south bend and make the argument for him let me begin with what this case is not although the turnaround process in the illinois department of corrections turnaround procedure what we're challenging in this case is a summary judgment entered against mr smith when is or perhaps his the warrant issued for his violation of a old condition was based on knowingly false information the the question i have for you mr palmer was whether any knowingly false information played a causal role suppose the officer had represented that smith is known to be a space alien from venus and we will assume that that's false he's probably from one of the asteroids instead right but maybe that blatantly false statement but smith did not have an approved site and therefore didn't have a walker place to live could there be liability for making that false statement there could be liability your honor on several different bases first basis is that the reason given that he did not have an approved  site because of electronic monitoring monitary that would be something that would require an investigation but did he in fact have an approved time he did he did not  can any statement whether it's about his being of the new ship or his having been convicted of bank robbery when he hadn't been or right you can make a very long list of false statements but if none of the false statements played any causal role why would they be a source of liability their response of liability because it did not stop it his initial arrest on march twenty fourth it continued with of an approved site it was your fault they were an argument that some time during this extra six months he spent in prison is there an argument that he got an approved psych during that time but because of a whole statement he still wasn't let out know what there is evidence of is why in june of two thousand and fourteen when the prison finally got around to investigating one of the host sites his correct the problem your honor it was not a problem according to this mandatory supervised release they only conditions originally on that release were substance abuse counseling check when he was held on the day he was supposed to be released there were two statements made one that he was in violation because he could not find a host site that would accommodate s we checked with the family nothing is been nothing is consistent with what is required they didn't check with the family there was no investigation  they finally in may three months later to much later mr smith's mother called the prison for the second time to take come investigate my hops we want him to be turned free if we want to be a host site we can handle it so two and a half hours after she made that call mr anderson went in and requested the electronic monitoring to be added to his condition what's and he still did need to investigate that house until june and it judy went to the house and and ruled that it was not a suitable host site because there were three minor children there and there was internet access and computer access those were not conditions of his parole either the discretionary conditions or mandatory conditions they were not mandatory because he was convicted of sexual criminal battery with a person over eighteen and unable to consent back in two thousand and one asked to present host sites until after he was already back on the day he was released it would have been impossible for mr anderson to conduct the investigation that he said he reasons first because the undisputed record shows that anderson had reasonable suspicion that is reasonable suspicion existed when he issued the challenge to violation of pork and reasonable suspicion is an absolute defense dismiss false arrest claim second because he's i try to avoid the acronyms your honor but there is no genuine issue of fact any false statement in the violation of port was the but for cause of smith's subsequent attention now i want to focus on the first issue about reasonable some reasonable suspicion that's what the case is really that probably is false arrest claim regardless of whether or not there are any false statements that supported the challenge tension or arrest and that's what we have here an undisputed record there is no doubt there is no dispute that at the time that anderson issued the  based basically looking at subsequent events that down the line he challenges whether or not the rejection of the host site was proper but that's not the issue in the case the issue in the case is whether or not reasonable suspicion existed when anderson issue report that's what was challenge alone that's what he argues wisdom of the violation of fourth amendment here and under these facts get in each it reaches the standard now reasonable suspicion is an objective standard it's a low bar it doesn't require that anderson thought more likely than not that he had violated his his condition for release it really deals in probabilities and all it requires is an objective manifestation that smith had not satisfied his condition for luis the parole that was here it's under administrative code section one six one zero point one one zero and that code section prohibits the department from releasing a parolee to his parole until it has satisfied itself that he has suitable arrangements for a proper and approved residence in word where he'll serve it here because there was no approval the existence is clear i mean it's actually proven more likely than not though it doesn't need to meet that standard so under the case you cite not sfi smith where this court had found parole violation porton that case i was reported was supported by reasonable suspicion even though there was an issue of fact whether or not there were false knowing false statements in the violation of port still that was enough affirm summary judgment a good thing you're not that you've got this rule of six this is not the first time this you know in my practice the term around practice has been before this court are you aware that i am here either but as i said you know how bad it's not about a parolee who was and still currently being detained during his parole this is a case the case for damages a civil action for damages and the this is also a much different question looking at whether or not reasonable suspicion existed at the time of that action which to action that is the violation report now his argument smith's argument is that there was an appeal seems to be that there is no reasonable suspicion because his the proposed sites they'd submitted were proper under the administrative code and first he never made that argument below so we forfeited it but also night the section the ministry of conception doesn't mandate the release of inmates just because they've submitted a proper host site it prohibits the department from a leasing them until it's actually be transferred to the department of corrections to prison until the end of his term so he arrived at the under the department's jurisdiction and the date based on the date of  they had of sex offender yet there was insufficient time to complete a complete investigation of the sites but also is by the terms of once of the administrative code provision at issue that they it doesn't state the department must release an inmate t condition of and that of parole it's worth it it the department is required to satisfy itself that the inmate has suitable arrangements for proper residen smith claims in his reply brief that this this provision would somehow give a blank check to for the department of defense to taint the started to detain sex offenders but he never asserted any sort of claim that the department's broad discretion violates started to approve why we dispute that the that the most most important fact is we're goddess of not he's right that that that's the state law claim that's a state law question for the state law courts and wouldn't constitute a federal action or a federal be a basis for federal damages under section one thousand nine hundred three that's what this court found in brown v randall wanted it to trust a similar case by another illinois sex offender who also under the same provision was detained during his parole by they because he didn't have authority and said no that is not a that's not a question a federal question is not a federal claim and dition wouldn't because it would not be consistent with reasonable suspicion that somehow that a  parole agent is supposed to predict in the future that a court might find that the provision and the provision in which they are applying them in order to detain someone will later be found invalid under state law ultimately it's smith's cramped reading of this provision that would give sex offenders another pro leagues basically carte blanche to obtain release just parole and a residence of their choosing regardless of whether or not that site post a risk either to them successfully completing their parole or to the public safety so i see my time's almost up and i would ask just the court remind the court that reasonable suspicion is an absolute defense to smith's false arrest claim so we're garbus of any false statements here the undisputed record demonstrated that reasonable suspicion existed for smith that started that smith and not satisfied his conditions for release to parole under illinois law when anderson issued to the challenge for court therefore for these reason yes and the reason set forth in our in understands brief we request that the what is a proper host site must be based on what the conditions of the parole are are this this case on june ninth when mr anderson ruled that the host site  smith's mother was not proper he based it on two conditions that were not part of the problem there can be no reasonable suspicion that when the pro conditions are in writing supposedly investigated by mr anderson and not applied to the host site that he had reasonable suspicion to say that host site was not proper for not approved that's like saying the investigator posts out there it's i don't like the color blue your houses it's not proper even though it's not in your parole conditions i'm going to say you can't be approved and you have to stay in jail six months longer than what you're  say well when mr anderson went to the house and choose he didn't say it was not proper for electronic monitoring as he did earlier he said there were two other willingness to accept the appointment in this case with local convey our thanks to mr moore and when he gets back from vacation the case is taken under advisement