remember my bill isn't t c case him show me why this is not a precursor and his to the manifest way show that an opposite conclusion probably there's no been mine you know how you get from a to b it may please a court you're honest this case is about whether illinois law allows a person to be registered as a sex offender based entirely on speculation when there is no evidence to show that this offense was sexually motivated because this offense was not circling motivated we ask this court to order that mr black be removed from somewhere and allowed to register a boy or runners of the state once you believe that because  purpose his purpose must have been sexually motivated over this is simply not true by creating boy or a legislator made it very clear that some amount for straights are sexually motivated and some are not as an example holding someone for carry the groceries and the boy agreed to help mr black he did not trick him or lure him in any way he offered the boy money for his help in the boy agreed to help when they got off the bus at mr black stop they walk to his apartment and when they when they got to his apartment mr black opened the door and asked the boy to place the groceries in the kitchen which he did as he was walking from the kitchen back to the front door he heard he heard mr blacklock the door and saw that  white was standing in front of the door when it stopped for just a second mr monk and say oh you say that he didn't trip or lure but he got to the bus stop with his bags by himself presumably so he was a capable person capable of carrying the bags that he had and he gets the boy to help him bring the bags to his house as if he needed the help and i don't know how you can say that he did so how was that nat luring him for whatever pacifically said this is now one of those cases where he said you know i'll give you candy or something come to my house he did actually have grows more clever than that it seems because he did he did ask the boy for some help and the boy was genuine  saying i will help you i don't even want the money but then when the where try to get off the boss the defendant did grab his leg and thomas abounded me and he simply reminded him that he had agreed to help and that his that mr when they were walking to the apartment the boy was not being forced or held or coerced he willingly helped mr black with the groceries to his apartment now as he was trying to leave mr black again offered to pay him money for his help and the boy refused and at this point the boy said i need to leave and chugged mr black away from the door unlocked the door and left mr black did not try to stop him he didn't grab him he didn't say anything  seconds or owners and nothing of these facts show that it was sexually motivated importantly honest no one ever argued that this case was sexually motivated at the trial the state had the opportunity to prove motive they charge mr black with aggravated the definition of sexually motivated is a narrow definition and shows the legislature's intent to keep it narrow the definition is says one or more facts of the underlying offense shows an intent to engage in behavior of a sexual nature the legislature specifically made this narrow they they could use broader language such as all of the evidence or any of the information that came out at sentencing but they chose you say backs of the underlying affects the fact that they said offense not offend a clear indication that they wanted to focus on the facts about the offense and not nearly everything about the offender in general and that position is supported by this court's decision in people of the the lez at paragraph seventy three to seventy four i where they they said that it judge should only look at the facts of the offense itself so if we're right logical extension then you're saying that if a defendant in a case like this did the same thing didn't say anything didn't touch the kid didn't say i want to do this to you or you do this to me but he was a prior sex offender against children that would be relevant it could possibly be relevant if there is some connection to the offense rather but know about that let's not let's say that there's nothing that the  convicted previously convicted child abuser sattar did in this particular instance lured the child actors apartment that didn't touch a child didn't you know indicate things verbal even i'm on duty you were you do to me but if it was the legislature specifically says we must look at the facts of the underlying offense which is so we're not sure of the line between a perfect recurs or an what is in evidence here which precursor cases the ones the state cited banks skiles and lampy all three of those cases the defendant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and it's in those cases the facts are that they are the defendants and grab the victims and drag them into an alley and two cases in one into a building and in those cases where they physically grab the child and and move them to a different location that's a significantly more danger to the child and that in this case where he agreed to help mr black how do you overcome allies case which was just released not that long ago was very pale shirt you're in the lez that defendant was in his work and he saw a middle school girl walking home from school with her backpack and he said hey baby girl do you want to ride and she tried to ignore him she tried to walk away she repeatedly made it clear she was not interested he went around the corner part and then as she came by again again repeated his attempts to try to get her in the van so in that case you're child secondly he did agree to help him carry as bags i don't know child was necessarily agree to walking down the alley up the back steps up to the third floor inside the house and then have the guy lock the door and try to keep him in there i mean agreeing to help somebody is one thing i don't think that i think you're placing a little too much emphasis on the child agreeing to help older person i don't know how long  no connection to this offense whatsoever there is no evidence that the magazine was ever in the apartment of a of a around the boy there's no indication that mr black ever said let me show you a magazine i want it there's nothing like that the magazine was on his person two activity which to me offers absolutely no indication of his state of mind involving an eleven year old boy hours before is it your position that the state has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that his conduct was sexually motivated state's bird prove the underlying offense that we're talking about here we're talking about registration after he's been convicted of a crime requalify so for a stray sure there's a distinction there would you agree i agree there is a distinction there over the reason i think it's a a quick two part question what do you believe