the di filippo case is important because you had someone who was acting wholly innocently. he was not committing an offense at all as in this case you had someone who was acting wholly innocently and was not committing a violation of the law. so in di filippo this court said even though contact was wholly innocent, there still was probable cause, despite the mistake of law and that's all that we're saying in this case. >> isn't there another difference between di filippo and this case? the court in di filippo talks a lot about how there's a presumption of constitutionality for any statute and we don't want officers to go around questioning the constitutionality of statutes. but here that's not the case. here there's a statute and an officer is not supposed to read it as broadly as possible, an officer is supposed to read it fairly. there's no presemgs that goes into effect and there's no way in which we could say the same thing about di filippo is that we don't want officers to question -- to inquire into this area. >> it is different but we do want officers to enforce the