constitutional issue is multiple and is independent of the contention that we have made that the circuit court ruled against the manifest weight of the evidence when i found that respond wilson violated the stalking no contact order but perhaps just to start this discussion we could first look at the definition of reasonable person and talking no contact what the definition of a reasonable person is not what appears anywhere else in prior illinois common law and it's not been challenged because there's been no challenge the constitutionality of this act passed in two thousand and ten or other similar acts with respect to their definitions of reasonable person as we are discussing in this case it's not the reasonable person or the rational person understanding that we have in illinois common law or no other laws that have addressed this issue of stalking and in fact  they don't redefine reasonable person only illinois does that illinois stands alone on that so for the state to say well it's just like these other laws it's not the illinois stalking no contact order has to stand or fall on its own merits can't be bootstrapped or a snap to the other states that have not redefine reasonable person what else of the other states done i the other states and there are laws cited by both sides all sides of this court have added things such as direct causation not just presumed causation other words prove that certain acts actually cause emotional distress or fear itself because again this was not deal unlike with people versus bailey people versus bailey dealt with a fear of physical force being used on someone this law not only doesn't deal with that the circuit court is told and one of the provisions of the act you can't require a complaining to show any use of physical force on so the entire act is in a different row we're talking about fear and emotional distress and mental anguish type of situations we're not talking about somebody in fear of their personal physical security so when there's the use of a definition that is that expandable it's going to expand to interact with each petitioner it comes to a circuit court and files of the titian this this position or have a personality th er as he or she comes to the court and says we're going to look at the responding through their eyes their perspective and their view of the responded and the surrounding circumstances victim's circumstances they don't even have the extra phrases that the stalking no contact order our house and the people vs suit case they never address the issue of does these cyber stalking statute sufficiently and definitely define reasonable person this issue is untested and pointing to the other stalking statutes does not move this issue to because people versus really if you're in fear of your physical security that trumped everything that's what the on our supreme court said we don't have that when there's no a provision in the act and no requirement or a finding of a fine by the circuit court that someone be an actual concern about their physical security we're in a new land so to say that well it's like the  criminal anti starting statute where the physical security and violence has to be a target that's not in this act the provisions in the sac the purpose provisions section five it does say stalking is a crime  yet but it doesn't say that the purpose is to stop violent attacks the purpose is to deter people from sustaining fear and emotional distress it's not to secure their personal safety and that act as in much mischief as evidenced in this case because of the second round that we've also contended that the facts were actually in favor of officer wilson were ignored which may not be a surprise given the structure of the act the videos speak for themselves over ninety eight ninety nine percent of the video show corey officer coryell or sitting in the center of an office and other people and the periphery or the margins the circuit court erred and ruled against the manifest weight of the evidence when that court ruled that the video was on ms nicholson for thirty or forty minutes before the view was moved and i fairly was twofold one was the evidence was uncontested that officer wilson was on the phone with the phone records were put into evidence for about half an hour with a software representative and he did not preprogrammed where the camera was first point it in the office eleven minutes into that call detective feat hand he testified yes officer wilson set the camera any direct evidence so we had to use circumstantial evidence which is fine but it's circumstantial evidence was not enough under the law this circumstantial evidence was we put into effect of snow office has a physical door with a physical key but this is not trigger the card swipe system and detect if he had admitted that he couldn't say that more than fifty percent of the time officers could go in and out and never trigger the card system he knew that possibility existed well that's already getting less probable than not or is timeline and then the end of that was the secretary in the vice unit office who said oh yeah most of the time don't go through the courts white system they use the physical key and come through the back door that's how they come in and go out and that was borne out in i detect a few hands timeline because in that timeline it would capture some officers i think  parrish was captured one week for less than ten minutes but the court was told this shows more probable than not that somebody use the g p s device on his nichols and vehicle which by the way the track showed was also used to ignoring any idea or investigating any concept that someone else other than officer nicholson or officer wilson used a g p s device to track both of them the theory used against officer lawson was well he was available he's around he's the expert he knows how to do this there are multiple problems with that he came out of trials well the sense no g p s device is a store tracking device doesn't tell you where the is now doesn't tell you where the car is going it tells you where the car was it's the most primitive g p s device in the unit and it doesn't detect if you can again who testified against officer watson and seated on the stand it is easy to use as a smoke detector you put in the two nine volt batteries you attach it to the car that's it so their backup position and well ok that's easy but what's password on a label on the top of the laptop so anyone who had access to the vice unit office which isn't just vice unit officers you're going to use this stuff