fortunately her killer was quickly ever handed prosecuted pleaded guilty in the sentencing and during sentencing hearing certain evidence was presented to the judge some including photographs and the judge noted in sentencing the defendant at that time as a simple construction of the constitutional long with the freedom of information act special point and looking at the plane language of the constitution and the plain language of the act i think it becomes clear that states trees are not subject them by omission it's intended that that group be excluded and in this case the point slews the judicial branch then when you look at the constitution the state's attorney's office is founded in the actual article is founded under the judicial section and yet even at that time there was never an attempt made to move the state's attorney out from underneath the branch into exactly something that certainly could have been done was not so i believe the constitution makes it clear that states attorneys are founded in and first and foremost again is going back to the plain meaning and just the plain language of the constitution and the oil would read together it makes it clear that judicial excluded were found but going beyond that there may be a time where you would need a was trying to find a solution to determine where they should fall terms of what branch they answer to it how they should be considered so it was pragmatic at that time for the court to formulate some sort of test but i would argue that it was a  much like her to sue because it all depends on how you look at it there are i think there can be ways where we're we're not the same i so we're not arguing over judges we're not arguing that we have all the same powers and duties but there days that they have to carry out there's an administrative office of courts here in illinois that they're entirely a ministry yet they would probably be considered part of the judicial branch they're mentioned in the constitution but if you the parties are trying to judge the state's attorneys are treated in terms of immunity in their official capacity each is given absolute immunity when operating in their official capacity and i think that's because it was determined that it's necessary to provide independence both the state's attorneys and judges that we should be able to operate with within our discretion ever granted without risk of being browbeaten by individuals who are trying to troll or invade that province of discretion we have and so we're given absolute immunity to make certain determination and so i think there's some similarities in that unless they also point out that judges and state's attorneys i believe are unique amongst lawyers in not just for the rights of the victim and the position state but we also are bound to look out for the rights of the family and we were not allowed to ignore the rights of the family we have to ensure a fair trial for that individual and the courts are the same indicated that the apply to the office of state's attorney there's a couple things i would say about that i don't have the the transcript in from here but i have reviewed it and the first thing i will point out is that the representative the question stated after the investigation is done and the materials are sent to the prosecutors it doesn't specifically state state's attorney's and i know that splitting hairs but we're turning as i guess that's what we do there's multiple types of prosecutors here in illinois there's attorney general's office which as prosecutors there are states attorneys and then there's municipal prosecutors and states attorneys are unique among that group we're unique in that we're elected we're unique in that we don't answer to  attorney general and even that municipal prosecutors are allowed rough times are able to charge the same types of cases that we are and because of the unique he just said prosecutors in general i don't think that specifically t when they could have drafted it to make it clear that i mean really just because it's maybe one representative didn't intend for this to happen but if you look at representative parkinsons response after we're going on the next couple  answers he makes it clear that he's not support of this that this wasn't how it was supposed to come out of committee and then use encouraging others to vote against it so at least there's one other individual who's involved my conversation who did not agree this it's tradition subject so i don't think we need to the requests can't be made to the state's attorney's office we don't believe should not not not for that reason but because we're not subject executive article they're named as an executive officer in the state so it's very clear from the statute that when it said executive bodies that's an executive by when you want to break down more into to the duties you know states a not in terms of how the constitution is checked and i think there's a public policy that also ways of favor of making states attorneys exempt from forty and i know some of this was decided last time but you know as was point talking about her cases sexual assault cases child abuse cases you can even go into animal cruelty cases and when you talk about some of the content of these it's very very dark content yes and could be used for very very dark purposes you know when you have hate crimes for example these individuals good for you all the information about particular crimes then take that information and spread it and use it if you create more hate against the type of victims these victims of are gone through enough they will be shouldn't be victimized by having the state's attorney who is supposed to be protecting them looking out for them being the one required to turn over the information and i know they'll say well there's privacy you family wasn't available to come in just because her family isn't there to claim her interests is that mean that she should be drugged back out of the files and plastered on the internet by mr gross stuff prophesy i don't believe so and i think for that reason in addition for doc that's right the request was for all documents but that doesn't mean that we have a right to all of those so to the extent that any exemption is raised in an exemption up by those records would government because that's the reality of their functions just that act as an advocate and as a as a as a prosecutor in the us as a member of the executive however i do think that that issue that you just phrase is a little bit more difficult than the state's attorney because i'm not quite sure about to what extent the the state pub prosecutor's office also exercises is part of the state government and not part of county government and that they are appearing before the judiciary it said the agency of state government moves there was no reference to county government earlier there would be no claim that this is a county organization so they change the state government to a judicial agency the state government whatever they have done because they we're hearing history i don't think it has parents as opposed to the bogus notion about legislative intent based upon musings by legislate tours on the floor of the general similarly the thing about bills is we're still have a written there we're here someone someone enough term to include prosecutors whose offices appear under the judicial article of the constitution here to say cite the broadness of terms sure looks to the legislature placing this state's attorney's office in the judicial article that dally gets mentioned signal that states attorneys are member of state rather than county government o record i'm receiving and i think it's before that went live during the constitutional convention i think the one in nine seventy was also really important is to look at what does the constitution they wanted to narrow this certainly could have done it by saying what they meant if they meant for states attorneys to be included and say hey what you mean if you're a saver you're legislature that comes down to how you write legislation and in this case the way they wrote the legislation was in such a way did express was an intent to exclude the judicial you're in the judicial so you don't fit under the definition of public but we don't have to call you judicial officers as judge pacey thought we were trying to argue with the lower court we don't have to call you judges we don't have