into subsection six i agree but when you speak to look at the language of the driver continuation of the sentence starting and so the way it reads is vehicles may be towed under the following circumstances dot dot dot when the owner driver start when the driver of such a vehicle the vehicle refers to the vehicle to referring to for all of the policies and says you know to have a cause of action you must do a b and c these are independent bases in which to tell a card you can tell if it one happens or two happens or it's three happens and if that's the case then how do you fix a corporation trust of the family in this case yes your honor however those are two different things well i understand but i'm merely asking that question so we know that there was a trust relationship we also know that the client you have an adult with a child who gained the trust of the mother for a sick mother and who provided for that family with clothes with food and shelter who then takes that child for a ride you don't think that the adult has supervisory control under those circumstances a you don't think we can we don't think we can infer that under the circumstances in other words there needs to be an express statement of so and so and trusted so and so with the care of a child that has to be where does it say that in the guideline of the commentary is the right so if you agree that it abandonment and of policy is a vehicle that's been disposed on public property and so i think that's why you're in the paragraph they make the distinction that because we're talking about private property the policy is recognizing that you required to comply with this particular provision in addition to or or the substitute for subsection that he has i think the proper interpretation of part is it is one that they're referring to a vehicle that has no disposable and no identifiable owner and is important position as some parked on private property and that that is that is how i should be interpreted and when you consider the context of the flashing abandon and come he made the argument that that should applied to him and that's why he should be given a chance to towed but the owner agent doesn't refer to the owner agent of a vehicle you're right but he did make that argument in his it's still a violation of policy again assuming that section applies right assuming the section applies they should have yes but this section does not apply and  point earlier when the more specific situation is paragraph six and it's clear that this is exactly on point when the driver for such a car is taken into policy by the taken into custody by the police department that's exactly what happened here parked in this case which would suggest and and i guess i got sure i understand your argument  this is nothing like a situation where you have any kind of simple fact is if he had care custody and supervisory control not whether the mother gave him that control not whether the child perceives it as control but in fact whether he had those things at that time when when it happened is that when your argument is that  so that can just all this means is that you look at the circumstances and decide at that time if he is the child in his custody care supervisory control i also want to point out that if this is the the court has any other questions so counsel that argument would apply only talking about this one in hand we also have the pattern of activity enhancements correct correct ye lower without the pattern gain the trust of the entire family and he is the provider for that family and he directs and persuades that person to do something that the victim to do something how is that not at least supervisory control  the family without as i understand it they were homeless and were at a wildlife station on the side of the highway begging for money and then they were living they were now close his care and it would be his responsibility to prevent her from being kidnapped  forty four i understand you're on