and there's no sign up sheet there are no orders and our contention is that of those are two separate issues we think most of the statute since you have to take to petition is view of the world and the petitioners view of the responded only encourages that kind of factual is allowed but again what kind of civil law is this this is a civil law that subject somebody to greater even though it doesn't have any act on issue and in most misdemeanor conviction you don't just pay a fine and walk out of the courthouse as in this instance you can order energy as you respond it was first barred from his workplace for a month and he was allowed to go back to his workplace then his second amendment rights are still only allowed to be exercised on the job he can't have any firearms he's a policeman who off work cannot defend himself the way other police officers can and he's restricted in his movements for two years but the state will tell us oh that's that's just like every other injunction prosy really other injunction proceedings require the balancing of the factors as a circuit court correctly  was just another way it's not like the civil injunction is that someone who's wrongfully enjoined has no remedy for damages not and in other ways that  grades criminal code article five the whole the respond i'm responsible for the acts of others even if that response at naacp meeting vs insult herself and you get automatically enter your name into a database with law something protected by the first one and you won't be covered by this act that's like saying a beginner or someone who just started it doesn't tell you he said isn't anything the only carve out provision it stays is that if you're in a labor dispute and you're doing something a labor seat picketing anybody's going to pick up my nose that would qualify under this act as stalking or other laws you're not covered by this law so it favors labor dispute actions over everything else everything else the citizen isto take your chances and just hope that the first minute will be there as a catchall for you there is no list like in the minnesota law that includes exemptions such as your contractual duty or your employment duties such as with officer wilson you have to test video cameras and equipment he doesn't have any of those protections the other laws of the new york law says that you have to show there's no legitimate purpose vagueness and on the grounds of equal protection and why we also contend that the circuit court ruled against the manifest where the evidence and we asked at the circuit court be reversed and that all those orders entered ganst r mr wilson be dismissed with prejudice and terminate this proceeding with a complete dismissed with prejudice or alternatively remained for a new trial based upon the eventual errors made of by the circuit petitioner in this case i consistent with the state's interest in the case and also with the briefing i'll limit my remarks to the constitutional questions raised in the case and counsel for the respondent i will focus her remarks or petitioner i should say will focus her remarks on the factual issues raised in the case there is nothing to the constitutional challenge in this case and let me begin with vagueness because that's where i was in counsel began the idea that this is facially vale and i should remind the board the standard that the illinois supreme court provided for facial vagueness in a case less like this is that the act has to provide no standard of conduct at all it's ambiguous to the point where it's incapable of valid application this this law comes nowhere close to that it provides a number of specific elements it requires two or more instances it requires the specific person be targeted unlike the minnesota  struck down it requires that the individual know or should know of the likely effect of their actions their conduct on the reasonable person and it does use a reasonable person standard i do want to put to one side that there's any concern here that there's something novel about the reasonable person under the circumstances perhaps as we point out in our brief and opposing counsel does not respond to any of these authorities on reply the restatement of torts as section two eighty three which defines a reasonable person in one sentence this is the reasonable person standard we have come to know and love for centuries is defined as the reasonable person under the circumstances that is the objective reasonable person standard that tort as used we point out in our brief that that same goes for the victims of intentional infliction of emotional distress under illinois law and the grass case that we cite makes clear that you have to consider the circumstances of the victim of  v claim when considering intentional which of emotional stress that case involves someone who had a heart condition and not surprisingly the worker because the defendant in the case was well aware of the heart condition the court not surprisingly considered all future courts to consider those sorts of circumstances in evaluating the victim in an intentional infliction of emotional distress service now perhaps the concern that as well in addition to saying under the circumstances which is the traditional court standard it also says with knowledge of the respondents prior asked for that person but that's essential and actually if you think about it that a fast and for a tax would be respondents far more than it helps would be petitioners imagine if if you didn't get to consider the prior interactions between the victim and the respondent well under those circumstances there'd be no difference between the mailman coming up to your front door and leaving a package and someone that is of your former assaulter recently out of prison coming up to your front door and leaving a package it would be the same if you couldn't consider the prior history between people of course you need to otherwise neeleman would be  stalkers routinely under the statute my opponent also infantilized satisfy the following point in the court's order here at page one thirty two of the appendix is the court actually helped respond by considering the circumstances and prior interactions between these two individuals responding got the benefit of this rule in this very case the court said i'm page one thirty two you know i'm going to disregard these day to day passing incidental interactions between these two individuals because after all their coworkers of course were going to have passing interactions of that nature well that's precisely the contacts those