e was following the law. >> the di filippo case is important is because you had someone who is acting wholly innocently. he was not committing an offense at all. in this case, you have someone who is acting innocently and not violating the law. even though the conduct was innocent, there still is probable cause despite the mistake of law. that is all we are saying. >> isn't there another difference between those two cases? the court and di filippo talked a lot about there was a presumption of constitutionality for any statutes. we do not want officers to go around questioning the constitutionality of statutes. here e. that's not the case. here, there is a statute. an officer is not supposed to read it as broadly as possible, they're supposed to read it fairly. here's no presumption. and there's no way we could say the same thing that we don't want officers to inquire into this area. >> we want officers to enforce the law. we don't want them to sit back -->> fairly and as written and not to push every statute the furthest it could go without being found utterly unreasonable. >> that is

. >> what kind of mistake to the officer make in di filippo? the loss said exactly what he thought it said. what do you classify as a mistake of law question? you said it was presented fleet valid -- we he asked according said it was presumptively valid and he asked according -- we said it was presumptively valid. he asked according to a statute. you do not ask police officers to ignore the law. >> that is correct. >> this is a mistake of law. he was following the law. isthe di filippo case important is because you had someone who is acting wholly innocently. he was not committing an offense at all. in this case, you have someone who is acting innocently and not violating the law. even though the conduct was innocent, there still is probable cause despite the mistake of law. that is all we are saying. >> isn't there another difference between those two cases? lippo talkedd di fi a lot about there was a presumption of constitutionality for any statutes. we do not want officers to go around questioning the constitutionality of statutes. here, the