need to know specifically what the sources basis of knowledge was because i mean there could be any basis but we just don't know that we just don't know in this case it was the state's burden of producing that evidence so i don't think there's any dispute among the parties that establish reasonable suspicion to stop someone for dui and see things that the clergy there they knew that something i witnessed call nine one one and specifically reported that they had just been run off the road by a specific vehicle  whether that is a serious enough offense serious enough traffic violation to reasonably infer that bad driver was drunk and the majority said that yes no someone grandson assessed the road was us to reasonably conclude that the driver was drunk but they now say that it was a close case and they specifically distinguish the contrast to that close case where they had some specific information with a case in which there was a description of just a minor traffic infraction just  that the driver was drunk and i think you know where you're sort of headed here and with what i've observed in preparing for this case is the fit parent we have here smack in the middle never met him on sight and for the first day on the other side you was carrying a gun and read the code in jail said roy we don't know that source is basis of knowledge just as in this case we don't know the source is the basis of knowledge for concluding that the driver of that expedition was drunk  similar case it's a federal case that the state said in their brief about reasonable suspicion for dui stops that was actually very shortly after jail and they were kind of struggling with i think the same sorts of things that this court is looking at in this case and what they said there is that one of the factors you look at does that have enough information to infer that if a source with this thing actually traffic violation that requires an immediate stop and the reason that they said you need to have some basis of know it doesn't make a difference when you're asking did the officer have reasonable suspicion because i think it's pretty well established that the state police can go on the line that they knew before this seizure to justify clear to make any sort of the friend decision about whether there was indeed reasonable suspicion or whether it was just in a sufficient hunch did he run the plate to see if there was anything on it before tuesday and it's that he did i mean if that happened cites in those cases the person who originally got the information from the source and really had to do was ask one question how do you know what did you see and that's not a heavy burden to impose on the government and at the same time imposing that burden i think strikes a proper balance between protecting the right of mordor us to be free from under reasonable traffic stats well same time protecting the public's interest in the safety of the roads if you are several questions about that offense the second is lopez's driving records which also means he says s or one of them is a direct result of the illegal stop you know as your honor pointed out there was no indication that he was running the place or doing other similar independent previous recognized at a very limited and narrow exception to the exclusionary rule in a case in which there was an isolated instance of negligent recordkeeping by a police employee who failed to get records to indicate that that stop that is the sort of misconduct there may not be the most flagrant violation of the fourth amendment determining evidence in that situation gives the police an incentive to make sure that they have done enough investigation or just ask in this case one more question to get the evidence they needed to justify a stop if if you if you suppress evidence and in situation you can to try that sort of misconduct and that is the kind of the kind of  guns for drugs have been found in the search i think black letter law as you know also makes a stop seize of some cocaine in plain view on the front see plenty of cases have suppressed evidence in that situation even the bad drug case or suppose it had been a gun that gun case is a fairly serious crime in the one that we have issue here so in those situations where it's pretty clear evidence has consistently been suppressed in the past the cost of exclusion is far greater than it would be here so when you're balancing the wrong and actually executed it you would have to work at the upper ability of the officers who investigated the case and got the evidence and submitted that evidence to a dreadful warrant if those officers were clever there then you might have suppression present haring they worked at the culpability of the employee who made the record keeping here even though it was perfectly reasoning that the officer who made the warrantless arrest didn't do anything and you have to look at the culpability of the other person  face too much of what's already in the brief spread with his windows and that was a consolidated case but mr lopez mendoza was illegally arrested and the government instituted a deportation proceeding against him  but i think by the time it made its supreme court i don't think they were disputing whether the arrest was over you know they were just disputing what the consequences would be in the of immigration proceedings and mr lopez windows argued was that the immigration mass the power to deport him because of the illegal arrest and the u s supreme court dealt with that in a just two paragraphs and they were right on pretty red state was case by going back to the nineteenth century to say that in a legal arrest never deprives a court of the power to try it whether it's an immigration proceeding proceeding and in the context of making that holding based on that case law they did say the body or identity of a defendant can't be suppressed but to interpret that without considering the context in which that argument was made and the case and that that assertion relied on i think takes an assertion meant to address the specific legal argument made by mr lopez mendoza and expands it beyond notion to now categorically exams identity related evidence in a completely different type of proceeding a criminal proceeding in which it  risk associated with drunk driving we have a fresh message which is more detail bend that in jail because it does give indication of future behavior in the sense of the location the time and the police officer finding right there that simpl federal law that is appropriate to deter police misconduct and if it doesn't deter police misconduct it's not appropriate to apply it in a particular case and that's there's nothing new of scary about that every clip of the contexts in which the police have either been a traffic stop a stop and frisk whatever the case may be the police isn't encounters happen all the time and it's not uncommon for the police to have some information but not enough to justify the trying to suppress the us supreme court said nothing about whether identity evidence is suppressive whether it's this sort of category that doesn't qualify under the exclusionary rule they are simply raising whether the cost of exclusion in the civil deportation proceeding outweighed the work was outweighed by the deterrent effect of exclusion they were not addressing at all categories of evidence or anything like that it was simply that lopez mendoza