and please the court system attorney general and those men for the is about a discovery work and the issue is whether this court civil discovery rules and orders that are entered in compliance with those rules violate the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures under the th amendment to the united states constitution court has already resolved that because in civil discovery the boundary of an area that is protected from unreasonable search and seizure is guided by relevance recent illness is a function of relevance they go hand in hand so long as information is relevant to a cause of action it is constitutionally reasonable to disclose it in discovery even when the government is a party in litigation civil discovery contains numerous protections for litigants in discovery it is always overseen by a judge it affords litigants notice an opportunity to respond to her discovery request before there's any compelling production when it comes to property compelled access to properties only allowed for the property is the subject matter of the action and the appellate court's decision to the contrary was unprecedented it failed to recognize that this court's discovery rules and the application of them necessarily satisfies a th amendment standard no other rule or standard is necessary to further the purpose of the  inspections of property are limited if the property is the subject matter of the action there is a notice to the other side that the litigant wants to inspect a piece of evidence or property the opposing side is given an opportunity to confer with the requesting party and then before there is any compelled production of evidence or inspection property a court becomes involved and determines whether that inspection or piece of evidence is relevant to the action and because the opportunity is there to object to that request the court can fashion the discovery order so that is limited to just relevant information to the cause of action and that's what happened in this case the operative complaint is contained specific allegations of an un perm discovery if we could access the property to inspect it because it is the subject matter of the action she denied access which is her right to do and after we couldn't resolve the dispute amicably we went to the circuit court and asked the circuit court to compel access to the property because well to fourteen a allows us access to property when it is the subject matter of the action  opportunity to object she raised no relevance objections at the time she raised simply a complete bar to access to property and then the circuit court granted us access because it was a relevant piece of information it is the key piece of evidence in this environmental action the property is the subject matter of the action and rule two hundred and fourteen a plainly allows that so that is both reasonable under the city civil discovery rules and therefore reasonable under the constitution and the appellate court compounded this error by adding a test from your purses burger which is used to evaluate the facial validity of regulatory schemes that authorize warrantless administrative searches of businesses and that is completely and in a political here because this is not a situation where a party is gaining access to evidence or property without judicial intervention warrantless regulatory schemes allow access by and inspectors without st going to a judge and getting war at all times and civil discovery before there is any compel production of evidence or access to property the party requesting information has to go to a judge or st ask for consent and then go to a judge for permission to go on the land and that is controlled by one relevance and this court has already said that it is reasonable to produce read relevant information constitutionally speaking and the rules contain a host of other protections  to make sure that the information is not privileged to prevent abuse of the discovery process and judicial oversight is a question about the facts in our case you indicated and i think many more clearly than you did in your group that you acknowledge the th amendment implications when a court order is discovered and certainly for the last twenty five years since the consul case this court has indicated that this is a search of the discovery last should there be a different calculus when the requester is the government is the state versus private party no your honor because the rules already adequately protect against any arbitrary use of of civil discovery it gives the circuit court complete authority to limit the disclosure to relevant information and we know that that is constitutionally reasonable  and it's really dependent on the other side opposing the request to raise objections to narrow the scope otherwise we're not in possession of the evidence or not as familiar with the property in this case and so we rely on the other side to say well i want to limit the scope to this area or this evidence or this time that's that's really the burden on the opposing party to help guide the circuit court to know what what is going to lead to the relevant disclosure here the requesting party simply doesn't have the same information that the other side does so the opportunity to object is is critical and that's not a feature of a warrant procedure on the th amendment that is typically an ex parte proceeding where government goes to seek a warrant supported by probable cause and there's typically no time to object to the warrant but here everyone's on notice that the government or any private litigant wants to view a piece of evidence and that is the time to  negotiate the rules contemplate a variety of discovery situations a variety evidence of right of causes of action but when it comes to property the property has to be the subject matter of the action  the case here is the key piece of relevant information in vire mental action there is no evidence or there's only suspicion that there is some ulterior motive here by government actors but in principle that of course you can never abuse the discovery procedure to get something outside of what the rules provide what warrants provide of the th amendment and any discovery quest that we make is guided by the rules the rules satisfy the th amendment it is the rules are underneath the th amendment standard wanted to adopt which as we've illustrated is not is not possible it doesn't it it's for warrantless inspections that's what that three part test is about this is not the same we're not entering property without some kind of judicial intervention a judge passing on the propriety of the discovery request so that's why the rules shouldn't we be concerned that the government can impose criminal sanctions and there's a violation of the u s isn't that a reason to provide more protection your honor i don't know what the the rules already sat criminal violations were discovered and a criminal action was brought that would be a separate action and it flew a bit of a false distinction to say that only the government can discover additional civil or criminal violations in discovery privately again could just as easily happen upon additional causes of action and but if the government is going to discovers anymore violations and