minors under seventeen years of age shall be kept separate from confined adults i may not at any time he kept in the same cell room or yard with adults can find percent criminal law and the next sentence the statute says that person seventeen years of age and older who have a petition of going to see filed against them may be confined and in adult detention so the and in the next sentence requires that a specific hearing take place in order for that seventeen year old to be transferred to an adult detention facility in the us under the plain language of the act people excuse me minors under seventeen years of age must be kept separate from adults minors over seventeen years of age may be kept in an adult attention facility and that sentence doesn't contain any site where sound requirements therefore under the plain language of subsection four ten two c five there is  no requirement that seventeen year olds such as respondent be kept separate from adults when they're placed into an adult attention so it isn't a problem here mr three will that the appellate court and the road were used the wrong stairs about this does this governor even speak to the trial court yet the detention hearing which is what occurred in those years yes your honor this section of the juvenile court act is titled detention or shelter hearing and think this is a very important point because this is going to decide whether this entire thing is moot or not which is an issue in the scares i believe in the record there's an indication i believe from the state's attorney indicating that this provision of the act which everybody seems to be talking about doesn't apply and it would appear that for ten governs what the police may do with a minor between the time of his arrest and the time he was first brought before the court and that's not what occurred here this is this dealing with detention which is the same thing that the detention or shelter caring shelter care hearing statute is dealing with and the very next section of the act so the two sections need to be read together and what the detention is the temporary detention is that this statute is contemplating is the time frame between a rest and the trial and that so it is not only referring to the first twelve hours following the miners roast it's it's referring to a number of different hours of time when the juveniles kept under subsection two d one for instance talks about the first forty hours and that's the section where they are part of court and respondent rely upon statute of four turns specifically allows minors seventeen years of age of older to be held with adults but that's because it applies only to the first few hours following the minors the rest were local lock ups are often the only option well and then we get the ones we get to five all one it seems clear what what they have to do with the minors but even if that interpretation work correct your honor and five a one is what applied to this case instead of fo ten five zero one four contains the same express limitation that's found and for ten to see and see me two d one which is that that specific subsection with the sight and sound and four ten two are really dealing with the same time period it's just that four for ten is going into more specifics about the actual conditions necessary for the detention or is five on one is dealing more worked if this court police were turned wasn't the proper stance or there is no longer any public interest exception but the way i think it's interesting to note that somewhere in the brief there is an indication that the courts have never addressed this maybe they've never addressed it because they've been applying the other statute but the public interest exception goes away if this isn't the proper stance you'd in this case once and again becomes correct your honor if this court feels that five zero one is for it is what should have been implied here and discussed in this case then there would be no need to address the public interest interpretation of for ten which is what we had conceived in an r p l a and are urging me not r p l a but in our briefs is that the public interest exception should apply because it's important to get this into this court's interpretation of exactly what is meant by for ten to see that in any event your honor it's also important to discuss the appellate court's handling of whether or not th procedures in place under subsection four ten to see were appropriate and again this is something that the court would only reach if it feels that subsection four ten is what was being what is the proper statute in th circumstance but assuming that it was the procedural requirements that are found in four ten are constitutional under the due process clause a polk court's opinion goes too far in taking procedural  from another statute and essentially rewriting subsection four ten whether that's because the court was upset about the way that this hearing or benchley took place in the lower court or because it was dealing with the wrong statute entirely  unclear but assuming it was dealing with the correct statute it was improper for the appellate court to essentially rewrite subsection four ten when there was no due process violation in this case morning honors counsel may please the court my name is jamie montgomery i'm an assistant defender with the office of the state appellate defender and i represent the minor randal am i think one of the big issues in this case that we need to understand is that as this court has frequently had to remind the lower courts the supreme court rules are not suggestions the requirements that must be followed and here with the appellate court did was remind the lower courts and the jails and the county juvenile detention center the laws of this land are not suggestions they must be followed now justice thomas you addressed whether or not the correct statutes were being addressed in this case and i think in the appellate court i this the issue of section five dash for ten to address the fact that randall was that randall and presumably no other miners in lake county were getting these hearings that they were entitled to i also raise a second issue of whether once the once a miner is transferred to the juvenile or to start the jail whether or not those miners may be held in the general population of the jail in a poll court's interpretation they focused on section five dash for ten that is correct and indeed most of the language where the law supporting the notion that minors kept in the jail should not be kept in a general population is in section five deaths five or one but it's not i don't think it's a question of whether or not the wrong statute was locked up because i believe both statutes were necessary here and not mainly because there is a portion of the juvenile court act section four zero five slash one dash four point one which requires that statutes for dash for ten five tests for ten and five dash five zero one both apply when the minors to be detained in a county jail therefore when we're looking at whether or not a minor will be detained in a county jail both of those statutes must be considered or fifteen counties were asked how these procedures are handled in their counties only nine of them apart replied how it was very evident that at least seven of these counties were