both and reasonable under illinois law and unconstitutional for our city of probation condition for getting mr hammond's from associating with anyone who has a drug conviction because under reasonable and unconstitutional unconstitutional because it lacks a reasonable suspicion requirement both probation conditions as written are unfair overly broad and need a reasonable  commission is so broad such that it encompasses anyone who has a drug conviction the condition is zero overbroad and on reason and all because it lacks that exception for a legitimate purpose for example mr the condition condition excuse me was to prohibit or prevent mr hammond's from using drugs but the condition as a threatening is over prior to the extent that it would prohibit him from doing some of those things that would allow him to however if mr hammond's where to obtain a job at a location where someone had a drug conviction he would run the risk of violating one condition in an effort to comply with another probation condition is overbroad when there is no means by which the probationer may have tannen exceptions for your purposes and illinois supreme court and ray j w also held that a probation condition restricting a fundamental right must be narrowly tailored so as not to be an overbroad j w a twelve year old living in the old being of a significantly different condition  conditions there are certain discretionary probation conditions and in fact there is a probation condition a discretionary conditions the courts may choose to impose which require which can prohibit the probation or from associating with drug abusers and drug dealers and this case the court requiring mr hammond's not to associate with anyone who is convicted of a drug offense under the condition as written that means that mr hammond's can amount pronouncement does control pursuance of people versus smith and now oral pronouncement the judge makes very clear that he is not to associate with anyone who has a drug conviction and to enforce the requirement he's required to keep enforcement language still does not limit the nature of the condition and it's over gra the condition is also a reasonable because it lacks a knowing requirement under the condition as written mr hammond's doesn't even need to know that the person he is associating with has a drug conviction for him to violate the condition the condition is to mr hammer starting mr hammond's from associating with anyone who has a drug conviction as unreasonable because of its over graft because of its lack of the legitimate exception because of its lack of unknowing or ironman and it also defeats the purpose of probation because it perhaps it's mr hammond's possibly from attending a substance abuse group where other people there have tried convictions and the purpose of probation is to restore the probation are to useful citizenship and it's clear that court thought that mr hammond's had a drug problem and were not contesting that the that the underlying basis of the condition is proper we just our position is that it needs to be narrowed and that mr hammond means more even even if the probation order allows them to go in her class that requests some type of exception that condition itself does not provide for that exception and without that exception and the condition it is overly broad and that the probationer in that case on our af could violate it when he was conducting himself in a constitutionally protected manner so just like in omar as in this case mr hammond's can violate that condition while acting in a constitutionally court i want to be clear that we did not make that argument in the brief however i would submit to the court that at the sentencing hearing there was no evidence that evidence was of us closely balanced that there was a drug problem and mr hammond saves the probation condition were researching mr hammond's from associating with anyone who has a drug conviction isn't reasonable under illinois law and unconstitutional because it's overbroad lacks a legitimate exception and unknowing requirement and is unfair it needs to be tailored so that it passes constitutional muster is reasonable and provides guidance to mr hamilton's turning to my second point mr hammond's was also required to submit to warrantless searches the condition isn't reasonable because it's lacking a reasonable suspicion requirement under the condition as written mr hammond's is subject to a search of his person place or things at any time at any place for any reason under the condition as written this or hammond's could be subjected to a search every single day and while that may be an extreme example it still is possible under the condition yes judge we are asking that that reasonable suspicion be added to the probation condition because as the probation condition is written it does not require reasonable  possibly if a search were to occur and there was no reasonable suspicion the store hammons rates would already be violated whereas we're trying to deal with this on the front end so we're trying to prevent any constitutional violation before a bad search and i don't believe that there is any law that indicates that mr hammond's must suffer constitutional violation before he can bring the issue to the score i think that this  position to remand the case to the circuit court to narrow that language so that mr hammond's can abide by it and so that his constitutional rights are protected it's an also in and to note that the  united states supreme court and griffin vs wisconsin found that a probationers home like anyone else it is is protected by the fourth amendment requirement that searches be reasonable when interpretating the griffin versus wisconsin in the united states versus knights cases the court in people versus land pathak found that a probation condition search asserts based on approach by a lot of possible probation violation was unconstitutional because it lacked that reasonable suspicion requirement now in that case the search had already happened and that's the distinction that the state makes in this case but mr hammond stands on his argument that he does not need to wait for his constitutional rights to be violated before he can bring them to the court's attention in an effort to preserve those rights then i supreme court and two people versus lam pathak how does a warrantless search of a probation are must have reasonable suspicion so the then we agreed sure we agree that that's what the standard is but we're still asking the court to clarify in that condition so that it's so that it's because it's so that it's clear to the probation officer enforcing the with that but i don't believe that any time for the good of the world i don't have a number for your honor but i do think it and i do not know i do think it's possible though that mr hammond's can bring this issue to the court attention prior to him suffering a constitutional violation and i also think it's important to note that the court in people versus lana lam pathak specifically rejected the state's argument that a reasonable ness with choir men should be brought into the condition the courts decide and lam pathak that just because the it's assumed the conditions are reasonable or should be reasonable does not mean that the reasonableness can be read into that specific condition that's why the why it's necessary because i don't want to assume that a probation officers going to violate the law but on the same time i want to make sure that mr  me please the court will since let the talk is fresh in our minds i want to talk about clarify a bit the safe position talk and griffin tonight's all dealt with actual searches but more importantly dealt with  