behalf of the people and this morning i'd like to share with the court that our office is hosting a delegation of prosecutors from beijing china and so they're here in the court to watch the arguments today but thank you for good morning again may it please the court my name is robin roberts and i represent you telling in this matter missionary gray and tend to confine my remarks today to the first and second issues raised in the briefs however and happen to answer any questions this court has about the remaining i'd within five days of the saddle showing a residence or temporary thomas file in the city of chicago the state simply failed to prove the elements of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt first now is it your position which  of february twenty eighth when she was apparently released from her in curse ration ah and the date of march first where she apparently first appeared  in what she would characterize as an attempt to register and march sixth where she again appeared pursuant to that same purport to the attempt up while whether you're  in two thousand and nine having not implemented whatever was the considered to be at least by the police necessary for purposes of completing that ri storage and never in fact did our position under the terms of the indictment that the state chose to charge her under was that they were charged with proving that she failed to register within five days of having  police department confirmed that she appeared but they said she appeared first and march sixth wasn't that their testimony their testimony that the officer that testified could only speak to what transpired on march sixth because he only spoke with her on march sixth however the state introduced offender registration law that the chicago police department maintains which indicated that sherry great also appeared on march fourth and on that day was turned around because she did not have the proof that address the chicago police department requires to complete registration your position assumes that her appearance either on the fourth or run the sixth in an attempt to register in fact should be deemed to be have satisfied the requirement that she must register and that consequently the state the calculation of the five days is an error since it doesn't think clued since it purports to include the data for release as well as data for appearance so there are really two things that i'm kind of pushing for right now which is that the basically your position is that the registration for purposes of compliance with whatever the statute is left after you're finished attempting to vitiate various sections  m constitutional grounds would be that she in fact satisfied the whatever registration requirement was left and was not therefore left or  of requiring and because she cannot be held criminally liable for failing to perform an act which she was physically incapable of so i actually have satisfied her statutory requirements whatever they might be because she cannot force the hand of the chicago police department to take her information and so to sum it up your position is first she was there march fourth now and then what do you believe stitch it requires someone comes in and that day appear in person and provide accurate information as required by the chicago excuse me as required by the state police department and the court noted that they will place your interpretation of providing accurate interpretation of  about her being homeless and i'm not quite sure whether you have to keep position whether you assume a position that she in some way or another satisfied the requirement of three a day that the when you don't you're not even telling us what you're relying on other than that she showed up what does she have to do i understand the state's attorney proof in every single criminal  we have to know what you're relying on and what she did to comply with the statute that requires her to do more than simply show up at the police state since when is the evidence you're relying on that she provided claimed that that was not information as to where she was living because it was given in the form of where she intended to live and back would not constitute a from nation as to where she department on march sixth she was ready and willing to provide address information any information they they wanted to take from her under that as they were required to under the statute and if the chicago police officer is the one who refused to take any a this is not a criticism of your brief it may be a complement to it but it seems to be relatively not your list in terms of what i heard that was provided it's very our position is that if it is that there was no evidence on the record that she provided inaccurate information or that she was there to provide an accurate i will raise that let's go back to the you said at the six she was ready willing and able to provide accurate  rely on this information that she was ready willing and able to provide when it's passed and then to mandate a statute which is five days except that we don't know which because we don't know where she was living and how long she'd been living there we don't know what time period was by from within five days of her stop the strain of the residence or temporary domicile we don't know when she arrived in chicago is that type two when she establishes it or is it tied to when she's released those are two separate portions of the statute in the state in this case indicted her with having failed to register within five q which the court took very significant and that's not the case here that's true your honor but but but in peterson the fact of the matter is is understood the purpose of the statute which is to maintain and collect information about sex offenders and under the wording of the statute that a section that speaks to the temporary reporting requirement says that anyone who lacks a fixed residence is expected to register weekly well to appearing appear  question as to whether your client whether he thought this case the camp took to satisfy the requirements of a homeless person all we know is that she appear twice march so there was no with ten here by your client to act as if she were a homeless person so as to satisfy the prerequisites for a homeless person such so how does  into play as up and up any kind of indication of comply ok right or the problem is is that we don't know where she was living because the state introduced no evidence to say she's been living at this location she's definitely in the city of chicago she hasn't left we don't know because we don't know where she was living we don't know whether she was still in chicago and that's required to register in the city of chicago after march sixth i think testimony be of a neighbor