wants to bring criminal action that is a as an entirely separate action subject to its own procedures and its own protections but there's no way to  come up with an instance where relevant information can be withheld before knowing you know before disclosing it in discovery whether there will be additional violations discovered discovery of any additional criminal violations and there are it's hard to speculate about what that situation might look like but there's there's rules under criminal procedure to withhold or exclude evidence that's that is obtained improperly so the rules already more than adequately provide all the protections a litigant would want to get against private parties or government private parties in litigation and they offer flexibility for a variety of circumstances because the bottom line is reasonable ness and it's hard to come up with categorical come up with these instances in advance because each cause of action is different each way elation each piece of property is unique but so long as there is a judge overseeing the entire process the state action yet correct it is the court action that there brings is within the constitution and then the court can decide the brac or the narrowing of the discovery order and that's reviewable right yes the court always has final say and that is that determination is reviewed within the confines within the parameters of the rules and can be appealed at an i here to test the parameters of that under abuse of discretion standard to determine whether that request fits within the rules and that's typically how those interlock tory peels are reviewed they don't jump to a good morning is seen members of this augusta body closing council what we're dealing here i'm sorry should cover this what we are confronting here is not a simple ordinary civil discovery case the th amendment states that the right of the people to be secure in their persons houses papers and effects against unreasonable searches and shall not be violated in no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized this is a right  the people and in most importantly it's a limitation on the power of the government if it does not say that it only applies in criminal cases or investigations in fact the through homes in an unrestrained search for evidence of criminal activity m m citing from carpenter versus united states u s supreme court fifty seven million three hundred and thirty seven th three indeed lawyer patriot james otis deemed to be the nearly by all to be the most brilliant order of the colonial massachusetts during some two hundred and sixty s who was also one of the  best known americans to defend the right of natural rights of africans to condemn and to condemn slavery delivered a five hour speech on this very subject in february of seven hundred and sixty one wailing against the use of unrestricted routes of assistance or general search warrants in summary his speech said i will to my dying day oppose with all powers and faculties god has given me all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy oh and the other is a witch of assistance it appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power in the most destructive the big lish liberty and fundamental principles of law that was found in any english law book it is a power of the places the liberty of every man at the hen hands of every heavy officer not even the supreme court in opposition to arbitrary claims of great britain he said then and there the child of independence was born to day d you are here to decide whether this trial of independence is to die at the death of one thousand  not even supreme court rules can supplant the limitations placed on the government by the th amendment and really to maintain the respect for the law the legal system where is the governmental action the trigger is the th amendment there are quotes by the state or the courts or that documents be turned over that access to property  just as types i believe that it can come in several different places along the chain here but in this specific instance it is it's in the courts ordering based upon no presentation and we're not dealing with a presentation of a verified complaint here there was no presentation other than  heard this out of the state's mouth that all they were sort of looking to do was search as property but that's not the case if you read your book and looked at it they were also looking for an on restrained search of a business any any need to do this in part of the problem judge is there saying they didn't know what it is it's a whole burden shifting thing and that's part of the bait and switch that they set up for their saying that my client has the burden of showing that there are so too would be a reason to let the trial court level when that's not what the constitution imposes the the constitution imposes the question of whether or not the state has find it has nothing to do with the environmental condition of the property it might not you argue that the state's request was overbroad that sco has to be on the relevance of this case that you make these kind of arguments to the trial court and say you know this just this request should not be granted because for all the reasons that you're saying here did you make that argument the trial or to the trial court could perhaps narrow the request probably not directly to the judge i know we made these discussions with the e mail exchanges and other exchanges with the state the issue is the state never showed me the condition of the contents of this trailer have nothing to do with the can you know the environmental condition of the property or something else that is really troubling here they say that they did not have knowledge of the conditional profit when my client obtain this property by a tax so it wasn't like she had to own due or operated it she got a tax deed to the property and there was no prior public notice that this property was under any kind of investigation or suspicion there was a judgment that was entered against the prior occupant but not recorded in the chain of title that my client would have observed supposedly shutting it down and she had not disclose asked the occupiers under a word of assistance at that time which is what they call them and tax the proceedings so she has no knowledge of the contents of the the building she really her knowledge of the property was that of somebody who saw overhead photographs of it basically and so it wasn't like she had any intimate knowledge of this of would be greater than the state the state had already sent out investigators multiple times to know what this was they had done and warranted inspections before my client even came into possession of the property so he says that's that's a red herring in this case for them m up there and argue that they didn't know what was going on with the property and that my client have superior knowledge they know all too well that that's not the case  a that's another issue of whether or not it and that gets into the administrative warrant scheme though it's not even it's not in the issue of whether or not civil discovery changes to say that it's a highly regulated business shouldn't change the skin of the civil discovery that's certainly not part of