i'm sorry i supervised on grounds privileges or supervised off grounds for privileges and we believe that to settle the law and that there is not any case that we can find in the fourth district that would contradict that that finding by the second  because at some point the crowd judge could grant those privileges then the hell then the defendant never gets any review at all there is never any opportunity for you in court to say the judge uses discretion or the judge in some way  when he gets the manifest with evidence furthermore if it's not a final appealable order for example let's say that there was a petition for discharge file the attorney came in and said look we think the person's completed the facility there has to be some mechanism for reviewing court to say ok he's filed the treatment when he succeeded he needs to be either given additional privileges or at least the question for the court in my mind with regard to whether or not the trial court when he gets a manifest with the evidence is that there was no testimony proffered by the at the h s facility in chicago and there were a number of people who looked at this and found that the privileges were appropriate the court also heard testimony that there were sufficient safeguards in place for m at least slowly into the community where he is the program so i really it's been a while but i refuse a trial judge dealing with these kinds of issues and  evidence was very very strong in favor of expanded privileges particularly with regard to the fact that the testimony that came in was that in the almost course of treatment in moving a person from point a to point b in their recovery there has to be some back in his and for the professionals to observe this person in the community they have to be you know the  so with regard to the issue of whether or not the evidence came in in such a way that it least landed substantial credibility to expanded privileges i would know because i think it's important to know that there was some the scrapin scene and the petition that was filed versus what came at it at the trial court hearing and what was argued in closing argument i wan to make sure we're clear about that because it it's important from my perspective if the court does reverse the trial court's decision that the court's fully aware of what the circumstances are all in a wholesome civically the petition said we want unsupervised on the grounds privileges we want supervised off grounds privileges then went back to seal testified and in the psychologist testified they basically said we're not asking for unsupervised on grounds purposes having said that there were some questions at trial as to whether or not the old mill hall center was a secure facility and i think dr patil testified that the unit where that where mr posits house is a secure facility having said that having been there myself i know that the unsupervised on brown's privileges entailed being able to move throughout the entire facility which is not a secure facility so i want to correct that that if you reverse if reverse and grant him unsupervised on grounds privileges it's not going to be in a secure setting i believe that our best our best hope here is that the court reversed with regard the supervised off grounds privileges because the testimony was that he would be slowly integrated by himself on a number of separate trips before he was put into a group setting where he'd be supervised by two forensic  at the facility again it's and from our perspective that the court understand that the issue for the treating physicians is that they cannot measure progress with regard to recovery if they can't put him in some minimal community setting he has no hope of fully recovering or being found to have fully recovered if he's not at least partially transition into the community prior to his release so if the if the queer continues to deny his of the recommendations for expanded religious there is no way for m recover his his treatment process is basically hold and that's where we are today and that's where we've been for a couple of years now and that is of some concern to the so i'm asking the court to reverse the trial court's decision as it pertains to unsupervised uncertain as it pertains to the supervised off grounds privileges and grant those privileges so which is just one building on the campus is very secure i think there's an eight or twelve foot fence or barbed wire but the actual unsupervised off grounds privileges which came as a shock to me when i inquired while i was there would be that he's allowed to roam the entire campus this entire campus is there's not even a checkpoint when you come in the only requirement would be is that every fifteen minutes yes the walk back to the secure facility and let him know he's still  there and that that would be of significant concern to me even as a term for those are those are real tough i suspect the supreme court views the exceptional extraordinary remedies certainly not something which i suppose that they were to have a choice cheers let's to appeal under the existing supreme court rules would create sort of extraordinary situation that might warrant supervised order in this situation it's more a case of a routine temporary type situation where there's always a treatment plan for a certain amount of time and it's dealing with question of privileges under that treatment plan so it's a much more narrow scope so course well i'm in davis petition for example would be what got by if it were discretionary issue so that would not be available here is hugely for the reasons states rights leader as not being something to defend it would be entitled to as a matter of right anyway so state's interpretation of that statute