intellect to tory appeals to provide the people the right to an appeal of such an order and it should not case at the outset i want to clarify to porton points we're not asking this court to amend its rules what we're doing is simply asking this court construe the words criminal cases as it appears in rule six so for a one to include juvenile proceedings for this reason only now we recognize that people continue to recognize the unique nature of juvenile proceedings were to criminal proceedings at least in this respect that the people should have the same right to appeal order suppressing up its juvenile cases for example the juvenile court act provides that the purpose of the act is to protect citizens from juvenile crime and to hold the offender directly accountable for their actions and this court recognizing tailor people persons tailor that the shifts and the changes brought about by the one nine hundred ninety eight amendment fundamental shift from the singular goal of representing rehabilitation to include protecting the public again accordance with the policy of the act and holding juvenile offenders accountable for their actions case given the primary goal of juvenile proceedings to rehabilitate the juvenile offender if in fact there is an erroneous suppression order in the juvenile is as a result so actually denied opportunity services rehabilitation as a juvenile he may go wrong to commit future crimes and become involved in the adult criminal system tells of the case that many other states other jurisdictions provide for interlocutory appeals of juvenile suppression orders and this suggests that the laws allowing juvenile suppression appeals strike the appropriate balance between the juveniles rights and the people's rights and also suggest that any delay occasioned by such appeals or at least manageable the most of the cases most of the courts by rule or by decision require that the people certify that the appeal is not taken for purposes of delay and sue certify that the ruling substantially impairs their ability to prosecute the appeal in some then general proceedings atory orders suppressing evidence is in juvenile cases and the fact is that they don't in its brief the state concedes that as the laws are currently written the state does not have this  right but by conceding this the state wants to suggest that a discussion regarding the plain language of the rule isn't warranted but the plain language of the rules are specifically important the this court does have jurisdiction limited circumstances in rule six sixty therefore the fact that the court chose not to include orders suppressing evidence is is is significant d itself but by the incorporation of six o four d by six sixty one that's it's it's different from what we're looking at what we're looking at here also in that case we're dealing with equal protection for the juvenile in six zero four six sixty eight in that sense provides or extends the procedural rights that are given to criminal defendants and it extends out right to two juveniles it's that i would know that proposal that or what i suggested in our breath with the respondent suggested it's brief that there are proponents and opponents of of allowing such  such appeals that could be spoken in this court could hear from those those individuals who may have arguments on that that specific point but it's not that the state is only states the only party that or the state has the benefit the juveniles also there's also situations in which the juvenile can't appeal like the juvenile doesn't have a right to post conviction appeal so there are interpretation of rule six zero four for a one typically policy drives the creation of law in there they're posing something that that typically that isn't doesn't seem to be the trend in this court the fact that other jurisdictions may allow for such appeals does indicate that this sort of discussion is more right for the rule three roll making process where some states may only allow these appeals where there is a habitual or a violent offender some states require the level of the evidence suppress must be fatal some require it to be substantially to substantially impair the prosecution there's a lot of discussion that would need to be resolved i think that is important that proponents and opponents of such and such an amendment or such a interpretation of of the current rules would present to the court that i think are a right for review as well additionally the respondent would suggest that it's a better practice to keep the rules very explicit verses interpret in the rules through case law by interpret in the rules case law such as this it just leads to two more cases on the interpretation of the law typically when there's a jurisdictional statement you know allowing for jurisdiction of the court to hear a particular type of amending the rules it just goes against what this what this case this court has done in the past juvenile appeals is the issue of of delay and there is the idea that the courts want there to be swift justice with the courts want the remedies for juvenile cases to be to be  allowing these interlocutory appeals will add to delay specifically in this case which the order was initially issued in two thousand and ten and here we are in two thousand and thirteen where this case is still open and what the potential of happening is that a juvenile may reach the age of majority and the case is still is still pending before the court and without without resolution cases if the court has no further questions people would ask that this course reversed the appellate court's judgment and remain and to that court for further proceedings and to terminations where the trial court erroneous lee suppressed tomorrow morning thursday or wednesday scuse me wednesday march thirteenth two thousand and thirteen at nine a