on charges there are a mile long rap sheet for lack of better term but we don't look at this case because there was no investigation of that moment therefore he and then there was no corroboration of any illegal activity he as a as a basis for accepting the results of the search in this case typically i think you know most of the cases that i've seen when you have an officer saying  makes a legal conclusion based on these facts of the that the officer has put together and actually written in this case and substance of this allowed to use his discretion here the defendant played the drugs in his home belonged to someone else that's imply a plea denying his intent to distribute those judges if i can answer your question i don't mean to be overly terse with you that the judge is in the best position to take into account the prejudicial it impact regardless relative to the probe the value when the judge here was extremely conscientious first you read the case law that he considered the appropriate factors then your exercise to some discretion to take if that contemporaneous limiting instruction which also hearing later in the regular jury instructions that the other crimes evidence was only regarding in intent and that yes you know the first ball says the jury is presumed strongly to follow the judge's instructions that's the tailored case and i think we should all the time we have juries instructed not thought no question that but although you think about it you can be told don't take that into account in other words in the number of elephants you see in this picture don't take the pick i would have been you often in you can't you can't be told although up all sorts of stuff that the judge used in deciding this other crimes evidence could came in come in he noted the defense counsel asked the officers if they knew the defendant from prior to drug dealing and whether the cops you know tried to gather information police shared information regarding drug dealers he noticed one cop was asked if he knew the players on the street referring to drug dealers that i'm really pretty sure judge this was asked by the defense counsel at trial this was the defense raising intent has an issue so the prior conviction was relevant and admissible and if you can judge i've also i point out that that prior conviction for state's attorney did not provide any one iota in his argument it was hardly over used the fact that the state's attorney did argue that the question of intent was an easy one given the other evidence was just a reasonable expected argument that doesn't detract from the fact here that the prior conviction went  officer a case like this to second guess the judge's finding of probable cause officer or it was always in good faith and if it's all this is in the brief the standards of jet you're reasonable as he took the informant to the judge judge issued the warrant it's really terrible accuse him of bad faith on everything that was done here first of all we did he did consider that skinner case it's in my brief where a search warrant just to show how the cops the search warrant was issued based on what the cops he was probably could believe was probable cause the search warrant issued was based on the complaint and affidavit of one with an alias the it reasonable grounds to believe the defendant possessed there was cocaine that person has here came before the judge you know the a finally asked to establish probable cause heart with proof beyond reasonable doubt skinner distinguished cases where there were affidavits from officers based on information from informants where the raw ability of the informant was at issue because here that informant is an arcade was before the judge in complaint for warrant was executed by defiant a private citizen based on his observations and knowledge here the point was executed by the officer based on the private citizens affidavit and the private citizen informant that john doe was present whereas here the informan specifically recall your honor but i think they probably those cases there was a bit more seven here i want to be fair with you on that your you'll find me out on it anyway so i might as well help my credibility by saying that  officer had no reason not reviling the instant warrant to that informant based on based on the skinner situation where probable cause to the informant had no reason to lie he was relied on it in good faith and as noted in my brief in considering the officers good faith and that's the whole nother here and i really think it's a bad accusation against this officer of the court which to the information known to the cop and to to the judge or even beyond the informants affidavit that's the frazier case here the cop added much information to the informants affidavit indeed see the appendix to the defense brief the informant's affidavit and the officers one complaint are both in their right next to each other but the bad each of them is one page the cops complaint is considerably like they are the interview the informant the defendant i'm sorry the informant said the defendant had multiple pounds of cannabis at the subject address not the purported whatever argument which i think is a very weak one anyway the deformed the informant saw multiple pounds of cannabis inside the defendant's apartment with which he said was number fifty eight which indeed it was the informant identified a photograph  defendant the informant said his own offender in his own affidavit he saw a large amount of a green leafy plant like material progress or to be cannabis judge i think the argument that the use of the word book or that somehow we can something it's just a word chosen it's meaningless partment number on registry of the building later still more that the officer had to support his good faith at the hearing on the motion to disclose the informant the officer said the informant told him he had been at this address within the last seventy two the informant said he hung out with the defendant the for the informant said the purported cannabis was in a black duffel bag in the defendant's bedroom seeming to be packaged for sale then there's going to be a lot of information here and if not enough information for probable cause but that's not why we're here on today it certainly seems to me to be an awful lot of information supporting the absolute faith this was extra information of the officers good faith which the court had earlier found and of course has more authority in brighton negligence or being able to do more before seeking a warrant has nothing to do with good faith we're not talking about screw ups we're talking about bad faith and a screw up isn't bad  exclusionary rule is to deter police from getting more and so on false information not to deter police from obtaining a warrant on correct information provided in a slipshod manner that's the bryant case again and there is nobody here says any of the information is incorrect the officer was simply mistaken on the rather minor point of how he verified the defendant's address he said it was secretary of state he went to the apartment site saw the defense name up shortly before he went to the judge or the warrant then it the weeds document it showed it was someone from the peoria department who checked there to find the defendant this address officer warrants again showing his honesty could not recall he was the one who done th for the judge the judge but also found the cop credible there's no indication he was thank you all told lawrence of the police department properly check for information of the defendant's address and the judge noted that in found the police department acted in good faith if the defendant cites cases in his brief were unlike your the informant did not come before the judge here the informant did whether the officer spoke of the informant saying purported cannabis or suspected cannabis is really reason and logic this substance is extremely unlikely to have been oregano parsley spinach or less as the defendant makes a claim you just read it could have been who has that kind of quantity sitting on a table you know a package for delivery of oregano parsley spinach it was again the question here is the officers good faith not some hyper technicality as to whether he specifically she said cannabis rather than report cannabis or green leafy substance look this one complaint of the officer and the sworn affidavit the informant the question simply one of good faith not perfection or not even a good job it's just whether he was in good faith in executing the search warrant i apologize for my redundancy but i really believe that i hope and by you know beating the matter to death i'm really making my point but you know there's there's no real question here of the informant's credibility  signature and again this was done in the car it was done in the police office cars in the parking lot of a movie rental place i believe i'm it was not a solemn eyes setting or furthermore it's just one factor to take into account really is irrelevant what's relevant here is the police office determination of the confidential informant credibility because we're looking at whether officer torrance knew or should have known that he did not have probable cause to duck that search and this is because he did seven ninety eight but that's where it begins where it in that in that search warrant there has to be some sort of indication how this confidential informant knew that the controlled substance of the cannabis was in fact cannabis that's the law