position and it's the it's the sole issue that we've raised in this appeal that the trial court's finding is against the manifest weight of the other things that was presented in this case that it was unreasonable and not y narcotics officer showed up with a drug dog but apparently at some point during the stop the dog alerted and out stuff on the exterior of the car i was driving the car well that was a question and the hearing in appears that it was mr rodriguez he was the person who had a driver's license and he it was in his name that the traffic violation was actually issued because it so that was issued to mr blunt and i don't recall if the ticket itself is in the record but i believe that there was some testimony where the patrol officer did concede that he was find that based on the totality of the evidence presented that there was more than a mere suspicion that there was drug activity connected to this money and this court has been very clear about that standard that it it traffic stop wrote in his report and testified that the dog alerted on the car when the dog handler testified he said that he had no recollection of the alert at all  he was relying solely on the fact that it was written in the other officers report and again you know the the alert was apparently just an alert on the  the testimony was they gave the car to some unnamed person who left for forty five minutes and came back and that was the end that's out there is no additional evidence that who that person was there not out there were no drugs found there was not even drug residue there was no trace there was no you know into zero drug dealing activities there were no drug traffickers there were no hidden compartments in the car there means nothing on the money nothing on the money there was nothing to indicate that there were any drugs in the car the police actually recovered from that search but the he himself had any involvement in strong activity in transporting drugs across the country he said no the officer who interviewed the ones he testified when he asked  think we can even assume it didn't occur just it would be logical would be a stretch to imagine it didn't occur and somebody was stake in you still have the admission by the end that this was a very short  east to west state one day so i gave the car to somebody else for a few minutes and twenty thousand dollars here in the car on the way home they didn't know anything about it but there it is  well it's a very low standard well i would first say that there was no evidence that that money was not in the car the entire time but once again rodriguez said they had no idea that money was in the car not that they didn't know it was they were transporting something completely legal but the expensive jewelry or i'm sorry but they didn't but they didn't and i cannot i would be  explanation for why he would make that trip and i would say that that's not the only logical explanation and it is it is simply not sufficient other than a questionable alert by the dog is there any evidence that there had been drugs in the car no you're not at all no trick not a trace not a see money was either the proceeds of a drug deal that happened in new york or there was a previous drug deal and this was a partial payment from that drug dealer that a the ory was not even you know consistent or supported by any evidence in the the competition with regard to the money appeared to be based on an assumption that they were dealing with cocaine they were talking about the street value of cocaine will not act well i think the patrol officer who actually stopped the vehicle and issue the ticket has also testified as an expert and he testified as to the street value of cocaine and the street value of marijuana so again there was and also on i think the defendant did mention that the sergeant was only one who testified regarding the drug dogs that being alert again i mean he was established as a credible witness by the trial judge and that is enough to go off the other factor that the courts look at as originating in destination cities of travel and once and not regret travel to the going to york from california and only stayed one night in a towel and at the hotel a meeting was on this trip as this with driving and to look for an employment opportunities however you only went to one restaurant and clancy has stated he took the trip because he hoped that route wall would give him the b m w in exchange for the trip to new york and also was probable cause to seize this money what happens to the money as mr wright demonstrated that belongs to him if you believe the trial just is or what happens to the money doesn't automatically go to mr right i guess at that point if it's that people make a living out of making claims and seized money either sure i mean this already exists and there's an open title here so you know i'm just trying to analyze both sides of the issue and what our decision might mean down the road officers and the detective that they had no idea what occurred they didn't know what they were doing in the end no idea why they went to new york they're doing terrible thing bad who they gave the car down are i mean they just claimed that they had no idea trying to look at the actual cellphone records i'm not quite sure i don't want to say something without looking at the record saying well it was clear that they looked at the cell phones but it was not clear that they did anything you know the forty seven of those dollars didn't bring anything ok you know what we're going to ask you what happens if we agree with you that this could have been proceeds from a bank robbery and not a drug that well i i would dismiss my right have to show that these are provide an explanation as to why he had the money in that car but he did in his claim by derrius sources connected to his business connected to it all of the open title is just as carter immediately and they were free to go and so if it was i would suggest that if there was evidence of drug dealing i would imagine that you know the statement to seize the cars well but they did not do that it is completely unsupported by the record there there is no evidence that there was ever any kind of loading and you know that the state even at a hearing can see that they don't know if there was a lo maybe it was they picked up money from a prior drug deal maybe it was a drug dealing new york and i think it is there is no evidence to support that finding and the at it doesn't it doesn't really make sense if mr landsea is afraid to provide information about who sent him on this trip but he well mr valencia is in rome oh send him on the trip he provided rock name phone number is a business he was clearly not afraid to give information about the person who sent him on the trip and you know again it it's not just that you know i name the phone number but it's also a place of business and whether that is it appears that was never followed up on  feel i would just say that you know the police to get the police had plenty of information ample opportunity to to to make some connection between drug dealing and this money and there was just no