sorts of ways but here we're saying no illegal gang activity you don't want to discourage illegal gang activity even if it's taking place in school even if it's taking place at work or within the family home and you need to be exceptions business scenario that there was still questioning by the response that the court never answered the other order ok respect from your mind if we focus on what she eventually ordered if it said no illegal gang contact activity no guns i mean this is the to be illegal he said he's under twenty right and then the third one was about your condition of procreation but it's one thing to say it would be gentle words in a constant state of uncertainty as to what the law says or not it's another thing to say that saying you can't do this is going to the far right those are two different impressionable and still gaining related activity here we have a greater emphasis on directive these than say a thirty five year old who's charged with armed robbery and the condition you know he's not getting probation he has to go for him but my point is that there's a big difference with this whole notion of trying to curtail gang activity with a huge family to prevent and to hopefully you know move them illegal again activity in the mine and here cannot establish any legitimate reason why you would need to engage in illegal gang activity what's the status of the judge crime in case the judge with game without any evidentiary evidence that they're willing to gain members in any of those places or that he had any reason to watch him it would contact individuals who are members of the game in that context and so that is the problem because if we look at this that he has the question ever come up before and i don't mean in the omar case where there are this terminology you know that the statute of the condition that's allowed is to refrain from having any contact directly or indirectly with certain specified persons or particular types of persons including but not limited to members of street gangs and he has is this been challenge before in that you know what is a member of a street gang mean is it have a meaning that is specific enough that in a way i'm not aware of any situation where this particular statute has been has been challenged and for good reason because the there there there certainly is i define speak a difference in the context of the mayor's association and his connection with these gang members that is just in the headley dangerous even standing inherently dangerous to be around again and it's also important to remember that when we're talking about iowa asians of probation we can look at that in the same under the same lens that we would look at a criminal statute i know because when it comes to my relations a commission even i'm like don't you have to be impacted doesn't the probationary actually have to have an injury is there really an injury here but but if you don't feel it should do we address is exactly that's exactly the point  mean yes it is maybe i do need to make it more clear and that's what i'm trying to do today now that we've narrowed the issue we understand the problem like it is was a bit confusing for me because it's sort of this mix and now this that i found in the no claim that he's going to be violated and i don't even know the answer but i thought you usually have to have a basis for challenging an order because it directly impacts you when you've already been injured and that's when his vagueness challenge as applied place or anybody that the statute is unconstitutional so when that when they were a player change a bit i apologize to you is that we are specifically talking about the order but i refer to both because it doesn't back comport and there's been no finding or no suggestion that the statute i'll answer that depends because this mine or the movements one who bears the burden of the kind of showing unconstitutionality must raise issues and fast before the trial court so that the court has the knowledge and information that it needs to carefully cra ok no or should it be more tailored and should be tailored but i'm saying today is based on the fact that over before this court we have good pre sentence social investigation report this is john engaged in a very very lengthy discussion with a minor about his implying that with applebee's encouraging him to keep working after the b s to go up the corporate ladder applebee's and in doing so actually crafted exceptions to that if you are working at applebee's i'm going to let you stay out after eight pm and that's a perfect example of information that only those minor has and until this minor informs the clear on the facts morning saying an exception minority here has the ability and the means by which to return to the juvenile court to establish any facts that make their being restriction i'm constitutional as applied to him but until he does so the record fails to support his claims and his a