that point he activated his lights and pulled over he approached with an interview call and began to speak with him asking him for license registration and insurance initially the defendant could not find his insurance information so he  be heard on the video calling his mom to try to figure out where it's at while officer go over to speaking with defendant he notices that defendant has glassy watery eyes understandable was slurred speech and notices that there are empty beer cans  test and in that test defendant indicated six out of the six signs for impairment the next test was the walk in turn test and different exhibited five of the walk in turn test in the one leg stand test he had balance issues he had to be told the direction several times after the completion of these tests the officer asked if and if you would take a portable breath test defendant you know when is the last time you had a drink and he said it had been at two o'clock earlier that day however when he missionary asked him it was i have had nothing to drink so the defendant has the burden of before he had glassy watery eyes and admitted the p v t should appoint zero seven the court found in that case that that was enough for the officer to arrest him for dui here again we have more than that we have him failing all of the field sobriety tests exhibiting physical signs and with the p b t registering point zero nine nine also in russia one of the important things that they brought up in the trial judge in this case brought up was the defendant speech and that it's slurred but understandable and that's one of the things that rush touched on in your speech can be slurred but still understandable so as the people's position that what that was one of the many signs that showed that he had probable cause for the arrest and one of the other things that defendant argues is that the p v t was not and miscible at the hearing however the courts have found that p regarding this in this ability but it's the people's position that the burden never shifted to them broadening those requirements and that the people teams and miscible the purpose of which is to determine probable cause and that was an aid in this case to show that defendant was impaired and could not drive without the p b t there were several signs that he was driving under the influence with the failed tests in the physical signs and the changing of the stor he asked for his insurance can't find his insurance gets on his cell phone calls his mom produces eater talks to his mom making sense on the phone with his mom no problem with his physical dexterity using the cell phone difficulty taking off his work boots so up to this point time his belt is good there's no problems he performs a walk in turn test but before that he had some lower back issues because he's a mechanic does the walk in turn test seventeen and eighteen are on the line seven hundred eighteen exams are a side looks good on the video hours he has some some problems with the test to a certain extent but are those consistent with someone's seventeen and eighteen ran the line it wasn't perfect you don't mention the trial to question the credibility and one of the comments you made leads me to believe that she misunderstood the officer's testimony because she said well how could she seem to be under the impression that they also testified that after your client made the left turn that that's when he said he clocked the car  and she said well how could he have the guy no sooner turned than the officer turned around and did the u turn and i don't see how he would have had time to have  a radar during that period of time before he made the turn which leads me to believe he she thought the testimony was that he was parked after he made a left turn as opposed to as he was approaching the intersection which is what else it testified to as you pointed out and show which is judging of credibility it seems clear to me that she misunderstood this testable also well i wouldn't characterize it misunderstanding i mean he was that basis of the staff is not why we're here today it's whether or not there is reasonable grounds to place him under ross and she said there was basically essentially an offer to stop and it was speeding only which was an excessive speed which would lead someone to believe that these at all or something like that you know classic sloppy drunk that the state didn't have to show that there's still probable cause for a rash right all these rounds i agree sam proved beyond a reasonable doubt but his actions on the video he's thinking in a thing with ordinary care and just because someone i agree with you sloppy drunk you know i mean that's not the burden here but he vox like he's walking he's in the video he's walking around of medical issue and that they're difficult and when you look at the totality the circumstances from the driving to the field sobriety test how he's walking doing everything else and this one thing i want to point out is afternoon early evening i mean the time of day certainly isn't a major factor but more duis occur later on at night and earlier in the afternoon and he admitted to drinking earlier in the day at first he their idea drinking and when he was question on the witness stand while you say that i don't know why i said that there was a response and the state makes a big deal about his response was i don't know why i said there but it's something we s every day i don't know why i just said that there was stupid ok and everybody's a little bit nervous when they're dealing with the police so his actions the abbotts was consistent with the way the objected p b t being emitted in evidence he was played on the video the result was never showed i believe it wasn't shown on the video but we objected if i objected to the foundation for the p v t because they have a foundation  the p b t an officer can act command a person to take the p v t and hear the officer's actions were consistent with an order it wasn't specifically i watch you do this alone in this right now  people versus taylor so i'd submit your honors the foundation for they had an order then whether he was given an opportunity and offer with an option or fuses not mat and since we shifted the burden of the summary suspension har police why that was certified in the ninety three days and whether or not they file the operational guidelines when administering it and whether or not one test was administered and none of that was ever done the bird should to do state and they never and if the person goes do i have to take it i know he austria's or you know go into a big conversation about it he just has to offer the test  ever offer to it was more along the lines of in order and what's important here is thinking in a thing with ordinary care and i stated this before it's not and we all know all this and i don't like to say this but it's not against the law to drink and drive so people go out after work and they have a couple of beers and they drive home just because someone has an order of alcohol on her breath which is all we which is just an order here was never here arises strong moderate there are two people in the car who is calling for my client's breath he's doing everything properly responding to the officer the fuel sobriety test there's the i q issues and the p b t was never offered he was never given opportunity to refuse and then the s  and also the trial judge said you know he brought up this issue of credibility but she said did he have after probable cause to stop defendant and she said absolutely if he was speeding  blow into this like you're blowing up a boom ok defendant says yes and then that's when the officer but the device up to his mouth and then defendant blows in he says keep going keep going keep line when it's done defendant go says you didn't ask me if i would take it the officer says i did just ask if you would take it you know as was already covered that they're not required to explain the instructions you know ad nauseum and there a he didn't ask defendant he testified no i did not ask him so that's just a little bit a little bit different and the the court said in that case that he actually t up to his mouth and that definit would have to actually turn his to head to deny the request or you know say no i have an opportunity to refuse in this case that didn't happen so  us thank both of you for your arguments here this morning is meant to be taken under advisement written his position will be issue