proceeding which resulted in mr timson being placed on conditional discharge for driving on a suspended license prior to trial mr timson motion to suppress the evidence which was a pain as a result of a rather unique type of traffic stop and is the ruling on the suppression motion which forms the basis for this appeal on the stop took place a little past one in the morning on a four lane u s highway that connects the western police checkpoint which the trial court called a roadside safety check so he decided he wasn't going to drive the checkpoint to avoid being subjected to a stop he made a u turn in the  where there was a break in the concrete median which was also over a railroad track and got into the west family started heading back toward the bridge one of the officers who was working the checkpoint saw a truck that was going west of the checkpoint that had not passed his location and the other officer deputy duffy who conducted the stop actually saw mr timson make u turn and start heading back where they stopped is not supported by reasonable articulable suspicion where the only reason for the stop is the driver's act of the bird in his path to avoid going through a safety checkpoint i'd like to move quickly into the legal analysis that i think lies about heart of the constitutional issue but first address quickly the states for proposal that there is an alternative basis for affirming without reaching a constitutional question that extent that this is an argument here considering i would urge you to compare the grounds that the state is relying on which were was to travel left of the center of a roadway within one hundred feet of a railroad crossing to the grounds that was a non a divided four lane highway the provision applies to it to the same road with the center and as cole makes clear a mistake of law by a traffic officer is different than a mistake of fact stops are not reasonable even if an officer thinks something is a violation but the condom actually is not prohibited conduct that's a mistake of law so we're driving left of the center of the road within one hundred feet of a r crossing is limited to two lane road ways then even if deputy duffy thought the statute had been violated his being wrong constitutes a violation of the fourth amendment the federal case law that is detailed in that  decision there's a really good job of expressing that distinction so without a move on to what is the heart of this case and what i hope that i will have convinced your honest look at in this case is how there is a significant balancing of interests that need needs to be conducted when deciding the constitutional question of whether driving in a way that takes a detour around one of these roadside checkpoints even if  conspicuous the tour that should not form the basis for a valid traffic stop now it is possible for you to just review the half dozen or so cases from other states and try to determine where our supreme court would come down or where the united states supreme court would see this case going but i'm going to focus on the two competing interests that are play one is that a driver may not want to be subjected to a no suspicion  it's one that is a short and sweet time and this interest is no different than the right to either give or deny the police permission to see if you're invited violating some law in checkpoint is not the focus of the attack we have accepted the checkpoint as barely tolerable under the constitution it has passed muster but it is a rare form of casting to sway a proof stuff that is based on no suspicion we don't have a lot of indiscriminate suspicion the stuff that are approved on the fourth amendment so in that sense it's barely tolera and in this case you have a person by definition who has the fleas have no suspicion but they're going to stop him and he decides i don't want to be stopped where you have no suspicion so what if instead of going to you care and he rolls through there and the of an officer over the coming going to be a lawful command well if you obey it and then they find incriminating evidence and it was an illegal command then that was suppressed but you can be stopped for not obeying even on command you might you know not have to run the risk of you know being successfully prosecuted but i think it's different to you know disregarding the order i want you to go over to the place where we check people closer than not even coming into the stop the the officer has policies and there this is hicks this is an important point these stops are subject to a lot of internal and external checks on how they're arranged and so that you can look later to see you know how well they're doing and one of them is no discretion in the of checkpoints because they're so tenuous in terms of the balance with the fourth amendment one of those checks against these roadside checks is in that document that the whole i in the brassica course  point to the courts that have said that's a good law it's in that pamphlet the white or the nebraska court where they say in that appendix says don't stop someone simply because they won't come through the stop why why is that in the appendix it's because as the person drives up to the checkpoint there is no suspicion of his driving he decides i'm not going to let you stop me without any suspicion to say everybody has to come through the checkpoint if you get anywhere close to it and that turns the tide against the validity of the checkpoints and criminal cases don't we kill juries that you use flight as where an officer doesn't have a reason to stop you wonder terry but he wants you to stop so he says come on here you know that sounds like a command if it's not a valid stop under terry you can walk away and i state the cases in my opening brief where the courts have said well you know not all not turning around and coming to the officer was suspicious and on appeal they're overturned because it's not suspicious texas size your right to not be suspected without cause and everybody drives to a checkpoint is not legitimately suspected until they get into the checkpoint so that's where the point become in the guidelines however it was created without violating some traffic law don't stop them there's more courts that have said that's going to be overturned if you stop them so don't stop them without seeing a violation and in this case it wasn't hard to see a violation just come over the mississippi river and so they boom come right out stop them and it's no dispute in this case even the trial court's order says this stuff was get the check point so there's no other grounds other than he refused to let them check whether or not he was in compliance with the law so what do you make of this guy he's well it's a third district says it's got i know we still we get it overturned in the case of him just i don't think you need to because in fact scott had his conviction reversed and you know we quibble in various over whether or not