conceded that protecting the public is a legitimate government interest but nonetheless argues the ban is both irrational and arbitrary now the glaring reason the statute is arbitrary and irrational is opportunity to access potential victims bad for a statute to be constitutional no more is required than one woman's opinion that because parts have trees and perhaps other structure inside a home victim or victim's friend ten percent in the street and seven percent in a parking lot the remaining twenty six percent or so occurred other locations and  possible that public parks falls under this umbrella of all other locations we're left with no indication that parks in fact do and if they do we equally don't know what percentage they would amount to could be zero percent and that what we do now and what we can sort of gather from this study is that because it's specifically to any age that seven percent of sexual assaults occur in parking lots the number of sexual assault even though the vast majority will not really find and without the news trading and he sort of logical nexus between protecting the public and banning child sex offenders from parks now if that statute had some sort of limiting provision contained within it perhaps we could consider it to be a little more reasonable for instance that you know restricted sex offenders from entering parks with playgrounds or during certain hours  children are most likely to be present or only have children were present or if they have prohibited certain conduct like approaching contacting or communicating with a child under eighteen  under the jurisdiction of either illinois or any local unit of government basically all public space so a again not only is he restrict our child whatsoever is arbitrary and irrational in its over inclusiveness and over back and that's excessive so as far as the other factors are concerned a good case can be made that all way in favor of fighting the prohibiting sex offenders from entering public parks and in the law as he also mentioned public parks are specifically defined as parks forest preserves bikeways trills and conservation areas that are under the jurisdiction of the state or a unit of local government if it is not banned from any other areas in the state under this law independent acknowledges that the statute does not affect fundamental right in this court should apply rational basis possible to determine whether a large park were by a trail a forest preserve the conservation area is empty of people and available for use by a convicted child sex offender or that it will remain empty of other banishment but that's not what's happening here he's prevented from going to any child sex offenders prevented to go from specific locations that are operated by government bonds and but there are thousands of places throughout defined under the statute and not to other areas and yes as you mentioned it is does have the five hundred foot limit also this that's included in that but then we have miles and miles and miles of illinois that are totally separated from conservation areas and such where people can go to private lakes they can go to large public lakes even that don't have a park area in them and that are not considered parks and to this particular statue so there are many many many areas where the individuals can report and found that a law that prevents sex offenders from residing within five hundred feet of school is not unconstitutional as an expose facto law in those areas schools everywhere just like parks are they still that's very restrictive in opinion they said that the legislator could have rationally sought to add protect child sex it excuse me protect children from child sex offenders since children are present in parks here we don't have a fireman that children or any human being is present in a park that means you can see it straight it props washington square park and if you can see that no one is there as a child sex offender still cannot you know take a shortcut time because i have a job which a child sex offender probably couldn't have because they're restricted from taking their dog into any kind of public park which is you know creates a very limited life for the dog but i know that's all the time i live here and i don't want because this is where my profession is and and i have to talk and i frequently don't encounter a single person in any park much less children and park and canal trails and starve and children are child again we don't even have an indication that that sex offenses happened in parks this is one woman's conjecture that they possibly could and i can't prove that they're they wound but we don't have any any indication that the line if they were to if you were to find the statute constitutional in terms of what it's handed indicating to the legislator they can do and with future statutes because people are present everywhere