are the circumstances that a court understandably considers it doesn't make reasonable person suddenly a subjective standard it isn't a subjective standard it is the reasonable person under those circumstances just like it is in tort and to  him further protections in the definition of stalking in section ten it ensures that they and i mention this this state of mind requirement a moment ago it ensures that the petitioner or rather the respondent knows or should know that their course of conduct will have this effect on the person well that needs to be would be responded is insulated against circumstances that that person would have no idea about just as going back to intentional infliction of emotional distress in the supreme court's decision in the raf of course the defendant in that tort case wouldn't be responsible for a heart condition of which that defendant had no knowledge that protection is well is built right into the statute so again to find a statute facially invalid requires an extraordinary finding that there really is no core of conduct recognizable under the statute that isn't even close here and the notion that somehow this has been the equal protection argument the supreme court's decision in bailey resolved this issue supreme court's decision resolve that issue and bailey contrary to comments made by opposing counsel the court in that case made clear it was concerned not only with preventing future violence but also in protecting people from the psychological harms that come with being threatened and finally over brad i would just note excuse me that the illinois supreme court the u s supreme court have made clear a facial over breath challenge is extraordinarily difficult to make out and it is especially so the doctor has very little purchase in cases like this one are talking about boss like this one it's not impossible people don't understand them this district in hold in up holding the statute before bailey did relied upon the car about the savings clause in that very sakshi which also provided a protection for first amendment rights other courts around the country have relied on this carve out for first amendment rights so the notion that it's meaningless to inform people that their first amendment rights are protected is absurd inconsistent with other words i've held including this one if the court has no further questions about the constitutional issue you are sending a reasonable person definition  seems to me that in the run of cases it's far more or more likely to protect a person who's coming to your doorstep for purely innocent reasons than it is to capture someone who is actually acting illegally innocently and somehow now stalker example in their grief i think captures this you know if i've recently hired a contractor and i see them in my backyard at you know nine am in there taking photographs of my house while i know who this is it's a contractor if if this if what i respond is asking is that the court's going want will suddenly that contractor could be a very menacing fig whereas in contrast if he was on my lawn is someone who violently assaulted me five years ago  recently out of prison appears taking photographs of the second story of my home i think it's it would be ridiculous not to consider the fact that i know this is not a contractor i know this is not someone from the parks department or the water this is the person that i would be attacked me five years ago and so certainly it will be harmful for that person but i do think in the run of innocent conduct it puts it to  by my opposing counsel and his initial argument and all i can say about this case is that we must have been watching different videos with his construction of what those videos show this is a case where along the lines of other no contact workers and orders of protection generally these cases take a couple of hours and media happen day if there is a lot of evidence this case took two and a half days and we heard from almost fifteen witnesses as to what exactly happened between these two parties while they were both employed by the hearing least apartment and council is taking snippets of record and blowing them out of proportion to make it look as though there is some doubt as to the sufficien well this is not a criminal case the burden of proof on the petitioner was preponderance of the evidence and we heard from multiple witnesses about their relationship and i'll briefly sum it up for court in two thousand and eight which was not one of th bases that the court used in entering the order there was an interaction between the parties where the petitioner ms nicholson believed that the personified was videotaping her desk at the police station she became upset and angry she reported the incident to her superior officers no investigation was started nothing was done about it however there was an oral order from the commanding officer in the division for the respondent not to then you had paid within the office he said don't better fact he even said on the record if you really need to test your whitman just pointed at my desk and i don't care that was the basis of the beginning of this videotape the relationship now in two thousand and ten it wasn't the just who discovered videotaping it was in fact her sergeant who was using the respondent desk to check a fantasy football score and happened to see that there was an office camera that was recording now he has said that this was really focused on officer corey miller well he didn't camera was there he said maybe detective feed him the computer guy maybe he came in and did something about it then all of a sudden i was just asking and i quit and then it was if i didn't know it was recorded we have a self described computer and technical purchasing of the equipment this was the guy the one who did these repairs so first somebody who describes himself like that to say why didn't know it was recording is beyond the realm of belief and it is up to the trial judge to make the did not sit well and that's his determination to make based on the behavior of the witnesses and what he observed at the trial court level now the videos in question there wasn't just want it makes it seem as if there is just one link the video there were multiple videos that were taken off of the computer that responded work that over the course of only a week several of them were short clips that focused only on the petitioner the lengthier book which ran and recorded that officer overnight was focused on concessionaires work station which was and jason her and yes there were shots