one of the exceptions that this war is as carved out is is the exception for a long standing only case president to the contrary of the united states supreme court decision at issue and in this case and that that standard was a was not created by our people versus krueger an intruder so that that's just because gordon is he don't want to create a rule that would be simply encourage or these officers to act on safely in order to preserve their ability to search cars that purpose is not furthered in this case because the os in this case never had the ability to search the finds are because the defendant was merely speeding it was not subject to a raft so that there was no he could conduct this traffic stop in any way he wanted without having to worry that he was going line rules based on controlling not controlling but basically allowing police officers to conduct theirs as not having to worry about what that does in their ability to search cars because i think if you look at belin had if implicitly is there any contention here that there's any relevance to the fact that the defendant in this case was in the police officers vehicle at the time of the search so the question that stands before the court today that and is as counsel has matter of illinois constitutional law that is at water not that law in the state of illinois i am and more importantly i think the question and really the fresh whole question here is does that matter for purposes of interpretation and  is inside and then proceeds the stress is the last merely because the arrestee exited his car before the officer initiated contact nor is in a rescue less likely to attempt to lunge for a weapon or to destroy evidence if he is outside of but still conclude that borton does not apply circumstance this is a distinction that would be relevant or majority does not apply to circumstances and with the vehicle was pulled over for a traffic offense as we've argued that certainly is not the case  doesn't hold that you can't arrest someone for a traffic mystery indeed if it did it would be they would have been overruled or would have been over ruling at water but no versus iowa polls instead is that if the officer chooses merely to issue a traffic citation finally i'll turn briefly to the the question of this court's jurisdiction has touched upon briefly at the end of the defendant some argument here as we point out in our brief there are numerous reasons why this court has jurisdiction to answer the in mark or there is no underlying issue that the court has decided to take on others no underlying constitutional or other questions before the court and perhaps more importantly all of the briefing all of the arguments in that case is and will be devoted to the substance of this particular question as opposed to sharing time and again has the benefit of all that we all have the opinion in marker it is of the obviously the appeal from the case in which that was actually aired  those discussed in the in the briefs is the amendments to rule six zero six i would add that there is an alternative reading here that is equally plausible to the one adopted not only that but there's also an equally a bottle to the one topped by the appellate court here or in mark or rather and that's the notion that the word god in the opening majorities decision marker they can see that that their reading runs headlong into the second to last sentence of six so sixty because if they're correct that the first both parties understanding the proper meaning of this provision certainly that longstanding meaning well not dispositive suggest that even if there's an big that that at the very least there's ambiguity and that the reading on which parties have relied were thirty years is at least