watson only stated the code section he was relying upon a one and the title of the code section deputy watson did not state any facts that supported why he believed there was a violation he merely  section and that he had a concern that code section was being violated deputy watson never stated any articulable facts as to why that code section was being violated these factors the district court relied upon the factors that deputy watson observed after the stop of the vehicle as a matter of law deputy watson was wrong in relying on subsection a one in people versus white it was found in a very similar circumstance that an air freshener which is what the object turned out to be in fact three air fresheners hanging from the mirror were not a violation of subsection one they were not a violation because under subsection a one the deputy watson merely stated that he had a concern there was a violation of subsection a one and then quoted the title of that section obstructing the windshield and impairing the driver's feel he did not state any facts and beyond that believing that there was some any findings of fact the officer in no way articulated what he believed the obstruction was he did not say or do not exclude that the object was not affixed to the windshield require then amount of well there can be a requirement that the officer relies upon an actual air and law a traffic violation and the officer did not do so in this case additionally the officer has to give the actual fa this case additionally the district court relied solely upon factors found after the stop had occurred the district court relied upon the fact that after staffing to the deaf ear watson was able to notice that there were three air fresheners hanging from the rearview there and not one singular object as he had believed prior to the stop additionally the district court relied upon the conduct of passengers within the vehicle after the time to stop it occurred because there was an investigatory purpose rather than for purposes of identification that the second set of stinker prints also must be suppressed if they were also taken for that same purpose in this case the district court did not make findings as to the purpose of the that there's absolutely no remedy for a person if but at that point the government is attempting to show through the things are pretty examiner that mr chavis or there had been deported previously and that he had been a person who had been deported that all the documents contained within the a file all as far as the basis of the starr and we judge wrong seems touching on a point which is basically the theme of the government's position here reasonable suspicion is not require an officer to be absolutely certain that the violation that he's investigating of reasons he cites we're not disputing that he cited the wrong provision here but if you look at any one there is nothing in any one about obstructing or reducing the view all anyone says is that no person shall drive any motor vehicle with any actually as an officer it was under the mistaken impression that california law prohibited any vehicle window tinting whatsoever but the reason and he also made an observation of the windows that he saw on the vehicle in front of them appeared to be pretty honor i don't know i think that's outside the scope of the record in this case we only have the evidence before us i can understand if the court is concerned if there was evidence of willy nilly stops for this reason they'd be one thing but in this i don't think they're willing home behind cars to see what you see you know we're not in a position to second guess the district court who believe this officer story but i did wonder what the practice w this case that i believe not only is the reason the suspicion shown for the stuff but then we have to look at the other issue and as we point out in our brief even if this court were to entertain the idea that this was an unlawful stop is suppression the remedy and as we pointed out th also made clear that even if you look at two sets of fingerprints the ones taken right at the time of what looks now as soon as an illegal stop and then once taken months later and they make a distinction between fingerprints taken for investigat that's not what i'm worried about and armin are stories just to give up at the question has to do with the subsequent deportation there doesn't seem to be any place in the record where the district judge had that fact upon which he could properly rely  do you agree that the evidence of the prior deportation was presented to the jury yes i do agree that there was evidence of the deportation presented to the jury the evidence being the code obstructing the windshield and carrying the driver's feel that those words have struck in the windshield and impairing the driver's view is merely the title of the code it wasn't further facts that were given that deputy watson was saying i believe that th disagree with government counsel in speaking about the facts in the record other than him stating the code and that he had observed a singular object swinging from the rear view there there were no other facts in the record that deputy watson relied upon no window tinting was appropriate and said that the amount of window tinting the actual tinting was in violation because of the amount of window tinting that's not the circumstance here the circumstance here is that there was no at all the reason other than citing the code section and noting that there was swinging a singular object i don't play that i've been to facts in this case to be able to have articulable reasonable suspicion