understand that but you raise it you raise the issue before that before the administrator this is unconstitutional administrator says no i can't decide that because i'm not a judge but if there is a judge you go to the circu split the party but if you can't raise it before the agency because of the number of power you surely raise it before the court which does have the power to say you're right in front of the circuit court is circuit court and then you say then we were up here with the only assignment of error being the standing issue which these people have not been finally convicted they have not and as it relates to contesting the overall constitutionality of the ordinance and the conduct of whether it be civil or whether it be criminal there is no requirement that we first give the state court a bite at that apple own federal constitutional grounds and as it relates to the separate discrete issue that your honor has raised regarding challenging a state court conviction and the only method by which to do that is through hey b s corpus versus a one nine hundred eighty three civil action they're not challenging their conviction they're simply the problem with the district court and this is the problem with a number of these cases they focus on the process as being the injury in fact and that being the conduct so it's in essence merge together lose yawn lose john is reflexive li sided constantly with injury in fact traceability slash calls ation and redress ability and i would i would recommend in the two minutes you've got left that you you wanted injunction that we don't have a first amendment argument in here or they know this is not a chilling case this is just a plain garden variety borden's you say it's both you say it's a civil ordinance and is a criminal you know your alternatively choose which basically says a sixty two in the process you don't have to march through the whole doggone thing to have standing to challenge your first reflects case was a little different because they did so but for the nonrefundable fee  where we're going to find that they're standing but for that we would find there's no standing and then they went on to say but it's so williams it's dicta in that case but it does like standing circuit hughs case the district court had dismissed the procedural due process claims on standing grounds on appeal the court of appeals while finding the district court and finding no standing clearly that he's cases against me all standing you've got a criminal matter and you have a constitutional argument it's in state court forget what state court they just brazen constitutional arguments and there's a state court that if i can convict you we won't hear the come here and have less decide the case in advance i mean making things simpler than that what it is i might say actually yes your honor but their first carol was arguing this is a criminal this is a shotgun complaint that is our position is even if the pellets have standing to challenge the procedural claims which is all the standing argument was directed to and all the court ruled on dismissal of all the claims that still proper on the merits you want to pass on the constitutional that there may be arguments before you get somewhere between standing which will call fully jurisdictional and the merits there may be some kind of jurisdictional cause a backlash and kind of thing going on well  merits analysis should you know whether the challenge statute and ordinance are civil or criminal because that will determine the level of process that is due and whether the criminal law constitutional provisions apply now officer found this position or the petitioners in a different position were they actually participated in the in the procedure but those confronted with the situation of having to pay almost triple the one of the arguments was that in order to challenge in that case they would have to file a separate lawsuit they argued that the expense of filing a separate lawsuit to challenge their case i think was a three hundred eighty dollar fine  would preclude them from doing an effective challenge the fifth circuit they are said that because there was no fundamental interest involved that that didn't apply that the that the state could god post that plead in their complaint one of the seven is that similar conduct is also a crime because it's a misdemeanor to run a red light on the uniform traffic that alone has been held to be insufficient numerous times including the hudson opinion itself said that alone would be insufficient looking at the rest of the statute and applying the other factors i think you can do it by matter of statutory construction we've already just built your restraint there's only a monetary penalty which is not a disability or a stright whether it's historically regarded as punishment monetary penalties or not historically regarded as punishment as the hudson case relevance of scienter none is required here retribution and deterrence clearly deterrence can serve civil goals but money money penalties are not historically regarded as punishment rational alternative purpose the statute clearly says its purpose is public safety because without the cameras if you want to  somebody for a misdemeanor for running a red light you have to have an officer physically there to watch you and you can't have an officer at every corner twenty four hours a day seven days a week and finally is it excessive in relation to the alternative purpose it's a relatively compensation is not a lawyer he's not a judge after a ok let's exactly like the person starts off this little red light thing that's correct ok ana winds up before a judge you know and and there's there's no due process the twenty five seconds i have left thank you very much circuit court and if you lost you could go where that car would you go if you lost if the supreme if now if you lost the case in the circuit court where would you go if it was over one hundred dollars and i know it's for this civil versus criminal there which is a missouri yes there are other opinions out there that found it to be criminal but what we said in our brief holds true this this what the opinion said we write them we say they deliberately refuse to go to alabama truck and park to raise these constitutional questions and instead they come to this court to the federal court and they want the federal court to exercise equity jurisdiction and enjoined the enforcement of this statute and that's how the opinion right here and they have they have they have from the not the doctrine of federalism and they're asking federal court to exercise that equity jurisdiction and ignoring the deliberate bypass output alabama system it up what do you think that would look like if we put it but you don't want to do that because you think i'm going to lose o