court level so this is a very narrow issue it involves a traffic stop and subsequent search and i'm only concerned with the manner of the road purpose the deputy and the sergeant at the fury were not very clear about when this roadblocks started or exactly how many people it stopped how could that be i mean your client stops of somebody to stop what he was stopped and good so what are you saying i can clarify that what i'm saying is that the two officers are testifying suppression hearing we're not quite clear how leave anybody through but so what what exactly are you objecting to the state so that we can cut to the chase i'm objecting to the very deuce of the plan that was set up arrested mr moore they stopped it and one of them stopped at some point so i mean what are you saying what was that problematic there's no evidence in the record no i don't there's not a lot of case law on this and i think that you would be creating a lot i do not have a case it says that what i do have is cases that sort of give these ranges of  no it's not but that's that's the one extreme that's not ok on the other extreme you have martinez for chairs which is a u s supreme court case worker was a permanent checkpoint in texas and it stopped everybody and to have operating hours and i find it somewhat problematic that sergeant gore aloon could decide all right this is the end of this we're we're we're shutting this down  just because there's a road block which looks ok doesn't mean that it passes constitutional scrutiny i mean if you think about it maybe the example of a room clock that would not meet this would be suppose if the police knew that somebody drove a certain road route home every day at a certain time is sort of a roadblock near his house and it looks like it was except the poll it was well mark it has stated purpose of looking for registration and driver's licenses mistakes but as soon as they pulled over the man he knew be going down that route that the route locked down that would not be ok we can all agree on that well it might be a legitimate reason that it was short well but i would submit that it would still be the duty of the police to operate the roadblock under under clear rules and follow those rules and part of that would be to set up a definite beginning time and effort in any time you know so these supreme court cases don't directly touch on this but like indianapolis  some sleep we all get tired after a certain point schur the very fact that there's a tractor checkpoint for a limited amount of time the word gets that but i don't know if being short of manpower is an excuse for not following the constitution at will be my argument i mean if the police are short of manpower based they still have to follow the point specific stop you know they did it and decided in advance that the that checkpoint would be for a specific directions or anything wrong with that no there isn't not in this case and i will point out that the example that my car the opposing counsel provided where there would be a pretextual stop just to get somebody travelling on a particular road that isn't what happened here and in fact i w minutes and it was apparent that the primary purpose was to get a particular person so that wasn't concerned it was on the magistrate judges radar and he found that that wasn't supported by the record here what we have here were officers who were being proactive about public safety who are in orange county and who decided that in effect of the use of their time on the night shift would be to conduct a traffic checkpoint and  said in response to your question about the day it was monday night going into tuesday morning and ultimately these officers were diligent they made sure that the stop was visible it was on a straightaway of a main road going through the town to see if there is some traffic but not so much traffic that they would be accidental or baca and it was also located in a way that would allow these officers to  and registration checkpoints they indicated that other things were involved in the dui checkpoints and it was a more collaborative effort with different agencies so that they could have the blood alcohol machine present and all that i think that in terms of that time i would agree that there might be a greater likelihood of finding people who are under the influence but again the primary purpose of this  checkpoint was license and registration and general compliance with chapter twenty motor vehicle rules and we also mentally think that this court should uphold the district court's determination that the procedure followed here struck a hour versus two hours or whatever it is constitutionally dispositive because if you set it up ahead of time then the unfettered discretion doesn't come in for unfair comes in you apply to a particular person whether or not as a proceed delaware you're pulling somebody over randomly or using discretion to pull them over as opposed to either reasonable suspicion and probable cause or a the example i gave of the police turn against somebody because i knew when he was you know arriving home that did not happen in this case my my my point is that that would be an extremely and that would not pass constitutional scrutiny i think maybe the example of a roomful are done well then the best would be martinez where to where is permanent roadblock is well marked every car stopped it has a definite purpose you know there's no question there that there should and that earlier anything in his regular operated out of hours so to me that's probably the standard and the worst way to conduct it would be proceed delaware where you just pick that car ran you know that's that's way too much discretion no discretion too much discretion this case fall somewhere in between there's