determination here that the officer was very credible when she testified and she testified that she pulled him over because she saw the air freshener and she saw it moving around and it was a violation of the chicago ordinance said it was obstructing his view the district court found that testimony credible so how do you get around that for  when there's an obstruction of a driver's clear view and the officer testified credibly according to the district court that she pulled him over because of this obstruction how is that a violation of the law you agree that the standard here is this is a cherry step and whether or not there was reasonable suspicion as opposed probable cause to brief in the opinion below talk about probable cause but bank your honor and may have please the court the district court properly denied the defendant's motions to suppress consistent with this court's decision and garcia garcia a reasonable officer could conclude th air freshener hanging from jackson's reviewing their constituted a traffic violation also petrus testified at the suppression hearing that prior to initiating her traffic stop she observed a tree shaped air freshener measuring nearly five inches long and three inches wide hanging from jackson's review mirror her testimony was corroborated by her body one camera footage that showed the air freshener in relation to the driver's seat she further testified that she believed that air freshener obstructed jackson's view and at the conclusion of the hearing the district court explicitly found her testimony honest and credible and garcia garcia this court had all been under substantially similar circumstances a reasonable officer but given the historical facts that were established year after petrus a subjective understanding of the law is irrelevant if an objective review of the record stablish is reasonable grounds to conclude that a stopped individual has in fact violated the law a stop is constitutional even if an author was mistaken about the scope of activities that the law actually prohibits for the reasons i previously stated in objective review of this record satisfies that standard therefore the  preoccupation with supposin the sake of law misses the point and they fail to recognize that an officer's mistake of law only matters in cases where as the th circuit stated wallis an objective review of the facts establishes that the defendant's conduct does not any way shape or form constitute a crime that is not the case here additionally as the court highlighted during the appellate argument there was no mistake of law to begin with suppression hearing she admitted that her verbiage at the scene was imprecise and explained that the true reason she stopped the ickle was because the air freshener quote obstructed jackson's view her testimony was corroborated by the written accordingly pending any further questions from the court the government respectfully request that this court affirmed the district court's judgment his own words the very st thing he says in the polling jetson is you see that little thing hanging right there in the state of illinois you can't have anything hanging from that now on her rd try at the evidence you're hearing she eventually got gettleman recognize that's a complete misunderstanding of the law now the government said it's a wallet and if we look at the facts in wallace the trooper there thought that the windows tense was illegal because he could barely fleet through leeds which he wouldn't have done if he thought the air freshener in of itself provides a reasonable suspicion and then affects with a traffic stop where the st words out of her mouth mistake the law she then provides an