the burden of proof is for the state and then what is our standard of review in looking at what their trial just did and weighing the evidence after the case was reminded back to h with with this judge's finding that says it's actually motivated it now becomes a sex offense and that's important because again while it's not an element it's a very important finding it transforms this into a sex offense so or is it used to be self executing it used to be a sex offense and that was sort of the logic when it was removed and then it required the judge to make a finding unless you have this was in there in the underlying case that's correct or  the creation of the boy or made it clear that some are secular motivated and some are not right and that's important distinction so this judge's finding transforms this offense into a sex offense which is the reason we think it should be beyond a reasonable doubt now of the standard of review for that i guess i'm not a discretion are you saying that we should review his findings for abuse of discretion manifest weight of the evidence what's the standard review you think we should apply i believe it should be abus discretion because as this court a previously thought in this case the judge failed to exercise his discretion in making this finding and which implies that it's within the judge's discretion as to this finding so his fighting a violent person does petitions in subtly dangerous person petitions both of which are considered civil however they are much like criminal trials in both of those the state has to has to prove the person is dangerous as in all of th patient it affects their ability to get housing employment they can't they can't go to certain parts they can't go to certain places and that's absolutely a restriction on their liberty and it's not merely a registration registry the conviction of low led to the registration here is this judge's finding that leads to the registration in addition to the the offense so his his conviction does not by itself require him to register drawing the line there it's a distinction between a finding versus a conviction on the case itself yes rather that's the that's absolutely one of the giving i'm not saying you re offender registry is not a protected the body interest dealt with different factual situations and in those cases as i said because it was the conviction the information came out at the trial the defendant had a chance to dispute those things here as i said no one ever argued this was such a motivated trial mr black had no idea he was going to be subjected to sex offender is are not required to if if if the charge is that's going to go to the judge or to the jury is for unlawful a he has no knowledge in this case that he's in as you indicated that this is going to happen i know this it was not required to prove motive however as it as i stated they did charge mr black with aggravated kidnapping said the magazine was not above apparently not probative enough of his intent so i'm saying that while the city was not required to they certainly had the opportunity to put forth this evidence at the trial they simply chose not to hear there  is i that's right our position is that the magazine is is irrelevant to establishing the sec for motivation as i said previously there is no connection between the magazine and the boy or the apartment whatsoever and again it's a legal trial court abused its discretion in finding that the possession of this pornographic magazine a couple hours after this child ran from his apartment was was he felt that it was consistent with being a preoccupation of some sexual nature and you would disagree with that and i think that would be an abuse of discretion i do believe that's an abuse of discretion that's entirely speculative your honor there's no facts indicating that sexual motivation that anything to do with this offense a magazine the magazine simply showed that two hours later when the boy was long god mr brock was walking down the street and he had picked up a legal point graphic magazine picked up or offense that there is the state presented no evidence showing any kind of connection between the victims of childhood sexual and physical abuse then committing such a motivated crimes later if if that logic were the stand everyone who's ever been sexually abused in their life would then we suffer the motivated to commit crimes in the future and that's simply not true and it has to be his history of solicitation prostitution offenses only one was a conviction it was a misdemeanor conviction for which he served two days the rest were paragraphs so these protests were not even presented properly there was no testimony of the incidents or this circumstances under which they happened but they were many many years prior to this offense again they offer no indication of the state of mind at the time of this offense the only relevance of these arrests that they show that at those times the police believe the mr black had exchanged money for consensual sex with an adult there's absolutely nothing that history showing now i'm consensual sex or sex with children and our position is that adult consensual sex is wholly different than sex with a child and there's absolutely no indication in this he was speculating and his decision was arbitrarily made on his perception of the facts and we believe that's contrary to what the legislature what the legislature intended when they said facts of the underlying offe i defendant was thirty four years old and was eleven years old and they originally met at a bus stop and accompanied the defendant on the bus to help him with his groceries when the child goes to get off the bus he goes home record defendant pulls his arm the child sits back down they get off the bus at the defendant's bus stop the child helps defendant with the groceries and accompany spend into his apartment defendant ask the child to bring the groceries inside which the child does the child then hears the door lock turns around tells the defendant he has to leave the defendant stands in front of the door back to the door and on the door now the child has to push his way out the child and as the child is extremely funny grabs his arm again the child is able to escape your runs home and investigation ensues two hours later during the investigation the child's in the police car he sees the defendant on the street and identifies him the defendant is before the judge so i'm saying the word you draw the line between so the defendant his bail and opportunity to know what he's doing if it's not clearly defined as a s that this case is a little bit of a different posture because it occurred in two thousand and six pre amendment actually the case was tried after the amendments but so the time the court would not necessarily have known about making the finding but when this case went back and black run at that point the court now is