your supreme court rules on civil discovery but one of the things that we need to recognize the context of this case is  different than any of the other civil discovery cases that have come up in any other court here the that the plaintiff is the state of illinois and it is prosecuting a case for the  moment of environmental regulations where they're seeking fifty thousand dollars in fines and ten thousand dollars a day in penalties now before they started calling these things civil when i went to law school administrative searches so long been recognized by sea and compare and the supreme court that the they circumvent that to say we're entitled to this is civil discovery because we're just like any other civil litiga switch they're not like any other civil litigant in this for lots of reasons women went into the trial court they said look this is a highly regulated business and it's important that we do this and we've got the statutory rights that allow us to do these things without warrants and just to go and whenever we want and i'm sure you've seen their argument that says that they will waive that me a public order which is all fine and dandy but it doesn't change what happened in the hitting it directly on the head the judge just government the the problem here is it is not the fact that civil litigants can do this although the juristic case which i think is really an outstanding case and you're going to run into that issue at some point in time if you if it's not on your docket already but that was that was a request to go through a computer and to look at said that's what going through everybody's all their mail all of their their photographs anything else and they equated it to being much like when you go through somebody's phone or their computer going through their house or in fact just because there wasn't a computer and in fact i think there might have been some electronic devices in the place inside the building but going into the building and going through file cabinets and desks and things of that nature is the exact same thing is your nd juror sec put limitations there they said no requests to do this you have to show us show us by reasonable and credible evidence that it's through everything the person had in order to do that and i think that is the standard the truth be applied in this case it's specially worth it to me even important with the standard you're looking for are you saying that the window so you're not saying that every time the government asked for discovery in this office of rules the court must deny it you seem to be saying that the court when it makes a determination on reasonable us should have a different analysis the hearing should be different the requirements should be different if the party was making the discovery process the government certainly and i would be i would say that you could even go narrower than that when it's in a civil enforcement perceiving that only the government can pursue where they're seeking fines or penalties i mean that sounds like take the label civil off of it it sounds like a criminal proceeding and the th amendment should apply in that circumstance i me for looking at making this and you should making it then there will decision that's it and they should have to meet at least the low threshold for administrative searches presenting some type of evidence other than arguing me argued that the property was the clear issue in the action i believe they're correct that the condition of the property probably is their building certainly wasn't and they're throwing in the fact that they have the right by the the state legislature to ignore the th amendment which is essentially what that statute says of four dish five of the environmental protection act that they can make these warrantless searches on the property without any type of showing without any evidence of reasonableness on it the court court should have to make that inquiry show us why this is reasonable not to just assert that it is not to just simply say really problematic we've got these rights and therefore we go you know we have a right to to whatever we want  they should have required the court should have required a minimal factual showing  one of the other big problems of we've gotten we've heard it from the state here this is what i call a bit of a bait and switch they came in and they said all of that but now they're saying the burden to be protected under the  amendment should be shifted onto the person whose property is being searched in that i think is a serious serious problem here they argue back to your question of do you have to raise this in the trial or the scope in there saying that the the defendant has to show that it's not reasonable that's a reasonable it's not really before your court but it's not an unreasonable procedure to require them to submit an affidavit when they want to get this kind of access in a in a civil proceeded  summarize search and seizure which is what we're talking about the th amendment or article one section six of the state constitution which is even broader is a limitation on the government that means the state of illinois in this case it is a right a fundamental right which belongs to the people which in this case means mrs or ms rense there are no exceptions to one reasonable searches when they go before quote and they get an earlier compelling content that constitutes a weren't by any other terms the nature of this action a civil or criminal doesn't change this analysis the government brought the suit only the government could bring the suit the government sits fifty thousand dollars for each and every violation and ten thousand dollars a d government provided no affidavits or residence for the broad search including an entire building on the fenced in promises but the st i'm sorry i see on my time thank you if you points i say st there is a citizen supervision for violations of the p a are the environmental protection act so private groups can bring these actions the process is a little bit different but really immaterial secondly the amount of fines that the act provides really it's also immaterial because in private litigation damages can also be very substantial  that doesn't convert a civil action into a criminal action they both have different standards and mental knowledge represents stuff like that  think the core of the argument is that of cerise argument is that there needs to be that somehow the warrant and probable cause requirement i satisfied under the rules but that's not true because that is more than satisfied by there has to be a pleading which is subject to sanctions if it is not brought well grounded in fact and good faith basis in law and there is a judge always determining what is reasonable and relevant and discovery and there is is the opportunity to respond and that is critical because that is not a feature of the text of the th amendment and it's  procedure in the war procedures is typically an ex parte proceeding where the other side does not get that opportunity and this appeal is about the discovery order and discovery i for attorneys our attorneys have not been on the property no government actor has been on the property without a court order in this case the the agency got a warrant before it