erred in granting that motion for two separate reasons the first being that the trial court ignored the simple fact that there was a legitimate traffic stop performed upon this car thereby as a matter of law providing the officers with probable cause to arrest the defendant who was the driver of that car who had committed an improper lane traffic violation the trial court below not only ignored that but as a matter of fact he held that as  because the defendant was originally handcuffed when the officers approached that that actually into a per se constitutional violation making it into fact an unconstitutional arrest and that was the basis upon which the trial court granted the defendant's motion to question suppress that as a matter of law has been conceded by the defendant to be error and that was the entire basis for the trial court's motion first i'd like to address the probable cause issue pursuant to elp walk this record is abundantly clear that the prosecutor in this case was never allowed to articulate her theory of defending this motion she listed as facts pursuant to out water that would allow or would allow her to prevail on the motion the facts further elicited that the defendant did not pull his car over remedial sleep a little concerned about the order of events in this case the defendant saw the marijuana or the door was opened and the police officer saw the marijuana right and then the defendant was handcuffed right that's actually are fairly clear if you read the cross examination they come out a little more fully  testifies that he sees the defendant's car turning northbound and stony island and that he made an improper lane change which is never been contested by the stuff and the the officer that direction for the defendant to pull over and all three of the occupants were making thirty that's all he could see were heads and shoulders and they didn't pull over right away he finally pulled over and everybody continued in that car to make sort of movements so the officer shot several commands show your hands show your hands we need to see your hands get your hands up in the back seat yesterday as this hands literally out the window to comply with the officers coming it's your officers that are apparently approaching now this car because the defendant and the front seat passenger have ignored the repeated the way you're going with this case you're creating a situation where you know we would only have to or i mean if you use a carry analysis then officers are permitted to handcuff basis to believe that his safety was a fish and basically the officer's testimony was only regarding the vague gestures that were quickly on the defendant was driving the car and taking out his word for it didn't signal when he changed lanes so he's pulled over for a non threatening minor traffic did not search activate his mars lights it'll take the driver of a moment to realize that the reason behind him and then another moment to even realize that oh maybe he's going to a different emergency  have a black is not so in accord os or that there were movements he didn't specify what movements you know the prosecutor was making gestures have three people in a car the eleven o'clock at night right yet and officer concerns definitely something that the school should be concerned with as well as it should be concerned with officers overreaction when it's not on whether or not that was an issue that the state never put that in a wreck they never put down facts he never testified that that was an issue the reason hans in fact one of the passengers the one the passenger who did raise his hand was also taken into custody which shows that whatever consideration gave it was minimal to nothing and he didn't want to say never put was in the front and the other person who raised the hands was in the back and it's even it and friends to assume that the person who raised their hands was doing it in response to an order you have to understand that when they pulled this however they he was afraid for his safety as a result of that yes but it's an octave stand now the subjective and again the state is required to put in the record and he's required  is in your mind adjective means that there is evidence out there to show what somebody is doing up a sers says hands up and stuff he sees people with their hands all over the place going down at the bottom of the baron everything else you don't think that that's reasonable to conclude that maybe you're say he is in trouble it depends on how shouldn't take that as a threatening situation and that's my point is that there's no evidence here that he whispered it is there there is no evidence one way or the other it was a state's obligation on it and there's no evidence as to that's what gave him a subjective fear he didn't testify in anything to do with the reason he says oh well i think i think if i if the facts are correct in my mind that you are you know the last thing things officer said that he pulled the car over for trying to pull the car over for a traffic violation he saw all of these various furtive movements from the people in the car and he was afraid out the back seat passenger complied so the back seat passenger i mean you can say that maybe softly i mean it just it but the os is just one if he said it and the guy put his arms out the window and he i looked back at my facts he did say he gave several requests hands up hands up and the person did and so he ordered the person out of the car he has the right i think you'll agree with me to order the person  know so the issue is with having that the person who has three of them make furtive movements continually and that for whatever period of time and then the driver not responding to several commands to show his i think that's and that's another problem that we've had is i believe the state's going to misstating her over exaggerating that aspect of what the judge said when the judge said that he was testifying   but if you look at it later he came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable objective basis for the fear when you look at the context of the way that that was said he was just acknowledging that a police involved i dangerous work out there i mean it any time you put power over in a been a bad neighborhood for any reason he could understand why there is a fear but then he went on to say that this was an overreaction you just don't go from i think it's a whatever is based yeah based on movements and just when you poll small someone over for a routine minor traffic infraction just  se you just don't go out correct isn't that what his fate that that yet that you don't just based on the movements he said you just don't go based on and if you look at the his ruling he said yeah you know people are going to make movements when the pull over someone might be looking to see what's going on or they're nervous so dependent maybe bend over looking for his driver's license or for his proof of insurance  which i guess brings them in council conceded that this is an arrest which to me they can see that the terror is not even an issue and they and they want and they forfeited the argument regarding arrest they never are and that and another issue that counsel made not in there they could have responded to the motion in writing they didn't and they could have said judge we'd like to make this out this is the best thing this is something that's been raised for the first time on appeal that's thought up after the fact th on the driver was not arrested for the minor traffic infraction and they never claimed that down below because it just didn't happen that he was he coughed because the officers because of boxers fear and yet so well it's not making officers jump through hoops it's having the state media it's a bird it's having them put in adequate facts in the century to do their job to if there was a reasonable basis facts out there and exactly have the the officers testified as to what the fear was about what caused him that concern and there are cases out there that specifically hope that it's that it's that it's the state's job to get hands didn't put this police report and called up the person who did raise his hand so that to me was is not a factor that he even considered and he testified that it was all based on the movements alone which  this tracker before this court does not meet that burden it didn't meet that burden for the trial court which is why the people are asking for reversal you know probable cause determination the facts elicited by this later i understand why i think it makes perfect sense why he acted the way he did that side eight thirty nine the formal judge in the terry analysis with the handcuffs the judge who was self exceeded on the hand for granting the defendant's notion that the exists was in error as a matter of ought and as a matter of fact based on what was implicit the for the trial court the defendant has never been able to meet his burden in this case it was not our responsibility to meet the burden the burden rested sold it with the defendant and he can and that needed today for all of those reasons and those stated in our brief the people respectfully request that this court