which is obviously a country to cross but i'll get to that a minute but the point is though that if it's not even reviewable for error then what would be the necessity for granting appeal as an avenue for the  the defendant's attorney for him and argue on his behalf what with the the appropriate basis for the appeal because that the failure to adequately brief the basis of jurisdiction is basis for for so i'm not sure i'm not aware of how many cases like this are have been appealed in the in the last twenty some years since since reed was cited but even though that there has been no country for it to read it doesn't necessarily mean that and here the situation is that he after a few visits after around us the ratio from staff to patient changes from two to one to staff to one patient and becomes two staff to five patients and these are we don't practice this petition he's going to be stopped and not ever having hope for discharge and i'm not sure that that's what the testimony was directly to god that if that's not if that if the record doesn't support that argument and then that privilege that that would help him for grabs but yet what was being the specific recommendation which was granted which was sought here by the treatment team involved this two staff to five patient ratio they did not say but they would be willing and able to grant the defendant privileges of a different sort which would be maybe most more than two staff members or just one patient add in for night or you know for a year two years five years however long it would be necessary for him to progress in treatment they did not say that they were willing or able to do that for him when they proposed a specific treatment plan and the trial court looked at the treatment plan and recognized that after a few visits it expanded to five patients and said that's not that's not acceptable so if something different will help the defendant then they've got to come up with a different treatment plan that they're willing and able to do that would pass muster in the trial court that has not happened yet and for that reason the statute does not support that sort of resolution of the appeal so what the defendant should do is have the treatment team come up with additional a different recommendation perhaps with more protections and if that were created then then the for this court i think this factual scenario is is ideal for that analysis mr potts has completed all of the steps in his treatment as the records of course mr plotz has failed consistent with his medication as the record  support they have found the right combination of medications for mr potts as the record will support this has continued for some time as the records for mr potts has come on the fishing for the same privileges as the next step in his treatment plan of several times at this point and the doctors have not suggested any other option at this point the next step in his treatment is to get him out of the building in some way in the testimony of all of the experts and the right of mr cox to appeal to this court what will happen is he will continue to go back for judge cock cavanagh and continue to have these privileges the mad and here's what are the concerns that judge kavanagh expressed in his written opinion or not that the doctors were not credible were not the few witnesses didn't provide sufficient testimony concerning the sole concern that each of judge kaplan are properly in his opinion was that there is a minimal chance of mr possible go off  medication that will never change mr potts will be on this medication for the rest of his life as doctors testified it's the right medication they testify because given every indication that they'll stay on that medication more so than he ever has before and it this though that he could be asking for more in their plan he could ask the doctors to provide for more security so for example keeping the only one going off rounds with me before if that's available to him all right he's here right now is in a position where he's in the facility and following all of the doctor's orders i think that that's i think that's a good position and if that's an option then certainly that's something that would be pursued we were not involved in the case at that point in time but i would say that you've done is said doc tell me what i need to do and every day is done tell me what your procedures are if you often mental health facility whether the ultimate mental health facility even has has the staff or the man hours or the funding to do monitoring ankle bracelets and right from let's say they don't want to but the judge feels that's what's necessary in order for the public to remain safe and i think the judge could work that absolutely but if they don't have the manpower to provide that he's not going to get it running right and i think that that's something that the trial court has discretion to begin to i think what mr potts is privileges petitions for privileges are limited to are the petitions for privileges as recommended by his physicians who were there on the stand to be questioned to be cross examined by the state and these restrictions were suggested by the state with some of these are coming up now that mr potts could have come in and said but it's not the state's place to have prior records for mr potts or that he has done everything that he needs to do comply i think that that we can talk about in the meeting an ankle bracelet you can talk about maybe there needing to be one on one supervision but that wasn't the stay consistent with like where he's going we are comfortable with him going off grounds with the current procedures that are in place ok thank you thank you mr mayor tarring cases submitted in the court s