but if you look at the videotape there is no indication law of any lane strelley by the vehicle that he identifies as murphy's vehicle he's one hundred percent sure that there was lane straddling yet the video does not show that night and the implication there being just this card is that he found that there was no probable cause at that particular time that we prove in a prime aphasia case that the stop was unconstitutional at that particular time mistake and hopefully so you'll agree with me the we have the but probable cause burden of proof probable cause the fourth amendment reasonable belief that a crime is going to commit or about it we also have the time there was no problem because but he's won the second time he can't justify the same stay presented additional evidence which didn't didn't very young as it was before and i'm sneaked you that that he should have just issued a brand of the motion based on probable cause but i really don't think probably was or terry's that really makes the difference what makes a difference is the videotape the videotape just does not corroborate the police officers it's their videotape and it's not said to be inaccurate or defective or anything and if you look at the videotape to was not based on probable cause because the the police officer the video just doesn't back it up if you can my case the video and i don't think i think judge police was confused and conflicted by the video and  video considering that it is dark and the illumination and as you know that the video and it which you can see passed on the nation could he can testimony is confusing because he says that it happened right in front of him but that really couldn't be possible because of where he sitting out there be a couldn't be right in front of  the fact he described it was in front of him is his way of describ time is well over basically i have a reasonable suspicion to stop if you go to check it out that's what we have in this case we don't necessarily have probable cause because i don't think bronson testified in fact well that was do that if you just said crossing the center line that in and of itself is sufficient for a reasonable exit was suspicious for a carry stuff and that's what was conducted and that's the reason why judge alito i think with respect to the motion for a read the verdict he heard because holding the probable cause standard i think you actually missed the boat on that and i think you really need to think it really eliza under terry and when you do that credibility of servatius finding the officers credibility finding officers to be credible and you know wolf that he didn't necessarily show what they testified to the fact is that because it gives him conclusive future those t necessarily to even you know embrace the strict palance argument of not on the square but a mistake or things that perhaps are recollected differently  different interpretation or recollection or mistake it's an isn't that the whole idea of the videotape is kind of sort of the whole idea but then again it's not  in this case if it was more definitive if it was actually a lot clearer it actually showed what the conclusion the defense council is trying to draw from that it was that clear again chance like me we' opposite sides of the the bench right now but the thing is it's not and that's the reason why this becomes a credibility question this becomes a situation of the trial just chose to believe because he had really nothing definitive that contradicted the officer's testimony