of other people in that video but there were shots of petitioner that ran successively off she was working at her desk for multiple minutes consecutively so yes he was monitoring her and there were multiple occasion october of two thousand and ten office you're hearing beers in november of two thousand and ten right before the video taping was discovered had noticed the feet on his desk and said man you're not supposed to be doing that because remember how horrible she reacted in two thousand make it so he knew he wasn't supposed to be doing it and yet he was covertly recording images of this woman clearly making her feel terribly upset so with regards to video taping i don't think it holds any water at all that he didn't mean to or he was just doing his job because he'd been in  previously not to do so with brings us to the g p s allegations which as counsel pointed out the g p s tracking unit only tracked the parties it can track anybody else in the police department no witnesses no informants it's just the officers we had testimony from every other officer that ever took a g p s training course all of them said i don't know how to use this detective feat hand who was the computer forensic expert eat investigated a computer he took of the president he went to go download the tracks and he said a further device and that age without training it would be difficult to get the tracks off of the device onto the computer the only one  which is one of the older models and none of them had had training at nat said one guy and he said he couldn't remember how to work so that's everybody and the office that have treatment now counsel points out in his brief that this is a matter of availability that the internal police investigation that the court used in was that heard in evidence which took over eight months but somehow they were never conclusive enough because all they proved was that the respondent was available to do things that they never definitively  evidence and what the police investigation showed was that immediately before the g p s tracks were downloaded onto the computer which sat respondents workstation which he professed to control which he equipment went on that he was responsible for he was at his desk had logged in and had sent an e mail immediately after the tracks would have been there's a phone call from his desk immediately after the g p s device is installed on officer nicholson the vehicle take fifteen to twenty minutes according to detective fi hand he walks in the property room door but doesn't register any evidence never had gone in that door before now yes is it possible that there is some straw man who maybe avoided the ke swipes and who logged into his computer with his name and tried to frame him for this well i suppose that in a movie that could happen but the evidence here is definitive no there's no video if we have video evidence we wouldn't be here we not to her not about her and using about following her and he evidence of threats nothing the evidence about the access is less probable than not because the timeline the entire timeline relies is it's in our reply brief goes into detail we're sargent's know about how they have no timeline that shows anybody with the device downloading it into the lab it isn't most primitive g p s device that's why anybody could use it if it's a simple to use a smoke detector you put into nine volt batteries and put it on a car but if he wanted to put it in the labeled laptop computer anybody in the office could do it police officers use all kinds of technology this idea that they go there were a couple officers who said that they weren't familiar with it but if they can use the more complicated g p s device the modern ones that actually tell you where if you call is now and have more gadgets and switches this in doesn't have a switch so going back to the act we've been told the reasonable person is a reasonable person but that's not the access it says a reasonable person needs a person in the position or circumstances with the petitioners knowledge of the response and of the response paragraphs again they being told the left the building there is no more regular reasonable person we have a new reasonable person in the graft case shows that because it's science we state and second it towards an objective factor such existence of threats of course all those cases were  appear in the act it's not cited in the act it's not incorporated now the state just tells us trust us trust this it's in there somewhere somewhere you're going to find the first amendment oh you're just saying that the first amendment protection is useless because if you are found violation of the sacked for doing your employment duties and as the uncontested evidence of mr russians showed he said he was retaliated against because in two thousand and nine he had labor policy disputes with ms nicholson about not being transferred everyone else in the vice unit office was transferred every five years she was not he complained about some policies of the supervisor she brought in the supervisor to try to out of my methods were two incidents in two thousand  led to the deterioration of their working relationship and at that time mr wilson told ms nicholson i don't want to talk to you or interact with you unless it's absolutely required and part of our professional task that's what that's what mr wilson told ms nicholson and detective fi hands examination of all the electronically stored information of officer wilson objective leave shows that he was avoiding her he was trying not to interact with her the fact that one day a camera may have run or a penpal cameras we ask the court to look at all the film they'll see the film isn't focused on her most of the film she's not front and center and in fact when he pulls the pan camry pulls it away from her to w officer corey miller is in the center of the office it's not a big office but ori miller's front and center in the end of the camera videos that refer to her two minutes in length at the most the most of them less than a minute and show mr w struggling trying to figure out who walks in front of the camera times ok where is this thing looking because he's the first one open the box and figure out how do these things even work he's the fellow so this idea that somehow this is part of an overall scheme there's no evidence of threats no evidence of physically falling is nicholson no evidence of anything other than that he was trying to keep his distance from or due to their own discord and that's why we believe that the record evidence