he was discharged from treatment on august thirty first two thousand and seventeen by as he is counselor explained in his confidential treatment memo katie was primarily discharged from treatment because his therapist was informed that he  was going to spend a lengthy amount of time at the juvenile detention center and that he may not return to the community this is because incurred new legal charges in august two thousand and seventeen indeed he eased their best actually but at the time he was reinstated into treatment in december two thousand and seventeen those reasons still exist he had still messed a couple of sessions he had still had difficulty applying treatment concept those those  existed at the moment he just was discharged and at the moment he was reinstated the only factor that was different was that at the time he was discharged his their place was under the impression that he was going to be seventy two d j for a very long time provider did not believe that missing a few sessions was enough for him to successfully complete further because the court did not impose a date by which time kate needed to complete treatment he seemingly had to complete treatment only within the forty eight months of supervision he was sentenced to the hearing was in january two thousand and eighteen which was roughly twenty three months into his forty eight might win the state only h session that might be enough to actually revoke his supervision with the purpose one of the main purposes behind probation behind sex offender treatment behind even the juvenile court act is we have billets he shed in this case the court specifically order in fact complete treatment at the end of february two thousand and eighteen and while that was not a factor for the court to take into consideration it should be noted that he continued to go to treatment even after his sister supervision was revoked out of the beltway he also testified however they k t did not talk to keith did not attempt to approach her and that there were a lot of people at this china met now this is not surprising because hadi tournaments such as might have been committing he was ordered not to be around for either boys he was standing at the group of friends there was a chance he saw the police officer knew that he was sitting with a group of friends that he was not allowed to be wed and that's why he was hiding or they can saw the police officer and knowing his history with police officers just instinctively heads out of where she testified that when he noticed her pointing to him he had so even if we take that at face value that he actually saw her at that exact time he did exactly what we expect juveniles to do when they're when they see the person they're ordered not to have contact with which is he left the tournament and he did not come back now he was sitting at the top of that we cherish when she was cleaning him out so it's premature to say that he wouldn't have left on his own if given the opportunity in this chick in this case the police officer i supported him out but it's significant that he did not come back in fact be out justify that she did not see him after that one instance so we would ask this question find that the see did not prove that he had contact with her it's not it's not a stretch to say that they will often find themselves in the same place at the same time now if they found themselves in the same place and at the same time and neither of them notice it would not be a violation of a no contact order similarly if they found themselves at the same place at the same time and on me to be our notice it would still not be a violation of a no contact order in this case the second that there is evidence that could be construed that katie sa and seizures in this case a court ordered to permit the probation office to visit his home school or elsewhere to the extent necessary as determined by the probation office and further submit assertions of his person presidents autumn automobile and and or in fact at any time such requests are made by the probation office and consent to the use of everything sees as i've been in some court proceeding the condition as written is unreasonable because it reasonable suspicion to search the probationers motel room because it noted that a search of a person's home could not be characterized as a minor invasion of privacy the purpose in asking that a reasonable suspicion requirement be upgraded into the condition is to prevent illegal for the amendment searches before they happen instead of bringing it to the court's attention after they happen hear a probation officer testify that she had conducted knock and talks and referred to them as pro active department can continue to subject to these illegal fourth amendment searches by referring to them as knocking tox with no consequences as long as no evidence is c's katie asked that this part strike the condition yes your honor oh isn't that significant where your honor in this case while the word shall is not used it's all require some kind of consent from the probationary himself find reasons suspicion that there was a violation of a probation condition and here the language is more restrictive but it still doesn't mean that it's post fact that consigns and while this issue has not been litigated in the trial court the language in this case in this specific condition essentially narrows the language in the other conditions that were required they all require some kind of action on his part so we would argue that reasonable suspicion or some level of suspicion needs to be there before a probation officer can search so that is why we ask that this court either cite the condition outright or th right thank you your honors supervision and that respondents probation condition was not unconstitutional or unreasonable and moreover that issue has been forfeited as it was not raised a lot in regards to the first issue the state proved by preponderance of the evidence that the petition to revoke hearing that respondent violated a condition of the supervision as he was unsuccessfully terminated from treatment the respondent was sentenced in this case the trial court ordered respondent to complete the evaluation and comply with treatment recommendations now in council's reply brief she states that the conversation was actually between a response mother in the of what is part of further evidence saying respondents knowledge of the requirements is the juvenile sex offender treatment program crash fact that he signed which is page c two two five of the record where he agrees to attend all scheduled counseling sessions he understands if you miss is more than three he