state you know from well established th amendment law that police can investigate the reason for the traffic stop in this case but the search beyond that any probable cause the other speeding stop in this balance entire are a marijuana which is not typically a crime and certainly did not support a search of the trunk of his car and back one in the back seat of the car and one inside the trunk none of which i might add that contained any marijuana or any other drugs the general constitutional requirements for of those searches have stayed the same sense again were changed after that however is the statutes that  certain provisions of supreme court decisions by changing the underlying statutes in two thousand and seventeen when this matter heard what had happened that changed th justification well st it happened as in two thousand and fourteen b i want to legislature and change the legal status of cannabis so that was not considered illegal in every instance at the time of the south decision certainly the smell of sixteen when small amounts of cannabis were deemed no longer a criminal offense but rather a civil law so by making these changes on a legislature a co equal branch of government and decided these are no factor but there's additional factors with the speculation sure with respect to the quantity and again on facts of this case there was no marijuana but the officers didn't know that at the time and it was their job to investigate before searching the that any particular type of possession is a crime a legislature without requiring a decision from the court can change that it could simply change the list of things that are time say for example i put there be needles are no longer and if that happens yeah a motion to suppress the violence at your position yes that's correct given the nature of the video in this case where it shows everything and the nature of the claim when the the items fall in the search were literally the only incriminating absent the investigatory search wouldn't have been inevitably discovered and back again we don't know that based on this record just a study men is talking about what actually happened in fact after the evidence was found inside the suitcase i don't know if you had only been stopped for speeding whether the car would have been out we don't even know whether he would take charge if someone is arrested and t if they had grounds apparently there's no contesting the grounds to arrest them for misdemeanor speeding in take into custody that's the whole idea about the inevitable discovery doctor visit but those are two different things are now is the position is that the smell a strong smell the last mile of anything earth cannabis would be more because of course it's illegal to be smoking marijuana while driving a car the statement you touch on both of these points but it seems to me that defendants argument is predicated on two fundamentally flawed premises st to search here was based exclusively on the order of alone that a fact is just not clearly established by the records and nd that the order alone of the order of cannabis alone did not provide probable cause for a roadside search in two thousand and seventeen now starting  and then based on that assertion he is arguing that that counsels ineffective in two thousand and seventeen essentially for not foreseeing that this would later be called into question and filing a motion motion on that basis however is wrong or pointed out  even if they may have in some way called into question whether the odor alone continues to provide probably because the court did not take the opportunity to overturn the stout decision from one thousand nine hundred and five which provided of course that the odor alone did supply probably cause for a roadside search so that was at the time of when this motion should've been filed two thousand and seventeen that was good law and it to this day remains good law in fact even in the hill decision itself earlier this year the supreme court reaffirmed that despite  based on the whole decision the other perhaps more fundamental flaw in this case and this argument that is is that it is that the search here is the argument of the search here is based on the odor alone the record simply does not establish that fact which defendant largely ignores in this case if this is not a case where there was a suppression hearing an officer testify yes i searched the car based on the order canvass alone instead it appears to me that that defendant's assertion on point is based on a statement that the officer made during the roadside stop where he said i smell he said that he smelled weed which gives us probable cause to search now just because the officer happened to articulate that in that moment on video that doesn't mean that that was his sole basis for the search there very well could have been other and issue of criminal activity that the officer just happened to not articulate in that moment so the fact remains that this record just simply does not establish what is really the predicate fact of defense argument here which is that the rich isn't the odor was or excuse me which is that the search was based on the odor alone this is simply a case where that fact has been clearly established based on the evidence now even if even if hypothetically the search was in fact based on the owner alone and even if that somehow didn't provide probable cause for a in two thousand and seventeen and in any event a motion to suppress even a filed would not have been granted here because because the trooper acted in good faith reasonable belief that the search was lawful based on then existing and i would argue still existing precedent again at the time of the search in two thousand and seventeen stoute was good law and at that time it had not even been called into question and defend its argument to the contrary that's doubt has been agrah abrogated by statute that's simply not true again in the hill decision itself the court that decriminalisation did not alter cannabis status as contraband and thus is still subject to search and and not only to the officer here after that objectively reasonable good faith belief that the search all lawful but moreover the purpose of the exclusionary rule would not be served in this case because there was no police misconduct that can that can be deterred after all the exclusionary rule suppressing evidence the purpose is that of that is not to redress every conceivable force and then violation however slight rather it's limited to those rare cases where suppression of the evidence would serve as a deterrent a future by aleisha here there is no future violations to deter because again the officer was acting based on what was then existing and even subsequent you know even after hill remains a good precedent so for all of those reasons even if counsel had filed a motion to suppress in this case there is not a reasonable probability that it would have been granted unless the court has any further questions i see