the language is the something some other animal where the court says that if you don't go through a checkpoint and you don't have a street that you actually live on like that scott that that that's grounds for stuff i think that's wrong i think that doesn't that doesn't adequately take into account the balance that gives too much power to randomly check people out and in this i mean we you know we could record in the trial court of whether or not this roadside checkpoint was complying with all the heavy duty rules and regulations because again it's a procedure that we barely tolerate under the fourth amendment we didn't do that because this wasn't a stop within the checkpoint it wasn't in the paula of the checkpoint like the moments from twenty five years ago it was a case where the driving accident and they did a canvassing of on mars illinois intersection to see if people knew a thing that wasn't based on suspicion of that that's not saying we suspect every driver on this road of being a kidnapper that's kind of ludicrous there's only one can ever they're trying to get information to solve the crime you're not a suspect that but with these roadside checkpoints so it is quite different a roadside checkpoint is about semi suspecting everybody and there's not a strong rationale for doing that i understand that there is a balance rested curbing drunk driving and safety of the roads but six eight two crossing over the the left center of the roadway i fail to resolve section b and i've literally failed to resign i never i was so pleased with what i found in subsection  stop the facts as council discussed are pretty simple and a lot almost entirely undisputed he was fifty feet away from a roadblock a legal road block side you want to go through it he at the at the the railroad crossing and those are the facts that we need the people submit that the biggest the big issue here is whether or not these are old walks are legal and they are and that was discussed at the outset council's argument but with your honor's and the fact is that they're legal and as long as they're legal they have a purpose their purpose is for in this case it was i believe this is a driver's license stop but regardless of whether it's just check her driver's license or her to check for proper insurance or to check for drivers driving under the influence the fact is as long as they're legal their purpose is completely false frustrated if cops for police officers and hapless stop those attempting to evade in a search for suspicious manner and these roadblocks and in this case there's no question regardless of whether it's legal and it is maneuver here was legal that that you turn there's just i don't think there's any the bait that it's it's a suspicious activity and the fact is if police officers were not able to stop drivers for making such as suspicious maneuvers in and around the roadblock to avoid this police contact what's the point of the roadblock i basically i think to reverse the decision in this case would be basically the say that these roadblocks are largely pointless and that only the people of course the result is going to be that the only people who are going through these robots are people who have nothing to hide and the point of the robots is to catch people who are not following the law  old but it's still a still valid lot defendant drove up to be near the roadblock he was one hundred feet away twice as far as the driver in this case and he walked inside and wrote this court said that that's a well i i'm not saying every day wasn't holding them long but it certainly was well i think i think the rational of that quote and that case a well it's still valid and it was also spoken a scout very similar language scott when even further to actually describe the circumstances when i stop of this case of this type is justified despite the obvious scott scott says it is a stop is justified or one vehicle fails to stop at a roadblock t council spends a lot of time talking about survivor cases from other sections and in indiana the case of snyder versus state they said that not stopping such fools performing such universes would be quote ignoring reality and quote as a driver likely committing a crime these officers are human beings and they need to use their common sense and are should be able to assess what a driver is doing whether work with regards to whether it's suspicious or not and the fact is that then i need to go back to basically my thesis of this is that these reviews roadblocks are legal and they have zero purpose your a point if if officers can't stop those  about it but the fact is this court has as discussed maneuvers that are sufficiently suspicious to justify stop again parking a hundred feet from the dress i think the state's best argument is and that is that these checkpoints are going to be frustrated if you can't stop the people that it seems like their design have to go through it and what it makes me think of is how through giving law enforcement the power to follow the sheep otherwise known as drive into these checkpoints because most of them like sheep are just going to grin and bear and go through a what if dozens and dozens of drivers not violating anything decide i'm not going to be a sheep today or turn around and go another checkpoints don't work anymore that frustrates the purpose but does a constitution start with we the people the people can do that and there's no reason that they have to submit to the stuff and if i c has never said that police can randomly seize people walking you know in temporarily detain people walking down the street and so that kind of takes that scenario out of what we're talking about here and this isn't about whether we like ro it's also enough for our purposes the being within the checkpoint if you're that close we can treat you as if you're in that's what i believe in there was we're reading  says you've made it close enough to the beginning of this checkpoint and that's all says ok well this fellow made it closer to death and then yes i mean within like fifty feet but he had to be stopped i point to lose and then in my opening very which is very close to the situation at all he wasn't stop he stopped he was approached after he stopped that's a big distinction this driver was stop he would have not been stopped he would have been back in hiding in a minute and the stop was based on we want to force you through this tech and interesting thing and that's got pace is the trial judge's decision as i was reading it and of course it was reversed because he was on the street that he lived on so he was entitled to go down that's ice free court said in the balance of things we have to recognize that the officers can force people to go through that you know this is if you go through the checkpoint unless they conducted it wrong that's a valid operation but if you choose not to i my argument is it's the same as if you choose not to any other indiscriminate request