automatically transferring minors and two of them say affirmatively that those miners are then placed in the general population of the jail the only county that never transferred a minor was due page county when the bago county once they transferred the mine or put them on a separate tier where they were kept sight and sound separate it's evident that we have very little uniformity around the state as to how both for ten and five a want to being carried out and this court should take the opportunity to remind the counties of the state but the laws of the state are not  what are we going to do we can start giving advisory opinions what's happening in other circuits and what they're employing all we have before us is a moot case that perhaps use the wrong statute  randall was transferred to the county jail and he was placed in the general population of the county jail which would fall under five i won if i'm not mistaken in randall testified at his hearing that he was placed in the in the general population of the jail and although not part of the record i'm aware of the fact that he was indeed placed in the general population of the county jail and the public defender who represented randall below stated several times without any  without any word otherwise from either the court or from the state in that juncture that miners in lake county were being transferred to the jail and being placed on the adult in with the general population the jail which  county jail standards and perhaps even portions of four ten if we're going to say that they apply all blatantly say that minors over the age of twelve may not be kept in the same cell room or yard with confined adults and there's a good reasons for that minors that are kept in a county jail are five times as likely to be sexually assaulted twice as likely to be beaten by staff and at least eight if not as many as thirty six times more likely to commit suicide in the county jail and the state is also argued that the hearing requirement of section five dash for ten would be superfluous if minors were to be kept in the jail and then kept sight and sound separate once they're seventeen i think the problem with that is that the statutes recognize that there are only fifteen juvenile detention centers in the state when a minor from an associate of from a county that's all lying one of those areas is detained sometimes they may be taken to a nearby detention center but more often than not most of the counties are having to maintain these children in their county jails and keep them sight and sound separate the hearing requirement recognizes that there are some counties that will be faced with the choice of whether or not to detain a seventeen year old in a county jail or in a juvenile detention facility and it gives them guidance as to how to make the decision of where to do it in that manner and it's important also that we wrecked remember that these are minors that are pretty adjudication they have not been convicted they have not been adjudicated and they're not being charged with adult offenses these are children who are charged with committing an offense before the age of seventeen now illinois hold a special place in the history of juvenile justice and this court should take this opportunity to maintain the integrity of this of our place in the history of juvenile justice if this court were to start to agree with the state that once a minor is placed in a county jail he may be held in the general population of the jail we would be the only state in the country committing children as young as seventeen to be held in the general population of a jail that's ridiculous and it's not something that the state should want to have for our children and in least four times in the juvenile court act we explicitly legislation as explicitly stated that minors over the age of twelve shall be kept sight and sound separate if the legislature wanted to include exception for minors seventeen and over they certainly could have written such an exception but they have not and the county jail standards which are written by state agencies to ensure that state agencies are carrying out the mandates of the legislature maintain that any juvenile with no reference to the age of the juvenile must be kept sight and sound separate from confined adults and county jails there's absolutely nothing in the statutes or in the regulations to in any way indicate that once a minor who is being detained  pretrial for a juvenile delinquency petition that that minors should be placed in the general population of the county jail nothing what the state is attempting to do here is look at section five dash four ten to see roman numeral five and read an exception into the statutes which simply isn't there the fact that it requires a hearing that's fine that's great but that doesn't mean that you know the altering of that statute when they went from a presumptive transfer to now requiring a hearing only events is a legislature's intent that this transfer no longer be automatic and that it be permissive it does not it anyway evidence any desire on the part of the legislature that these miners be placed in the general population of the jail once they my goals your honor although i would hope that this court would make clear that five five zero one doesn't contain any exception for minors over the age of seventeen that when it says minors twelve and over it means minors twelve and older minors are as defined by the juvenile court act well if there's no further questions i believe i've touched on all the points i wish to make for ten again is titled non secure custody or detention and five dash five a one is titled detention or shelter care hearing so one's talking about detention and one citing about the hearing but in any event if your honor is correct that five dollars five a one is what the courts should have been looking at here  that's the only subsection that would have a sight and sound requirement so therefore if five five zero one four applied it would only contain a certain sound requirement for the first forty hours after that the court would be free to order the person transferred to an adult facility free of any sight and sound restrictions oh and i think the difference between five us for ten and five days five one either unusual circumstance where the court would hold a transfer hearing after the person had been arrested but had not appeared before the court so i think those two sections five or ten and five five one actually overlap but again regardless of which statute it is that applies the people should win the case because if four ten applies then to see five plain language contains no express s sound limitation for the transfer to adult so yes if five bible one applies then it's important to know that subsection four is limiting itself to strictly the first forty hours and people in respond five five zero one subsection four any limits that sight and sound requirement to the first forty hours so in either statute whether for ten isn't strictly limited to the arrest stage or not under either period and an even longer than seven day period what specific training requirements the county jail must have to handle those juveniles so deals with the training that they have to have but it doesn't deal with any type of second santa acquirements that they must