the vehicle was uninsured through questioning through well the officers he thing in mind that the burden of proof here was never on the people people who need to prove beyond reasonable doubt court to say i'm not sure that they asked the question she never ruled that she never made a factual finding as she did they said but but by implication the fact that she said helpful you're honest they're the defendant in that the testimony was that she told the officers affirmatively i don't have the insurance with me it's at my house when did she say that h own as we don't know how that actually was in the transcript it could have been an implication that the more insulter oh no he says yes defendant for proof of insurance it's an implication that's that's a statement of the face right that's a so we don't have that here and so that distinguishes mesh and i don't see how it's relevant all that that's the problem we have in this case that some of this is the real issue that we need to decide again the focus here has to be though not the reporting was never on the people to prove this when the if when the people brought out the testimony through this which the st part of this sequence the st of these two questions defended admits that was that people asking a defendant that the officer asked him to produce a license and it was freezing sack the same way as far as the insurance and as soon as the people produced testimony that this defendant was on able to produce ballot insurance that at least gives rise to that certainly enough to counter the prima pascha case that that didn't occur that this defendant actually had vehicle insurance all that had to do was and again this goes back to  proof on this motion to then follow up on redirect and ask the question did you ask officers did you ask this defendant to produce valid insurance and then the answer would be what it would be it was defendants of burden at that point he had the ultimate burden of proof  this motion and he didn't ask that question he didn't ask that question and he could have easily done it why didn't he ask that question the records unclear could it be possibly because the implication is that the officers in fact did ask him for that and the answer would be yes did ask him for that to make it absolutely clear but at that point the people had brought forth a nuff to counter that there was testimony educate say look this was a warrantless arrest and search it was about and then the people put forward evidence showing look they knew his they it resul suspicion at the very least that he was riding with his license they waved him over they confirmed indeed prove anything beyond reasonable doubt this point at that point when we have evidence that is driving under that places with revoked and there's been testimony from two officers that was unable percent valid insurance it's up to defend it just as in gibson to come forward then after that testimony comes in to show that there was something that made that inventory search improper he didn't do it he had to do it it was his burden we didn't it's not like this is a case where there was an absence of any testimony legally parked but the police have probable cause of the rest of them but the vehicle is legally parked and therefore she didn't leave there was an obligation to immediately impound it and the people made it clear that you know that when both these factors  present when he's driving under with a revoked license and there's evidence that it was not insured that there was a legal obligation for the police to immediately impound it and they did that and there's no factual is also in violation of section seventy six or one of this code which has to do with insurance shall have his or her motor vehicle immediately impounded by the arresting law enforcement officer and of sentence  then it says the motor vehicle may be released to any licensed driver upon a showing of proof of insurance for the vehicle that was impounded and the notarized written consent for the release by the owner that's the particular section that require it's not simply that it was a restaurant without that license but also that there was no proof of valid insurance here and again this was defendant's burden of proof the people had no burden to prove this beyond reasonable doubt or anything there's evidence that he didn't was unable to produce valid insurance and those two factors the license and the insurance was enough to trigger this medium defense counsel certainly could have redirected on this point to clarify it and in fact if some seems hard to believe but we don't know it seems likely the answer would be yes we asked but we're speculating i mean the judge didn't say i didn't hear any testimony that the procedure that the car had to be impounded and i don't think the law requires that when the circuit court ruled and i'm that motion reconsider she certainly had an opportunity then to make a factual to clarify what are factual findings are and say no look stated there's actually no finding here that this defendant vehicle is uninsured she didn't make that argument that conclusion that factual finding all instead she just focused on a matter of law which was this vehicle was legally parked and certainly there are cases out there when you don't have both of these where the defendants just arrested for having a it requires a medium permit and the circuit court even in the ruling on that motion reconsider said nothing as to that point this was an error of law the defendant having ultimate burden of proof and he failed to to meet that burden testimony regarding both license and insurance well i'm concerned about a couple things i'm concerned that whether or not the training of the police officers the officers on the street and what we set up here in the home a lot of stuff they can't do looking at every possible way if they can deal with the situation instead of asking us to ignore a specific word in a specific statute and eight and it's there for a reason how do how can we have more of that you're to sort of pretend that at any point in time this defendant could've would've should've told this driver's insurance his car insurance heard out of his car his wallet whatever this is a look i'm insured and there's apparently no police available in car database that says whether cars and sugar knives that a correct statement there was a story about that i can't speak to that but certainly your honour's again it's far as your concerns go and they're certainly and said look that's defendants for the defendant have the ultimate burden here in the bennett in gibson provided nothing to show that the inventory search was improper because defendant failed to provide that extreme from asian it was why searched a car that was legally parked and she looked upon the state to show why they had the right to search that car they didn't if they had asked for insurance and he had no insurance yes maybe so they only had a guy who did not have a license they arrested him which they should have they had a belly or car at that point the should have said do you also have insurance for that car and if they had then they could have legally impounded it and searched the car burden shifts to the state to show why the search was constitutional and they did not do that and that's what the judge ruled in our favor i wish i had more to tell you but it's pretty pretty simple it's i just don't believe the day i asked for insurance i think it's pretty if you ever asked for insurance well judge as i said before i didn't know where the circuit court judges stevens was going with a ruling i didn't know that's where she was looking i certainly wouldn't have done that if i had known that's where her ruling was going well you can't ever know until the end but your questions come before the ruling and i understand the very st thing they teach you in law school is telling ask a question don't they know the answer to so we're looking at this and saying well that you know the state didn't do a great job in the cop's questions but the tense attorney certainly could've said hey ops or did you ask for the insurance card and the officer would have said yes or no you don't know which answer is going to come up with if he says yes then you've got a problem with your case ok fine it's some risk you take with a question like that he says no it's a slam dunk you've won but you had the opportunity as a question to make your case your defendant your  certainly could have told you a man i have a chance so what are we supposed to get from all of that there's no question asked of the cops and one reason is because you don't want to take a chance that you would have been taking a chance if your defendant had if i had known i probably would best question i just didn't know that was the laws as it stands oh out of the city ordinance well my understanding was they could search the car if it was a revoked license and looking at the and after the judge's ruling you can't you need insurance i will no judge that they did not write him a ticket for no insurance and i think the state makes comments on that in their brief but i think that's a significant issue if they had asked