it's not a invalid probationary condition for there to be a requirement to submit to warrantless searches in lame pathak the big the court said it's reasonable to conclude the submit was used primarily so early in the search condition that upon the request of the probation officer probationer would either have to agree to from it the search or face possible probation revocation these probation conditions were mandatory limits upon the liberty of the probation or however their mandatory nature did not remove the element of choice from the probation his wife in other words probation or here has a choice also she can or he can consent to a search or face possible probation violation revocation of that probation that's what led to toe implicitly holds and of course it helped that search itself was a violation because the probationer was not even there to give consent at the time of the search but  invalid or unconstitutional on its face back to forfeiture this argument is clearly forfeited in fact it's forfeiture is very important in this case because we don't even there's no indication or suggestion that defendant had any problem with these any of these probation conditions at all he didn't seek any clarification at the sentencing hearing he didn't raise this issue in any post since emotion and finally he didn't go through the procedural process of section five six four f which provides that the conditions of probation can be modified at the request of the offender after a notice and a hearing there's nothing in this case and i don't think it's the trial court's obligation to have to go through every possible hypothetical that a defendant might have for having trouble to comply with the probationary condition as for the first you know sitting in these conditions or not so the plane or of these probation conditions are fairly common and as for the first one almost echo's forbade him statutory language but that's the first one is the no contact provision specifically the trial court ordered defendant quote shall not associate with any person as a misdemeanor or felony drug conviction and to enforce that requirement he should keep a record of all visitors to his home and provide that record to his probation officer section five six three b fifteen lays out a specific reasonable stat tory probation condition as follows 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 or drug users and dealers i know that the trial court did not use the term drug users or dealers however they did use the prior people with a prior drug addictions common sense dictates that those two groups significantly overlap and of course section b fifteen specifically states that this list is not an exhaustive list it's not just street gangs and drug users or dealers however it should be noted drugs are one of the focuses of section b fifteen and is one of the focuses of the trial court probation condition order clearly the the compliance with this is is this satisfied when a defendant keeps a record of who visits his home and provides that record to his probation officer in fact that's the only requirement listed in the written order but even taking the the spoken order with it it's clear that defendant it satisfies his probation condition by keeping people with prior growth convictions out of his   have no contact with games as i just quoted from section b fifteen street gangs are a specific group listed in that statute this was the jew this is a juvenile so the juvenile analog but the language of that statutor condition was exactly the same in no more f the court found that this was still a reasonable because the condition quote did not contain a means by which the respondent could obtain an exception from the restrictions for legitimate purposes however i just talked about section five six four after that provides that the conditions of probation can be modified by the court at the request of the offender after notice in the hearing omar f just like the defendant here had that procedural process at his disposal  and did not use it i would argue that just there was another forfeiture case and they found plainer and o'mara however assuming and and realizing that this his probation condition that being said o'mara efforts clearly distinguishable from this case for the very reason we already talked about enforcement in compliance with this no contact provision in this case is satisfied when the defendant keeps a record of all visitors to his home and now it's true that a plumber whoever comes to defend its house he may be arguably would be violating that probation condition at the plumber has a prior drug conviction however i don't think it's unconstitutional this is constitutional for inconveniencing defended enough to ensure that whoever comes over to his house doesn't have a clean drug record and as the jamison the second district pointed out which i  cited in my brief if defendant was confused as to what the tribal court meant by no contact with a specific group he could require that a sense of hearing again that brings up why these four drools exists in the first place we have no wreck we have nothing in the record that indicates defendant had any problem with these probation conditions or had any problem complying with these probation conditions and we can't base it on hypotheticals that may or may not happen in the future  says he wants to search the finance house and definit refuses and he still searches then lampito griffin and nights are all the help in the world to defendant that's not the case here this is a valid probation condition a common probation condition and the that i would ask this court to enforce a fortune rules in this case and if there are no more questions response to the state's argument that because mr hammond's has consented to the terms of probation and the lamp attack issue consent i would like to point out that the court and lam pathak noted that agreeing to the probation order did not constitute a perspective to consent to all proposed probation searches that waived fourth amendment protection so by mr hammond's consenting to the probation violations he did not perspectively consent all fourth amendment searches and while it is shrewd that mr hammond's is given an option between either complying with his probation conditions and allowing an unconstitutional search or abiding with his probation conditions and allowing our i'm sorry or  allowing that search subjecting himself to a violation of his probation revocation i think it's unfair to force the defendant to choose between violating his probation and up holding his constitutional rights the state also relies on the language in the statute that allows of or to her habit of probation or from associating with drug users and drug dealers i return to my point in opening and which i explained to the court that it's possible that mr hammond's while that's so seeing with a drug user or dealer does not violate the condition because that her user or dealer does not have a conviction so i think that the court in an effort to make a probation condition that would prohibit mr hammond's from losing drugs and things of that nature just made a minor miss stop and when i was just a tad bit too far and what he really wanted to do was prohibit m the contact as as described in the statute which is with drug users and dealers not just anyone who has a drug conviction i think it's very possible that someone with a drug conviction in their past has been rehabilitated and then can therefore help mr hammond's through his process of rehabilitation if there are no further questions i would ask the court to tailor the strike the conditions or amend them so they are constitutional we none th