that's the only reason given why he was pulled over in the only evidence in the record concerning the nature of the crack is some photos that were submitted in connection with mr foster's motion to suppress the district court relied on those photos and nothing else there was no hearing held there was no testimony there are no competing photos admitted by the government and then did you ask for it and that injury hearing mistral your honor i believe that i believe in that and the motion to suppress one was the nature of the crack the size of the crack was as described in the motion to suppress which is to say that it was toward the bottom of the windshield toward the dashboard it didn't obstruct the driver's of view of the road or other vehicles and it didn't run all the way across the windshield it was on the driver's side that according to the actual words used by the supreme court a windshield with a crack running from roof post to roof those across the driver's field of vision is the type of safety defect contemplated by the statute you know the interesting thing about that is i step some states have something that actually talks about the condition of the windshield others rely on just a general safety statute and these are other jurisdictions that are like arkansas that rely on a general safety statute so when you look at the actual wording of the statute it's clear that  what is required to constitute a violation is it has to it has to it has to render the vehicle unsafe and when you talk about the equipment on the vehicle being in good working order an adjustment quote as required for the vehicle safe operation so that's really the question is is is this enough to know to be unsafe you know what and if you think about that there's structural and so has that occurs with any type of crack in a windshield if we had had hearing that if somebody put on an expert who says that a crack a by the united states that put in like an affidavit or statement that will present evidence and hearing it's just all we is it really that mean looks to me like it's really true that all we have are some photographs and th n there's no other record and so if we avoid conjecture we're really bound with the universe that exists so just there consists of just the photographs and i assume that is your position yes your honor it i admitted right i mean so i mean in some ways i look at what judge roche did here and i'm saying well you made a decision was zero evidence had i think that's a fair i think that's a fair assessment judge and you know i think that ultimately what the what the position boils down to is a ruling that if there is an observable crack in a windshield then than an officer is objectively reasonable in pulling over the vehicle i think that's really what you have to that's what we're kind of left with is is that that's what it boils down to and i just i don't think that's i don't think that's consistent with the wife if you look at the other cases that i mentioned for example the hilton case the supreme court of florida specifically said that it's a mistake of law to  conclude that you know just having an observable crack is enough to to warrant pulling a vehicle over and another point that i'd like to make is just that that we believe that this is this is a different because of the statute and because of the way the statute  kind of a public safety community caretaking function that allows for this to happen and so this is this is just not help me with the facts that as i understand it the officer what occurred or would get the officer actually make an inspection and then begin the conversation your honor my understanding is that the officer simply walked up and may have may have looked at the at the windshield but basically just began the conversation i pulled you over because you got this cracked windshield i believe that's what happened when i don't think there was a separate inspection that happened with would that be improper well i don't i believe it's proper to approach the driver and to it least begin the conversation with i did titties well that well i think that would be appropriate to ask for a name but he asked for identification he asked for license registration insurance and our contention is that that's that's a separate investigation that's a separate investigation that you would make for a for a violation in connection with a violation we think there's a distinction to be drawn between this kind of stop which is for a public safety you know public safety  purpose it's not an investor it's not necessarily an investigation of suspected criminal activity this is supposed to be for a safety inspection and all that's necessary is to say well joe for this cracked windshield we think that he should have that officer should have been able to see the condition the windshield say it's you know it's not that bad as as we can see from from the photos that have been submitted even though it's observable it's not it doesn't render it unsafe therefore i'm going to do what i need to do which is to tell you you have a cracked windshield and you get that fixed and then let him be on his cracked windshield had been more significant and as your update your argument as to the propriety of the officer's questions regarding identification and registration does  rely on whether or not there was a sufficiently cracked windshield to that that rose to the level of an equipment violation if you understand the question i think i do your honor and i think i would say that it does depend to some extent on that i think i would i think i'd have to concede that because it again if it's if it's not sufficient and we don't think it was sufficient to be a violation then at most he should just warn him of it and let him be on his way if he was going to issue a for it then then he would have made the assessment that it was sufficient to rise to that level and then he would be then i think i would have to concede he would be justified in asking for license registration if we sit in a world that is generally fact free except for three photographs right you are with the district court found was you know i go i know what they found what my question is what did they were why i'm finding and they relied on the briefs of consul and my question for you is is it the practice in arkansas not to put in affidavits in opposition to motions you know to suppress evidence i mean is that your practice because i mean listen i've worked in a lot of trial courts over the last twenty five years i never saw a record that looked like this vehicle she couldn't answer whatever date of birth was she gave a false name he went back to the i get to all of that is there but that's all in a brief read i mean that's i mean i just i'm really troubled with the idea that there really is no factual record for here for us to actually review we are that this record is not required to have it here but they are required to make decisions based on evidence they make that he made the decision based on everything that also said  have a nice day without checking his driver's license without running and check for outstanding warrants which are routine tasks which just court has written or d are reasonable the statute here we're talking about i at the time but i think we do i think i would agree with with the facts as presented in the breeze in the motion and brief update the facts are fairly straightforward i mean what  is it ok for the officer to extend the traffic stop by running the driver's license and in checking for any outstanding warrants registration things of that nature but that's certainly in this case deciding it on determine whether to issue a traffic ticket and also his mission during a traffic stop typically includes a nd driver's license determine whether there are outstanding warrants against a driver and inspecting the automobiles as soon as soon as the officer under foster of argument the arts or should not have even run his driver's license should have let him go and that's just not possible that is just  understand the courts concern about not having a hearing that was not my decision obviously that's the court's decision we're always prepared for hearing but after all read the order i would ask the court to go back and look at the district court who are stocking the twenty three d it's pretty clear that the court did not need to have a hearing based on the facts as presented ex and accepted by both parties and unless the the court has any additional questions i would was was a hearing requested is denied or was it just resolved what it was found you don't think it was not specifically requested i believe in foster's motion he said something that order it was very clear to me that the court did not we to have a hearing that is once again the court said to the facts as its auster present it of course we would present a different them looking at the at the motion to suppress and then i would i would also again just just point out that the difference in the court relied on claiborne to say that that you can you can ask you can do those things you can ask for license registration it's playing license plates it was clear there was a violation again we're pointing out the difference here between this type of case where the again we said there was no violation it wasn't severe enough to be a violation again it's under a different statutory scheme that allows for stops for different purposes then than for issuing citations for violations the purpose of the stop was not to issue a citation or should have been if you saw a cracked windshield it should have been to give a warning that you need to get your windshield fixed and that's so i think court assumed that it was a mistake that was the position we took is that the court essentially assumed that it was a mistake and then decided that even if it was a mistake it was objective a reasonable for the officer to do make a stop that was as far as the as the  would like to follow up on something that mr harris argued forcefully and with the some level of persuasion and that is that no matter what fact universe we work in you're not going to come up with any facts different than what you've already putting your brethen there really is no reason for us to go ahead with that in this back for a three minute for a hearing because the fact the universe gets no better d for you than what you've already got in your brief and that that if we assume all that's true we are left with a universe where we as we follow the make the legal decisions we're going to get to a conclusion that what was done here was proper now set aside the last part of that comment but what about the st part is there any real bases or need for any hearing in this  matter your honor i think i think i would agree with mr harris as assessment that essentially what the court did was assume the facts that we stated to be true and so i think that it makes sense to just treat those facts as if as if the court had had a hearing on those facts and proven