may be given a negative discharge and he will be honest in his group you will partake and he will do his best to comply with all the requirements and i set forth at the petition to revoke hearing respondent failed to do so the probation officer testified he was terminated for numerous reasons one was his continued alleged illegal behavior which your honour's and counsel previously discussed but it was also a result of his refusing to use transcript concepts to trick concepts to use in treatment his failure to take accountability and he only attended one of four treatment sessions between july twenty seventh and august seventeenth and again these alternative grounds for the court's findings these are all kind of grounds the trial court was aware of this that acknowledged it and its finding that even though the respondent had returned to treatment he still found his previous terminations was a result of other reasons that the state has just discussed so as a result this was sufficient to prove a probation violation quite regarding the truckers finding again this was only a preponderance of the evidence to say you need to prove and it is a going to the manifest weight of evidence standard so that is a very deferential standard as runners are aware now in regards to the no contact condition of the supervision of the state's petition to revoke alleged respondent has had no contact directly or indirectly with the victim  where she goes he's going to go somewhere else now counsel discussed these facts in great detail so the state will not go over again with your honor's well over the trial court you circumstantial evidence in this case yes there was no direct testimony that respondent saw the victim however through the victim's testimony trial court could find it more probably true than not that the respondent was aware she was there especially these are four day events he was there the first day within fifteen feet of or it's probably more likely than not he was aware that she was there and he chose to come back on the second day and this is a very important fact that i believe th trial court relied on and finding that respondent had also violated this no contact condition moreover the consciousness of guilt response hiding when the minor and the police officer were looking at him that someone uneasy she felt uncomfortable clearly the probe it or that of supervision condition is to prevent these types of situations whereas the state set forth in its brief if even if he's only fifteen feet away if he's looking at or that is clearly a violation of what the tr work was meaning oh he was looking at her i dunno thousand not part of the evidence i don't want to put the court in the wrong direction but this is all circumstantial evidence that the trial court could have utilized based on her testimony they were in the same gymnasium for two full days he was then within fifteen feet of earth he at one point was aware that she was pointing at him so it can be concluded more likely than not that he had contact with her again the tr specifically ordered the respondent where she goes you're to go somewhere else if this is just a ten minute thing as counsel was talking about and they just kind of walked past each other and it was just real fast then the state would some easy going i would say with the initial sentence of supervision the trial court talks about its thought process regarding this and ultimately i was aware that in revoking this that he would most likely have to be sentenced for offender registration moreover there's no intent element and this supervision condition it doesn't say yes the defendant has knowingly be aware that she's there that he intentionally makes contact again it could be violation of supervision so regarding that no contact violation there was no air made by the trial court and the scorcher firm alternatively regarding the probation condition which allows the probation officer the ability to search respondent he argues this impermissibly infringes on his fourth amendment right to be free from a reasonable searches and seizures because it lacks a reasonable miss requirement no not do so so it's forfeited and plain error does not apply a set forth in our brief moreover probation is not a right but a privilege as the supreme court of the united states has said it's always true of probationers that they do not enjoy the absolute liberty to which every citizen is untitled but only conditional liberty properly dependent on observance of special probation restrictions indeed for these reasons conditions of probation is that impinge on fundamental constitutional rights are not automatically deemed invalid the overarching concern is reasonable this now here the only supreme court has held that illinois has a legitimate interest in promoting its probation system effectively one way to do that is to ensure publication officers do not need a warrant every time they are to search the probation or as a result our courts have held that you do not need probable cause to search probation or ensuring respondants rehabilitation not actually a probation or he was an acquaintance who occupied a motel room with the probationer at the time the probation officers searched the premises and regardless of that respondent cites no authority with then the brief for support at the probation commission by itself is unconstitutional merely because it does not contain a reasonable suspicion fireman further just because there's no reasonable suspicion requirement does not mean that any potential searches were not supported by reasonable suspicion as set forth in our brief when the probation officer talked about these practive knock and talks i believe it was a she she stated she was concerned that the respondent was involved in gang activity and in fact i think there was some a b c treatment evaluation records that further confirmed the fact that he was in a gang so i'd believe that would support reasonable suspicion for these probationary searches but as just a statement said that's all speculation this case is not based upon a search but instead a probation condition and that probation condition was not unreasonable or unconstitutional  case and they also were i'm able to prove those allegations the first position did the trial court say quote the evidence is although he's been reinstated in treatment he was discharged from treatment primarily because he had to gun his treatment provider had still had a session with him and his treatment provider had asked him not to have guns anymore and it was after the second charges brought against him that his treatment provider felt that he had not learned his last and that he