refused to consider it further and i am not saying by making this argument that he has to consider in isolation from any other factors but we believe it was fair for him to refuse to consider it at all grant it is based on other factors and does not even take into consideration the essence of rule thirty five that is the quality of h no further questions i think the point that we need to reckon with here years was there were departure motion agreed to and one was one file we obviously assistance after we now know what the nomenclature should be in that motion the reality of the matter here yes that a motion for downward departure was file indicate that departure is discretion it's up to the judge to determine whether or not that should affect the step whether or not the judge should reduce the sentence in this case there's no question the judge realized what he could do it could go down he simply said you've got enough of a break here i don't think that i should reduce the sentence based on the substantial and you say may this not mean must and therefore i think we have to be very careful to make sure we recognize that the judge has russian areas already under either standard this is somewhat of an unusual case because of the bargain that was made up front if such a significant break it's unusual in that respect and a defendant certainly understand discretion is what we're talking about here statutory because of the statute based on this language is what we're talking about here we're talking about a discretionary decision on the part of the judge and i'm concerned disclosure of information prior to the trial and then let's suppose he testifies if he testifies before he's sentenced to question or gets wrapped in five in this case he got what he bargained for but will always be faced with the situation if the person gives substantial assistance and the judge doesn't think it's appropriate to the park down work constitutional rights in his admissions before this court the first has his rights under the fourth amendment and not only the initial traffic stop whereby he was apprehended but there by a series of vehicle was properly license if you will because ali have to determine was that sticker was identifiable and it had not expired and it is our argument was argument before the trial cour because of the lady's name or any of those drug problems in fact it's our contention that he misrepresented the circumstances of course for a change to the other fourth amendment issues because he said the sticker was identifiable which gave the and i believe that the court abused its discretion and did not properly assess the facts and comparing it to the tower the circumstances and one of the critical facts that they looked at first of all and then they went on a fishing expedition out to the devolved congress residence and when they got out there of course we get to the issue of plainfield and before we talk about that that's a little complicated i that the the chemical odor was not in the house it was outside and that i believe ties into some of the circumstances on the franks motion but what the record actually  answer i was travelling down first avenue first request in round up my officer approach me with expired dash it was the old style license plate well the vehicle shouldn't have had it could have either one or the other on it and i also observed that the front plate was expired so that was my reason for the stock let me very briefly go to a couple of provisions in montana law which would prove that the officer was justified in making the stop first of all it says that when he said expired plate he turns around and it's also got a temporary sticker on it that's inconsistent with my catalog something is wrong he's entitled to stop that car and ask a question or two and that's that's exactly what he did so i want to make sure that the point is clarified that there was an expired plate judgment when you asked them what did he do defense counsel would like you to believe that when he walked  he saw the sticker and he saw that the date was consistent with the time frame in other words the expiration date on the temporary sticker was somewhere in march and this was february saw back in the fence time frame of the date doesn't mean that the temporary sticker was valid there something that should have tipped the officer off that maybe something was wrong the stickers in the name of cindy converse the driver cindy there's obviously a female name the driver's a male it's logical place we're ok we have an expired plate let's run out let's call this factual and find out about it see if they match the temporary well what happens in the instance instantaneously there is he received notification at the scene that well the place registered just in the congress not for that car again is not in compliance with having valid plates for the car driving so that's an officer of the circuit i see your driver's license your registration information your proof of certainly has the ability to pass related questions who are you let me see the ownership documents for this vehicle let me see your driver's license so i can sort this out there's something wrong here this late in the front belongs to a different car this temporary sticker is here if the temporary sticker is here this place should not be here are you and what is your relationship to this car and that's what the officer did in asking those questions and what he came up with yes i don't have a driver's license arrestable offense probable cause go to jail search incident to arrest find the methamphetamine he went further and that is the sequence that happens out on the street that sound police work is an object of places to make us stop the questions are reasonably related to the stop and the questions about registration and he makes the stop somewhere and looking at the vehicle and asking the person who he was in preparation to resolve the discrepancy he gets a notification that the plate doesn't match that car the exact s that the record check the came back which was in the affidavit showed that this person was one and had failed to appear for a drug manufacturing charge that's further evidence which goes didn't even mention the gun that's a tool of the trade of the drug dealer counsel said that the little baggies with a little bit of residue suggest personal use multiple with residue suggests a  scene as one who has locked away from a controlled substance manufacturing violation that further bolsters probable cause that not only will drugs be found in that house but evidence of manufacture will be found in that house coupled with the she's guilty dallying about this doesn't apply to my house she keeps trying to change the conversation that had been hit by a car there was a bit to my knowledge there's only one car she says i'll be down if she doesn't show so they go  the order that's production i think that's not proper you need to look at the evidence and seen in plain view of one further point on my frank's motion and that is there is a serious problem with the transcript in the