may please the court counsel my name is sharon shanahan and i represent the people of the state of illinois this case deals with the county board member who took it upon himself to unlawful use of the electronic tracking device statute didn't apply to him because when he attached the g p s he was acting in his capacity as a county board member trout court dismissed complaint with prejudice for you to state a claim now state believes that the court heard in two ways st the traveler early in determining that the defendant got within one of the exceptions of the statute is sufficient evidence now i would not that there's a lot parties agree on this case as applied to clinton counties subsection beat does not was there disagreement on the board about mr beck or the board knew nothing about this your honor that's the whole problem the board knew nothing about this there can't be a disagreement about it when the defendant just up and did it it is his position that simply because he is a board member or his actions are the actions of the county board there is nothing in the record to indicate that the county had this widest idea that this was going on and that kind of jumped me poor read a bit but still very important to the procedural stance of this honor certainly i would just have to say upon experience i have seen complaints amended numerous times but in this particular case  without authorization has no authority to act in that i mean that's going back to supreme court authority at the beginning of the th century that's and has been consistently applied since then i am quoting here the county board of supervisors has no power to act individually this is only when convened and acting together as a board of supervisors that they represent and obligation well i'd like to point out that the st part of that sentence which is represent the county by their acts that it's represent and fine defendant says that he was because he's a county board member and i'm quoting from his reply brief he is not an other pri is a county board member but absent some kind of authority from the county board something he hears another private citizen if we accept the defendant's authority argument then any individual board member can take any similar kind of action without  i respectfully request that you affirm the ruling of the trial court given the time constraints that we have i will discuss just a couple of points that i want to bring to the court's attention i will leave it to my brief to discuss the remaining points involved the statute being seven hundred and twenty i'll see s five hundred and twenty one dash two five and i don't think there's any dispute as well that when it talks about state agency that we also are talking about the county the county being a body politic and corporate  state and so when when you identify the state agency as the county you king and you can read the exemption which is see for the exemption we're talking about here you can read that a little differently it and i think when you read it that  way the clear language of the statute shows how it's not a political to mr nordyke in this case so when you read it in that manner it says when the vehicle is under control of the county and the electronic tracking devices used by the county for the purpose of tracking vehicles driven by employees or contractors of that county and so that is there then the exemption and so what we have here there's really no dispute that mr nordyke was a member of the county board that ran back or what the county employee the tracking device was attached to a county pickup truck not mr becker's own vehicle so when we put those together i think they fall within the plain language of the statute however if there is any ambiguity in the  statue and i would say that you know this isn't a statute that is decided on very frequently and so there's not a huge body of case law out there interpreted that and so i would point you to the legislative history when this bill was the the legislative history isn't written into the bill but it does give us a sense of what the purpose of the bill was and what particular the sponsor of the bill intended with it and so based on the trip directly from the transcript  placement of a g p s device on a private citizens car being placed on it by another private citizen and so we see here that even the the legislative intent of it is not met we don't have a private car we don't have a private citizen placing we have a member of the county board and we don't have a private citizen receiving the person that was receiving the tracking device was in fact an employee of the county for which mr nordyke served as a county board member yeah and that's the think you just barbaric that's the cases that are cited by the state are easily distinguishable i think justice warren was picking up on that earlier there's also another case that i give you that i think goes along with that so the three cases that are side by the state deal with binding the county a county board member cannot cannot bind a county to its actions you don't have that here so the cases that are cited you have one where a  chairman of the board of supervisors is trying to change a meeting date that some by a lake of the statute without county board approval you have a county board committee that's trying to alter a contract for a courthouse improvement they couldn't do that because that would be binding on the county and then the one that the term represent came up and that's that's in the context of a county board member actually representing the county in a court proceeding and so that was that was the  of a county employee for for an extramarital affair and the county board member was sued and it came up in the context of tort immunity and the court found that that the county board member was in fact had not only the not allowed to cite it as unpublished i don't think you can discuss it to get around that fact for the mere fact that it's not in your brief to begin with but i don't know that we should we should consider twice for different reasons by the by the northern district of illinois in the federal court so i will move on so there's i think there's also there's also two other issues that arise with requiring a county board member to get permission to do this sort of  action one is that that it becomes to purfling because if you require the county board to adopt a resolution authorizing county board to do that then you in fact a full in an under a different exception which is the owner of the vehicle allowing fullest which obviously is discouraged when we're interpreting statutes the nd and i think this this was brought up and it was brought up in the brief although i think maybe there was a mistake in the breach in the state's brief if if it if if it's required to be a resolution by the county board that is that it's open to the public and so the person that is the subject of investigation will be aware that they will be true that will be tracked now the state cites in their brief that there is an exception to the open meetings act you can discuss personnel in closed session and that is absolutely correct but you cannot take any action in closed session you cannot take a vote pursuant to the statute case law and the attorney general's opinions so even if they went into closed session to discuss the new tracking device if they were acquired to pass a resolution they would have to come out of closed session into an open session by the way that was listed on the public agenda and take a public vote on a public and you know looking back maybe mr moore mr nordyke says hey i'd rather have law enforcement do it but i don't think it that precludes him or preempt him from being able to conduct investigations own as county board member i want some of this is not the st time that there was an amended information that was filed there isn't that in actually when the st information was dismissed the judge mccain he actually asked me if he if he had to allow the state to brief up to the file and i did  him that time that he did and so he gave them twenty one dollars days to file an amended information they put additional facts in the information and when it came back to judge mccain the nd time all of the facts that point the state would attempt to prove were put in there and the judge did not find that it was a technical flaw but the judge found that the facts that were a stated could not form a cause back ssion or claim and so the judge dismissed with prejudice and i think he has the authority to do that particularly since he gave them an opportunity the st time  see my time is out i will i can expand on that if you want to i'm open and questions as well rebuttal can you hear me yes thank you touching briefly on i believe three points here going back to the dismissal which i think is an extremely important thing that the premise is for indictments the pain by deliberately or intentionally misleading a grand jury by using her to rip off testimony or by presenting deceptive or inac or may not be true but the point is that's that's what you need to go forward on a nd of all the legislative history very brief but the sponsor said entity and i think that's an extremely important section from a path and so that would be my nd point and then  for a private citizen yes and the language of the statute itself says a person or entity and of course we know that a person can even teach a corporation but the statute says a person or when i don't think i need to say anything at all about ram because as you noted just this barbarous it simply it doesn't matter it's unpublished it has no presidential value whatsoever regardless of whether some is whether the indictment is sufficient to state a claim and we have had the same dismissed with prejudice to where we can't even move forward to answer that question or allow the state to amend the petition to where it can answer that question these are questions that should be allowed to go forward rather than dismissed with prejudice after only money if there are no other questions i have no further argument thank you counsel court will take the matter under advisement and issue its decision course counsel court's arguments and briefing