because she was kept for twenty minutes in a place where she was at least careful these are observed by the officers with no access to me from the future test and she does not contend that that in his view this did not depend on credibility principly because there were two things that he was looking for that that she needed to prove and she didn't and the two things that she didn't she she  that it was the kind of alcohol that would have registered on the breathalyzer and to even more important she didn't prove that there was still alcohol in her mouth at the time of the year the time of the observation  think i think she has a little bit of confusion about the purpose of the test the i'm sorry the purpose of the wait for the test the reason for the twenty minute waiting period is that the test  that the alcohol is coming from deep within the system and if you have alcohol in your mouth then it will over estimate the amount of alcohol that you actually have a system so they wait twenty minutes for the alcohol in the mouth to dissipate so that the when they do the test it won't be affected by that test result it is not she does not get a pass simply because well if she had  as long as it was before the observation what you're saying is if someone should go and drives a vehicle and there are twenty one years of age that would be enough read out under our current law and the administration administrative rules governing governing that person would be subject to the driver's license suspension because of the i believe and either basis because she didn't prove that it had up and she didn't prove that it was a foreign object because she didn't prove that it was introduced after the period started i thought she said she was not observed for twenty minutes if she was she so yeah there i'm going to say that she was dogs or for twenty minutes but now you seem to be arguing oh i think she doesn't serve for twenty minutes because nobody interacted with her nobody nobody seemed to be focused on her and giving her their attention but we know from the case law that those things are required she didn't know that but we did and so even though we believed even though leave for an object's limitation was placed on it at that time that was correct but under the law at the time that her test that's not the way it worked sensible argument is that the secretary should have applied the margin of error committed by regulation before he determine says we don't know whether that can appear had alcohol in it or whether it was alcohol fre well ok i assume i assume that the officer would have with or asked if he had noticed but it doesn't make sense to you to do a separate rule it's on whether he notices it w dear so thank you very much for both please just like to mention that the only case was about the interpretation of a of a statute or a regulation and not specifically about the issues of proof that we're talking about here nonetheless that their reflex was equivalent to regurgitation which is what regulations say and they were basing it specifically on what it said in the regulation and the reason he didn't have to go beyond proving that he has the reg they did the sworn statement does have the one consistency which that it says it includes in addition to those two pages it says it includes the page with her and it does not however there are two cases that are held that