well aware that they have to make a finding that a crime is sexually motivated or is not sexually motivated  and the judge has to make a finding one way or the other so the court would have to find that the offense was not sexually motivated if they didn't find this offense was actually motivated so you're really saying yes this is a unique situation that wouldn't happen normal right correct an offense a sexually motivated well one of more facts of the underlying offense indicate conduct that is as of a sexual nature shows intent to engage in kind of behavior of a sexual nature knows this is not prove it doesn't say can't indicate anything else and the recent decisions of co don't and the lies are instructive here they said this is a very low threshold that courts have to look at or have to meet what it what is your position on the burden of proof one or more facts that indicate conduct of a sexual nature and here the trial court properly found that you had one of more facts that indicate intent to engage in behavior of a sexual nature the defendant's actions of luring chicot tricking in se eting the child mocking the door blocking the doorway feeling to him to leave when he wanted to out all facts of an underlying offense that indicate sexual motivation as chords have recognized as the courts have recognized in illinois in cases like throwing cardona people who kidnap unlawfully restrain or abduction children pose a greater risk of committing sexual offenses against them there's a pattern in many of these cases which is why the child and then they're secretive and abandoned building of a and the house it's a sexual predator tori behavior and these facts alone indicate conduct of a sexual nature whether you consider the magazine or not these room i don't think so because well first of all these facts only have to indicate you know sexual behavior doesn't say that you know it can ever possibly indicate anything else and i think that there are facts here tell a story they lay out a pattern of what is going on it's the luring the tricking the befriending the child talking to him about basketball all to get him into his house to lock the door and there's you know the defendant me a lot about the groceries where he did says well the trial that the child did agree it doesn't matter those groceries were pretax how do we know the groceries were pretax because when the child gets to the door the defendant doesn't say thanks for your he in the law i would say pursuant to further no that wouldn't change it would not change because children are at risk of sexual harm from people who kidnap abducted and restrain them and these types of facts indicate a sexual predator behavior and remember story is a regulation to protect children from future harm this is not a punishment the question of sora is to protect children and  related kidnapping if you took the victim's rollitt so there's you know obviously kidnappings or abductions or restraints for you know steal that's not the case here that is not the picture that's painted here said the registration act does not require that there be any sexual conduct or an overt sexual act and essentially as with the defendant wants a score to say is that there case the child was grabbed by a schizophrenia man and at the time she was grabbed she reported that he said something sexual at the time of his discharge hearing she said he made statement to her that she must go with him and she couldn't remember whether he said anything such a sexual and the court said even if setting aside the debate of whether the defendant uttered the word sax the evidence more than indicates the defendant wanted this child for his own purposes and be difficult for the trial court to state the opposite which is what the trial court would have to do they would have to make a finding that the crime was not sexually motivated you cannot do that here the people position also is that the standard of review this  a manifest with the evidence finding against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident certainly not the case here the track or properly found that the facts of this crime indicate sexual motivation with regards to the statements in the d s i and in regards to the defense prior history the statements in the in the p s i i it's important to remember are statements that the defendant reported in his b s i interview for sentencing in this offense he's being interviewed for this offense or sentencing in this offense and i obviously  you know giving statements which presumably will be helpful to him and those statements the court should not be asked to turn a blind eye to statements that the defendant has made in preparation for sentencing however in this case it doesn't really matter you don't need those statements the facts enough themselves are sufficient to uphold the trial court's findings with regard to the due process argument these decision was  basically rejected the same argument this court found that there is no deprivation of the liberty interest and that the defendant received all the process that he was to the defendant did have an opportunity at the hearing  let me direct you to one of the last comments your colleague made and that is that in this circumstance the court to reach a different conclusion would have to reach the conclusion that this crime was not sexually motivated do you agree with the state has to show that it was actually motivated a judge has to find that it was such an order motivated for them to go on sort of if it if they do not they go in for it which means if the judge if the judge believes it was actually motivated they go once or if it's any other motivation if we don't know if if we can't figure out what the motivation is it must be bored out you can only put them on sorry if the judge knows it's actual is there any other motivation revealed by any of the evidence in this case other than put aside for the moment did anything that the defendant said or did or that the child said or did indicate something other than sex being this man's motivation for screeching this child we have no idea what the motivation not grab him he did not say i think it's i think it's safe to say that the evidence at least indicated that the defendant was doing whatever he could to try to secrete the child and secrete his purposes of what he wanted to do with the child he didn't grab him he didn't say anything to him he didn't grab him you know in a sexual way to grab yourself in a sexual way but does that exclude that what was on his i was to do something sexual with this child we simply don't know what was on his mind or honor and that's extra motivation at the end of the day that's really where you're hanging your hat that the courts finding was speculation because there wasn't specific evidence with and it said there did something of an overt sexual nature is that fair to say that's correct in this case