or individuals that have come in to contact her or seen where she was living because we don't know where she living how long she's been living there what the circumstances of that situation where you know she wasn't in chicago reasonable doubt argument is what occurred before the date of the indictment which was that is in june of two thousand and eight and the only evidence before the court regarding where sherry gray was before june of two thousand and eight was heard statement of intended  is what transpired before june of two thousand and eight whether that could go into the courts consideration for aggravation for aggravating purposes is entirely separate question and i did not one that we address in our briefs and you attempting to comply with her obligations to register under the statute and the trial court in fact out what fight why can you say that she tried to fight the stand again what information is if if you're the record to support that there was an effort to actually file but i believe that was a factual finding that the court made said that she's she's there she's trying to comply the fact that she appeared twice in the chicago police department after sex offender registration unit  that she told the officer she was there to provide her address provide them with that information and the chicago police officer said in order to do that you have to present one of these five forms of documentation and if you do not have it we will take the information from you one of the was there any testimony from anybody is what took place on march fourth which was within the five days now you're the state elected not to present the officer that she met with on march fourth so for all we know she appeared that day she had some form of documentation but she was evidence that came in about what had occurred on march fourth is the registration log which was introduced into evidence and in the registration log it states that sherry gray appeared and the officer that testified after hardy who met with her on march sixth testified that reviewing the record he would surmise that she appeared on march fourth that she attempted to register but she could not do so because she did not have the information that they require and there's nothing in the record that indicates  residency that if that is is one of something that's incorporated into section three a one that it was the state's burden to prove that she failed to present any information as of the state argued that it is in part rated i dislike to the b and three c but says nothing about the other requirements and that section eight of the statute which discusses the registration requirement says nothing about the proof of address and so our position is as the court trial court noted in this case that th form that she filled out while she was incarcerated and i think i see one of the components of that form is a long list of the the registrants requirements under the statute and that form says nothing about the her any information in advance of her registration to compel her compliance as such wouldn't she have to know why she's supposed to do the next question he she is compelled to know on her own what she is supposed to do under three a one that automatically carry over as well to three c five your honor yes there a presumption that that you know the law that the sex offender registration act all the legal fiction but we live with yeah sure but that's a sex offender registration act does mandate that sex offenders are notified of their obligations under the law via this form that they're given when they're released from i be in part because there is strict liability under the statute and so in this case even presuming that she knew that she was required to present this information to points first she wasn't indicted under that portion of the statute and second because the state elected not to call the person who met with her on march fourth they did not present if it ever did that she failed to present this information the most that we can infer from that that appearance that she made was that she did not have one of the five forms of documentation that the chicago police department to use the phrase over the word accurate so mansion in three a why wouldn't that be a reference to some requirements to establish accuracy my position would be that that brave actor it puts the offender i noticed that failure to provide accurate information subjects them to criminal liability under the statute as there's a separate there's a separate provision under the statute holding offenders from the liable if they provide an accurate information when they register and such that the statement you need to provide accurate information is if you provide false information you are subjecting yourself to another term of incarceration because it's illegal under the statute to provide inaccurate information in the administration of the statute to determine whether this registration was nothing more than a sham your honor i would think it's very apt to be of considering the experience with that statute and the motivation to avoid its restrictions here at two things that the statute mandates that the law enforcement agency is required to verify th but the fact of the matter is because we don't know what what transpired on march fourth we do know that sherry gray can completed the sex offender registration form while she was incarcerated she she signed the statement of how it fares her thumbprint she initial numerous portions that was witnessed by and i official we know that that form was then sent to the tribal police department under the mandate of the statute the date ideas she is required to send that form to the jurisdiction the law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction where the end offender expects to reside they had that documentation they had a sworn statement by sherry gray that she expected to reside at that address that was insufficient in this case to substantiate the address for the chicago police department yet the state in this case relies on the same form to say that secretary of state will take a sworn affidavit as evidence of an address of an individual's attempting to obtain a state id i mean that the state in this case appended the statute from the secretary of state for what is mandatory in order to obtain a state id it includes a very long list of items that will are sufficient in the secretary of state's opinion to substantiate an address and in this case sherry gray was given a copy of that document had a copy of the document she filled out an idea see that chicago police department has said no we purpose of the sex offender registration act we have twenty one people on march fourth were turned away for lack of proof that dress all of these