and we call this case please enforcement and sex offender registration at the state indicted mr ferguson for violating the act alleging that he knowingly failed to report we were to the police chief where he was located inform the police of his last place of residence guilty of feeling to register and sentenced him to two years six months in the department of corrections which the artists are on appeal mr ferguson raised three issues two of which the state contests first that the state did not prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt rightly or wrongly mr frederickson felt mistreated by the julia police he apparently decided to leave juliet because of this perceived mistreatment and the act allowed him to leave juliet but the police in this case  the purpose of the act is to monitor the locations of sex offenders remotely so that if we need to find them or if we're have any concerns meet we can locate them quickly and most likely to be found where they live so it makes sense to have them w the act the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt therefore that he was located in julie had the week of march second twenty eleven the state did not prove that's the state introduced no evidence that ferguson resided in juliet the week of march second that is no evidence he resided there between february twenty third and march second that he was there all the time or that he was staying here in georgia instead the state's evidence tended to show their friends and had registered in juliet in the past under the statute though this isn't proof that he's living in a jurisdiction the state also trying to prove its case with evidence that ferguson was physically present in julia on march second in march third the problem is the act doesn't or furthermore the record in the case of ferguson may have continued to work in joliet during the week of march second and the act though this isn't proof that he's living in the jurisdiction of the act very explicitly contemplates that offenders will live in one doesn't require this level of specificity from offenders who lacked a fixed residence these are people who cannot predict where they're going to be staying that's the whole reason they're required to report weekly if they could predict where they were going to be staying they could avoid the weekly access to whatever information it would be different in about the previous seven days where he was staying and that's essentially the whole purpose of the act is to sort of is to monitor their locations that information second is far is  else unless he is living in that other jurisdiction state has to provide some evidence that he's doing that beyond his physical presence there a few times that we or that he's employed there possibly as i said earlier  cost issues are taking a lot of time yes that's a lot of time yes and the revised class he prepared by the circuit court is the two thousand and seven the mandatory sex crime he didn't go order and the best course may be to me and let the judge order it but what troubles me a bit and i'm just being instructed here is don't tell us that the court ordered that the when we don't have an order  under on the date of march second twenty eleven and he was convicted of that particular crime to show that the people had to show that two hours that defendant was a sex offender and that he knowingly failed to register because he was out of compliance with his registration at that time would be looked all defendant that he would not enforce the noncompliance but it would be able to go ahead and register if in and on march second defendant refused to register and he left the j p g at that register he apparently tried to go there on the first and he couldn't register because they don't do that on tuesdays and wednesdays but the more important thing to note is that the act doesn't require him to leave the jurisdiction where he's located if the police there refused to register him it simply doesn't now on the other hand if the police in their jurisdiction refused to register him he doesn't get a lifetime pass that says ok now you never have to register as long as you don't leave this jurisdiction but that isn't what we have here here we've got someone who shows up on wednesday like normal to register he gets denied he goes to the police where he's told to go no i'm not arguing that when he shows up on the second and talks to the officer of the phone i'm not arguing that's sufficient under  but there's no evidence here that we're talking about someone who's trying to you know go off the grid and avoid his weekly reporting requirements we're talking about someone who was trying to avoid apparently dealing with a specific police officer enjoy that and under the act that's i register because he finds this particular officers assigned a registered sex offender third i don't know that we can say that and again if he goes to the police on the twenty third gives them everything the act requires and they say we're not going to register you i don't know what he's supposed to do in that situation th at some point it's going to become a reasonable word that one i don't know but at this point we've got him showing up somewhere every seven days at least and we're not again we're not talking about someone who just decided i'm not going to show up anywhere i'm not going moved away from bolingbroke i think the state has to offer more than the suspicion he's residing in joliet again the act itself first the plain language of the act does not require him to leave the jurisdiction where he lives to shop around and find  see that will register him second the purpose of the act is severely frustrated when officers refuse to register people who show up and provide the information the wires which is what happened in this case at the at the police and no one europe registered him around until someone is willing to register it and again what would be the answer my question was if he was a police officer is this i'm out of compliance is that some evidence that i mean if we want to rely on such a fund