we have a motion i believe to ok thank you cantor jean off was not present she is unavailable to for today's date she's read the briefs she will listen to the oral argument and his job was to make sure there was nobody else in the area so he made sure he did a search for a random look at the area to make sure there was nobody else there could affect officer at that point i don't believe in he said i was driving her home he doesn't mention that he was being driven home does he he well the testimony presented in but how did she get out of there because we had a policeman appointment and a policeman at the other how did she get out well my issue here is a sudden a one right figure saying that that is part of the fact that they could not they have not form conclusion that they have my client which i'm going to get to their conclusion or opinion of the client was under the influence of alcohol so he testified this is officer a lawyer who came in t legibly the same way that the defendant's vehicle did he testified that he met her he encountered a woman walking rapidly away from the vehicle he later identified the woman as jessica wife he testified that he saw the vehicles headlights turned off and watched a man exit from the driver's door and then orders in for that person that purpose closed at night and asked him what he was doing what do you think i'm doing at that time then glowers arrived and now we have cordoned blowers wild and defended so there is and then there's later some evidence about the keys  therefore an opinion doesn't assist or all the jury under be so in this case if if we followed jackson if the officers were one of the two officers on the scene i guess there were three ultimately but one of the two officers that were talking about the hours of work he said yeah i don't think he was under the influence of alcohol you would have checked to that probably not well definition for the it is or the i don't think there's a common person definition for lou this is a specialized term that you said you had you looked it up what was the definition well the clue is this is reveal something that she was in fact his girlfriend her testimony of course that she was the one driving was completely incredible clearly the jury did not believe it which they were given the opportunity to just believe it and they  that they perceived in their own senses or which is true and each of these officers did in fact say i have that experience i've seen those types of people and my opinion based on everything i saw an  that he was intoxicated the only witness that use the word clue was florida and he is the one that in fact conducted those field sobriety tests and was able to witness and watch and see and hear how he perform intoxicated lauren is the only one who testified about the get the clues that how many there were but he didn't testify that he was using those those cinders and then the old and believe that my recollection is that failed only came up when the defense brought it up in cross examination they're the st ones that indicated anything about a failure and so on back i mean that's sort of the invited error if it's there at all i don't think it is i do think  they can be same whether it be that that's their opinion that they're presenting to the jury and the reason it's helpful instead the jury doesn't actually see it the jury hears when they're describing the witnesses that evidence of a seizure which means the lay people with nothing is experienced it but again you actually have the fact that look the board was discussing that it was based on the standards that are her allegation here there was no objection so st there has to be something here which there isn't but even if there were it has to rise to the level that it was so agree just and plain for the same reasons that the evidence was more than sufficient is why it was also not closely balance but if he could be if the seminal issue is not correct that he was not driving or in your words not in control correct he was in actual physical control which is sufficient to find dui and you know you can prove that i'm the lord i'm sorry i'm walking away from the vehicle he told them where the keys were he actually did admitting was on some he was on a roadway in a park and that's not driving on a public highway or something of that nature how does that fit in here other than he says he was driving crap is it fit in or you don't control on  defendant was doing well whatever the drive to strike she knew that the driver was in fact the person that she met at the bar and she knew that one hundred percent sure she said she was seventy five percent sure of course that it was the defendant for you know he says i was there a crime that primarily for safety purposes and did not make any observations about supply any at that time so that's what i was referring to so under eighteen he did not  that he saw that happen he saw that car but i think one of them said did you see what i just saw look over there is one of them had their back to the other two to be in the car and they noticed the park being close they knew the park was verdict on the deed while we have a disagreement among us that he could change her mind so at least that one point they were ready to release one or more jurors ready to wear i think all those factors for us they didn't have when when the state was