use i'm sorry did you state your name for the record i'm sorry assistant public defender bruce landrum representing mr masterson thank you the fenders charge of the right right and in the two thousand and four case out of this court people versus burns and i know there was a due process element to that case but then we specifically scuse me  i so what we did make that specific statement and wouldn't that indicate that the respondents under the two act similarly situated and for equal protection were equal protection purposes rather well the situated is the fact that one group of fin those showers in the alternative and one is char's additional that's like a distinction without any difference the only have two groups of parents one group appear under the juvenile court act would be allowed to have a court appointed attorney but under the adoption that the only way they could get a court appointed attorney would be if there is a case of based based on the same finding similarly in this situation is the same thing the only compelling and relevant component involved here is a fact that both groups of chars as an alternative to criminal prosecution and one is charged in addition that's just a charging apparatus was to place in the system they are similarly situated this is placed in the in the system it's not the choice of the state the court is certainly here argument as to whether or not these are in fact independent experts right true but you still have the players who should be able to have their own expert if expert on as we have that will naturally result in a different finding by that individual that psychiatry's or we presupposing that he's experts are not independent and they're not we have respondent is allowed to choose his own acts correct in that section of the s t p a that was it issue in terms the institution where the defendant has been held provides experts crack and burros yes and here is a different system altogether it's the court that chooses so the state is not the one nor is the institution one that chooses the experts the court why the issue here is equal protection there's no compelling reason for the state to discriminate there's no compelling reason for the state to allow one group of offenders to have his own expert in the oven not to charging apparatus this is only difference i see thank you is a classic example of a person who comes within this actually dangerous persons act would not come within the sexually violent persons act and this court is exactly correct that in burns this court identified that that is a major distinction that s t p cases are alternative to criminal prosecution s v p cases are in addition mr masterson to determine that he was sexually dangerous requires proving the existence of his mental disorder thirteen exposing himself to women he started shoplifting pornography around this time at fourteen and fifteen he was arrested for indecent exposure he admitted to drinking heavily he has been diagnosed with  alcohol as part of his offending cycle he admitted to stalking and following thousands of women appearing at their workplaces writing letters to them he admits to having at least ten victims four women and six girls so for the sexually dangerous persons as receiving any criminal charge would be sufficient and if you look at his background in june of one nine hundred eighty three when he was not quite twenty mr masterson decided he would he was fired from a job he was angry he got  misery and he decided to take it out on someone he saw fifteen year old girl walking to school in some gym shorts decided that those shorts were provocative to him and so he tried to get her to come in the van and she wouldn't do that so he pulled the man over took a screwdriver in put that screwdriver to her neck and actually accosted her he was charged with aggravated assault a charge given the circumstances of the case that would bring him within the purview of the sexually dangerous person it is not a trigger for a sexually violent persons case he was given in patient counseling and outpatient and yet just over a year later he devised a plan to sexually molest a twelve year old he befriended her brother brought the brother some things including a radio baby some money and got the brother to agree to bring his twelve year old sister along for a ride and then to get out of the van and leave the twelve year old along with the respondent and when they respond it was along with the twelve year old he put her on his lap he had to watch some pornography that he had brought with him and he is sexually molested her and he was arrested in that case for criminal sexual abuse even a conviction of which is not a trigger for a sexually violent persons act but given the facts of the case would have brought him within the purview of this actually dangerous person sacked by february of ninety ninety seven  respondent had been paying for sex to a woman who had a young daughter that daughter was a nearing the age of twelve years old they responded decided he wanted to have sexual access with that twelve year old so he offered to pay the for sex acts with the twelve year old in a very similar fashion to the prior case with the other twelve year old and he was arrested when he came to the door of the house expecting to be admitted to the twelve year old and her brother into the door instead and he had his bag of pornography with him some handcuffs in the bag and five hundred dollars in his pocket so he was arrested for attempted crime sex abuse and that's the case that brings him before this court as a sexual dangerous person any of those charges would have sufficed to bring him before this  a sexual dangerous person and none of those would have brought him to this court as a sexually violent person because as counsel has stated here today a sexually violent person is only certain designated offenses and that has to go to a conviction and it is at the end of that conviction that the independent civil proceeding is not about punishment it's about containment and confinement of those who are sexually dangerous or sexually violent but it is at the end of that commitment period i'm sorry confinement period as a result of a conviction of a designated sex offense or such a limited motivated murder and so those individuals pose a different degree and the nature of risk and therefore the legislature has rationally determined that there are two different classes of groups to which these types of proceedings apply respondants comments about the l t m piece those obviously parental care or control in custody of children are  strict strictly construed because those are fundamental rights and we have this court has already and come back in one nine hundred seventy six other rational basis test applies to equal protection challenges with regard to the sexual dangerous persons act but also only however even if you get to the look at the procedures respondent has suffered no descriptor treatment here the procedures are different because they relate to the different postures of the cases as they proceed in the system and these procedures will not be identical flippen was from the forensic clinical services which is say the institute that's connected with the court system in cook county dr henry had rough that system and was in private practice at the time o this case so they were not out of the same facility contrast that with an s v p proceeding which arises as i said as an independent proceeding at the end of that within six months of his release deal c is going to evaluate that person for placement in the evaluation is done with the person who is qualified under the s v p and then the prosecuting authorities are notified and what will happen is if he is an appropriate candidate he will be transferred from whatever deals the facility has been down to to actually north of here so i guess it would be up to rush hour from here but in central illinois and and that's because the deal c time of jurisdiction is ending he has served his time and so he will go to a d h s facility  doesn't take place in sufficient time then when the people file a petition for sep the court must hold a detention hearing and probable cause hearing within seventy two hours if he's in custody and then the court's order will transfer him to rush hill but what will happen in that case is the case will be filed in the county where the crime for which he was indio see took place so for instance just to kind of separated out if it was it came down the crime it would be a came county petition the king county came county prosecutor a king county defense attorney and so the procedure there is that d h s has evaluated him down here at rushville there will be a psychologist who is qualified to testify but again both respondent in the state have the ability to use either one of those experts are both the state must put on some expert evidence and so they're ordinarily going to use that t h s expert but they also have the right to have an expert of their own and so correspondingly the respondent has a right to a right questor retain an expert so clearly there are differences in procedures they relate to the procedural posture of the case and the rationally connected to the schemes that illinois has developed for these two types of cases many cases is within six months a report must be filed to the court remember he served his time in s p p case so within six months a record has to be filed to the court and then every year there after and he has an opportunity to file for recovery in s t v case he can literally file for recovery actually mr masterson did while these proceedings were going on he can file for a recovery at any time there are limits in terms of if a court finds that he but he's not appropriate for recovery then it's up to one year and so then there's a consistent timeframe between them but it is indeterminate confinement precisely because they are sexually dangerous for the reasons that the experts will testify to in giving cases but it may be that one individual is able to gain release into the community within a year's time or a shorter period of time another individual continues to be evaluated and continues to be kept on time because that's necessary for the individual case so in the us is annual report that qualifies s t p cases and i think there are less than three hundred arrests as v p cases in the state of illinois so very rare cases but obviously some of the more severe and that is why they require confinement until committing sexually violent acts in the future because of that that is the only reason that the court and people vs make very failed that they would last similarly situated however this was but this is change case number one one zero zero seven two people versus masterson agenda number one is taken under advisement thank you