other were worried about individuals providing an accurate information or providing false information individuals who were repeatedly presenting themselves to register under the statute and saying i was their duties it's our position that these are these are not individuals that we are these are not the individuals we should worry about subverting the system sherry gray appears twice saying i'm here i'm i'm i'm ready and willing to satisfy my obligations under the statute and the chicago police department repeatedly turned her away because she doesn't have these five forms which it's not a department of state police policy that there was you know is the fact that the what she did curious about and i'm intrigued by the fact that you point out that the id of the issuance of the id by the state which would have been accepted would have satisfied self with a sworn statement i'll let me question you a little bit about that because policy that they require two forms of id and things that can satisfy that are things such as the affidavit of the person but then in addition to that they would likely have to present something along the lines of a utility bill or a piece of met official mail from the state agencies and nothing nothing is comfortable everyone would agree that it's not vague if the weather here were forty degrees below zero but the closer you get  substantiate my claim and that proof consists of an affidavit from a felon it's a it's a close question at the very least as to whether it's too vague to vi doubt argument as well as the vagueness argument going into the reasonable doubt argument if the state it was this expert in this case to prove that she if the presentation positive an identification and documentation is required it was the state's burden to prove that she didn't  information because they did not call the person who met with her and on march fourth we actually have no idea what if but sure great period with and it's quite possible that she showed up with something we can just and first she didn't have one of the five items that the embarrassments and restrictions of what is a meagan's of laws and that with this negative law i can't speak yet original origins of the law but your honor we know that we don't know that she appeared with nothing because we met with her and so we're presuming here that she that she arrived and with nothing when the evidence doesn't necessarily show that the evidence at asho she failed to appear with one of the five items that the chicago police department is deemed acceptable she could have shown up with her sworn form she could have shown up with a piece of official mail that was sent to her at the at that address and on the fourth we just have no idea what happened it was the state's burden to prove she showed up with nothing if that statute as if that was in the statute as is applicable here under the vagueness portion of the statute because there are any in me to take her address information because she did not have an id and here that under the language of the statute because there are not specifically dirt sufficiently definite standards promulgated under the statute for what would satisfy positive identification that she didn't have anything with her it could be inferred that she didn't have anything with her at with her at all but it also can get inferred that she didn't have one of these five forms that they considered to be sufficient proof of address and again you know we have no idea what she showed up with on the fourth and she appeared two days later so it's perhaps possible that she returned two days later to say listen i just got out of prison i can't get one of these five things can i register some other way and he's saying no we now now we now you're starting to police so there is there would be good reason for counsel to enter to allow that interview evidence to come in because it shows that his client to the best of her ability did what she could to comply with the terms of the statute and but for the chicago police department's refusal to take any information from her she appeared within the time requirements and best they can be did construed in the state's favor within five days of the earliest date on which she could have established a residence or temporary down the file all of the other elements way in her favor under section three and one we've talked at length about  police department has elected to interpret the statute i don't believe an individual of ordinary intelligence would walk into the chicago police department and and i magically surmise that these five items are the only things that are sufficiently sufficient to satisfy the present themselves and simply provide the information under the terms of the statute that actually appears that the presentation of documentation presentation of documentation must substantiate a residence it doesn't say anything about a temporary domiciles so it's completely possible that someone with a says i mean that the two entries are the exact same officer hardy said she didn't have one of these five items i turned her away and it's the exact same indication there's nothing on the log to say this person showed up with something and it wasn't deemed adequate and and was turned thank you good morning once again mary bowen on behalf of the people the thrust of the defendant's argument below was that appearing at a police station is the same as registering under the sex offender registration act and then no it's marked on appeal first well that's interesting is that was not the claim made a lot but that is one of the claims made here on appeal but when you look at the registration act you're looking at actually two different things you're looking at the administrative regulation which does  burdens on individuals when they come in to register and then you're looking at the violation of the act which is the criminal penalty and so when you're looking at the registration itself that the defendants are human kind of brill's down to well analogize it as some courts have to driver's license procedures i went to the secretary of state's facility i wrote then i took a number or a set down on a chair i didn't have anything with me and i just said i want to license and they said sorry  grey showed up and as the court has noted this is not the first time the sherry grey has been convicted under the a for violation of the sex offender registration act so she shows up to register and she is trying to wait because she has no proof of address and so two days later when she shows back up again and officer honey chops or this time he questions her and she says i don't have my id and he says well go and get it and she said fine and she walks out and so once again the robber cards that she have any corroboration for it