a parking lot at a red lobster restaurant near veterans in oakland in bloomington there are some different testimony in regards to what occurred in that parking lot is forrest how  mr scene was searched by the officers officer lake officer rincon and the informant have some slight variances in regards to to what occurred in the parking lot nonetheless there was some sort of a search that was conducted up into the gas station after he goes into the gas station officer blake who was in charge of the video on his vehicle several minutes later then leaves the scene and based on their testimony they meet up with mr skeen back at the red and fifteen grams the main issue that we really have those it is with the chain of custody because we do not believe that the state has has met its burden in regards to proving the chain of custody in regards to this in this case presented a bag of cocaine at trial i would say  defendant by mr martinez i mean the video you cannot see any exchange between the parties in fact the only person the only witnesses to that exchange are the defendant and mr scheme and their versions of what happened are clearly differen well that there is but you have two different versions of what happened from the police officers i mean officer blake said that he kept the the evidence until the next day and then he deposited the evidence in the opening day officer reagan said no i kept the evidence i put it in my probably had a better memory of what occurred because he was the one charged first officer away being someone who was just going to write it as to what to do is the regards to what usually happens and you've got two officers telling two completely different stories and the officer that the judge found little this testimony is absolutely contradicted by what's on th as to how this evidence was supposedly obtained how this evidence was put something supposedly preserved and how this evidence was supposedly mark i don't believe that there's i mean there has not been a chain of custody to establish that what was admitted to trial was something that ever came from we just have to show that there's there's a question in regards to whether or not what's actually being admitted is that evidence is in fact what they're claiming that it wants and so what we're saying is that we don't believe that the facts  sufficient due to the inconsistency is in the officers testimony as to whether or not what was actually presented to the court had a list of military testified at all i'm sorry had late never testified at  both before and after as to whether or not that there was actually a name you know whether or not the search was conducted how it was conducted whether it was conducted i mean he testified differently as to what rankin testified in regards to to the search of the vehicles to confirm that there were no drugs i mean this is an individual who's admitted that he said drug problems in the past he's admitted that you know he's had he's got convictions for dishonesty he's admitted that he's getting paid for his testimony for his part in this thing was ra best of his recollection i believe that that would be i mean obviously that was one of the issues that came up at trial they have bring that out at trial i'm sorry did you bring out a trial that if a private police report that he did i don't recall i don't recall i know that we went through the video evidence because he had he had video and he testified most of his testimony was specifically going to the video if you reported his forces identifying what was happening on the video as it occurred oh and to find you know who was saying what because there was a one point where you can hear somebody saying person coming back or so you coming back he identified that that was after the informant had left the scene of the meeting and he was waiting for christopher rankin  reagan was in his car and that they did not drive separately and that and that after the informant had already blocked the scene for a couple minutes he's on he's he's he's clearly noted on this video as having asking something to the government no he said to the to the best of his recollection what happened was they were discussing the informant they worked together they were coworkers and the place that they actually like i said the place that they met was a parking lot between their place of employment in a gas station and he said it it was his understanding that they had hit i asked him to cover for him in regards to us shift over the holidays because this was today for f two or three days before christmas and then he just got in and say you know you know when you cover this shift or you know something along those lines it's for us as far as the reason for that meeting was just him asking them hey you know most informants are completely unbelievable and this one may be more believable than some of the others but that doesn't you know that doesn't change the fact that he's getting paid for this he said a history of drug use has had a conviction for dishonesty so he's he 's had that background you know so i don't think that that changes these factors and that's not him something coming up and saying you know i find this guy totally credible i sense a comparative of the last guy that was in here you know he's better than that guy but we don't wasn't no he didn't say that he was lying about the interview he said he did he never he denied selling the cocaine drink in his lie about the interview and about the missions the from the well i guess i would i would disagree with from conditioning language and then in closing they said well we got the report from nielsen i think its name is and it says what it think i'm on page ninety two of the transcript now i'm sorry i'm on the wrong page that somewhere in there subject to argument in regards to what it actually what to it actually being what it appears to be we would have no objection i'm on page one twenty three i hope it goes oh that's a question for me