but the corroboration doesn't make it more accurate it makes it more reliable but what we have here is the record which we must live by this the record suggests that she not only fancy actually where she was living that is the only information that we have and that is the information that we're relying on when you fill out your your initial search north occasion from which is the done on the day of the release which is why the star route testif and we do know that more than three hundred twenty three days after she was released from prison she still hadn't registered but is looking at one seventeen but that is the information that we have when she was released from prison that is the statement that she gave which begins to populate the registry the latest three iraq by registrants a few days now it's a little bit shorter than it used to be used to be ten days then it was five days now it's three days to actually go to that residence she may change her mind in which case she w the police department she goes through and then go ahead and change that registry that the initial population of that database from the time she's released a promise for the law enforcement monitoring function which is one of the core functions and sorry just where i'm going to get to the monitoring function ok i heard a statement made on the first i didn't there were twenty one people show up on march fourth and they didn't have you have the you off to testify she came in on march sixth and she didn't take any information she see apply ok so let me respond to a few pieces first to justice house the statute itself that to your question is a larger statute than simply coming in and saying i am at this address please take this information because what the statute then requires is that police have certain duties they will go out they try to monitor information they might do sweeps they might and then be wasting tremendous resources if individuals can come in and simply give an address and say i've met my duty i've never there but i've met my duty now find me somewhere in the city where the state or some other state and now try to deal with me so the duty is placed yes the burden is placed on that register and precisely because of the crimes that they have committed it is more than just walking in and saying i am here that is enough but not enough what tells us that accurate information cannot be a state from the offender that they're at they are living in a sufficiently clear is there is there support for they when you have twenty one people appearing on any given day and they're actually there hazing statute look at this type of language and said the legislature doesn't have to provide a list of every president scenario every potential avenue for every method by which the statute must be can be natural can be violated  and photographs still kinds of information in the sea actually that says through registering you need to provide more than just showing up taking a number and saying hey i'm here register on me because then it  police responsibilities the ban for some responsibilities the public's information just notice and if you provide wrong information which you could easily do by walking in and having known no verification no positive documentation requirement then essentially it undermines the purpose of the statue because one of the reasons that the sari exists is because sex offender strive in anonymity and that was an issue that was raised in dennis miller in the illinois supreme court in two thousand and six and dennis whatever expedients that we have in so far as it creates a kind of no brainer situation for the police taking that information to see if the checklist of those five it leads from my perspective at the moment does the adoption by the police of those high measures in the face of other types of information that were equally satisfy the requirements  three five c but that is expedient way for the police well the defendant in this case in the vagueness piece of this brief is limited to an as applied challenge it's not a challenge as a sunday to cope with the fact that the police suggests that you can't simply walk in the police station and say hi i am and i live yeah but is that documentation i mean i think it can be reasonably argued that the stance you literally require something more than stating i'm going to live with the rest that's case felt that she had partially complied felt that she had she appeared at the office and the defense argument was that she was in the same place and that she had this information the evidence that we have from officer hardiest she had no identification that day she was going to go to six this group before that's what i want to get even on the fourth and the only information that we have in the police records which is the only information that is in the record of this case is that she had no proof of app or is it isn't it the burden on you to an argument would be may be at the state well the argument has been that the state did not state that she did not comply with the requirements because the showing that the chicago police policy requires such such is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she didn't appear with positive identification in fact i think that it's really that he didn't comply with sit right i see the defendant's argument there but the fact is we're limited to this record and in this record we have certain requirements that must be met and none of those requirements have been met and what we do have is positive evidence from which an inference can be made because the defense counsel is argument at trial was she couldn't get an id she didn't have an id because she was just released so there was no argument that she had a ok i think i can wrap it up even more quickly than that case i can simply state that the defendant is a sex offender required to register there's no question about that she had noticed that she was required to register and she failed to register as she was required to do under the sex offender registration act this code need not reach the methods by which registration can apply to other persons in other circumstances this defendant came with no registration she cannot simply report and say that  sufficient honest man i says you cannot do that there is no good faith partial compliance under the statute the defendant was properly convicted and we would ask that the support from the defendant's conviction thank you with two minutes be too much  unable to perform and we maintain that it was the chicago police department that prevented her from knowing her obligations under the statute doesn't have to be administrative code says nothing about the positive identification and documentation that needs to be presented there's there's nothing in the