five dash for cash three of the unified code of corrections the statute that created a database for criminal d n a profiles in order to build that database the statute  demands blood saliva or tissue from any person who is convicted of a felony or meets any of the other stated criteria and also demands that he pay a two hundred dollar fee and connection with the analysis of that specimen the question is whether the statute requires just one specimen just one fee just one d n a profile per qualifying person or requires another specimen another fee and another d n a profile every time the person meets one of those criteria is convicted of a felony or whatever else is the question where i am suggesting the statute states that quote any person and quote who is convicted of a felony is institutionalized sexually dangerous as committed as sexually violent cetera must submit a sample and musts pay the two hundred dollar analysis fee i suggest to your honor's that the statute does speaks in terms of defining a population specifying those people whose d n a profile is must be included in the database i would ask the court to distinguish the language of section five as for gas three from for example the language of the hiv testing statute which is just a few sections down in the corrections code many times he has been convicted of a sex crime no matter how many times he has been tested for h l v in connection with one of those convictions if he gets another conviction for one of those sex crimes he must be tested for a charity it's a triggering event a conviction for one of those sex crimes now that makes perfect sense or they should be testing because a person's h l v status can change you know he can go from negative to positive between convictions so to speak and we need to know the current hiv status for section five dashboard ash three is totally different it does not speak in terms of triggering events that does not say that something must happen a sample must be taken every time some triggering event occurs it defines the population of people whose d n a profiles must be included in the database sorry when he is ordered to submit the sample he must pay the two hundred dollar analysis fee and these and these records move the sample because he's a person convicted under a right he is a person convicted or  found to be sexually dangerous or whatever else i'm saying that if it that those phrases is convicted of a felony is found sexually dangerous a cetera s because there's a split in the case right mercial in rigby right track there's a split and marshall basically said show me in shell no exceptions in the statute every time you're convicted new analysis new two hundred  there is a fair yes and then rigby says quote the five four three requires a single d n a sample remain in the database for each person convicted of a qualifying offense and that quote if an offender previous sample was expunged for whatever reason a subsequent conviction would naturally were required or a new sample be taken and this would be sufficient for the maintenance of the d n a database so  reads into hysterics you're right well if you have one conviction that's enough then he has to tailor the statute to where there's an expungement they might be an additional d n a sample rigby doesn't tell us where that is in the statute and how they came up with that they just say it's reasonable so wouldn't to to go along with your interpretation in the rigby court interpret far afield from plain language no i think that he would be the right answer from your perspective it was a good stir i think it would be right in line with the plain language the plain simply defines all of those people whose d n a profiles must be included in the database says if you have been convicted of a felony if you have been found sexually dangerous they cetera you must be included you must example right well the person was previously convicted of a felony and presumably he gave the specimen according to law at that point the statute has been fulfilled now the demands of the statue has been fulfilled the purpose of the statute has been fulfilled his d n a profile is on file it's in the database i mean nothing more is needed to comply with the statu in this case for example the probation department was ordered to do a p s i i and it reported back that marshall's d n a profile was registered with the i so the judge would know it from the p s side pre sentence investigation report just as he would know you know whether the person had a previous conviction for something that now requires a higher minimum  sentence of the new case on in the database and it was taken in two thousand and two it's on file so you know the probation department can easily find that out just as they could find previous convictions or any of these other things that are relevant to sentencing those in e doesn't help the two thousand and ten rebecca my hypothetical that the two thousand turn from only says well we already have the d n a sample one file yeah after that period of time the conviction regarding two thousand a profile from the database if the person's conviction has been reversed on the basis of actual innocence or if the person has been pardoned by the governor and the governor's statement basis of failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but be that as it may that's what the section says if it's fiction is reversed on the basis of actual innocence the d n a profile can be expunged from the database well it happens very rarely i would i've never seen it happen but still how theoretically he would think somebody might be able to slip through the cracks there but the statute five  alter the obligation of the person to submit such specimen or the authority of the i s p to collect the specimen so if he has been if that person in your hypothetical has a new conviction he also the i s p has promulgated a rule i think related to that subsection that says that if a person is a qualifying offender the other words see somebody who must have his profile in the d n a database and he has not yet submitted a sample or does not have a profile a database yet the state police or doesn't have an agency can go to the state attorney and ask him to request them to ask the court for an order for a spouse and so that's how the i s p implements what i consider the failsafe subsection of the statute does that minimal intrusion in the sense that you know his arm is stuck but yes the the d n a analysis fee of two hundred dollars and the submission of a sample really do go hand in hand if you can what it serves in those situations would serve no purpose with that impact when the mistreatment then yes i think i understand the question and my response is that there is no the profile of a database when it's unnecessary when there's no reason for it when the person already has a d n a profile in the database that's my answer also is that is the discretionary if there's been another chance if the person if the person already has a d n a profile in the database the court does not have the authority to order another specimen to be taken now if it does not have a specimen in the database the court must order the taking  statute does not require a d n a specimen and a fee and generation of a d n a profile every time some triggering event occurs it just defines the population of people whose d profiles must be included in the database so i do not think that your honor to what i do not know what the whites mean and i still have some time i think you do all right would just like to add that the illinois state police which ministers enforces the statute apparently agrees with the statutory interpretation that i suggest only if the persons sample has not previously been taken in other words if the person sample already has been taken his d n a profile is already in the database the i s p has no interest in getting another sample generating another d n a profile and how the second third or seventh profile is just like the first one that's the beauty of d n a profiles for identification purposes they never change they all they're always the same so the i s p knows that if the person submitted a sample in some previous case and his d n a profile is now in the system there's no need to get another specimen one d n a profile per qualifying individual that holding would require vacating that portion of the sentencing order that requires marshal to submit to therefore knew the plain language he is required to provide a sample paid the fee in other words a person convicted a second third fourth time is no less a person convicted of felony under subsection a all of them are required to provide a simple one sample per conviction the defendant's contrary argument is flawed because it runs afoul of the primary tenet of statutory construction which requires that we not read the statutes exceptions on those occasions where information is removed the right puts the reason for giving additional tests other than just qualifying i'm sorry i didn't understand the question but  had a second conviction that he's not required to provide a sample if that first conviction is later fake aged not only is the d n a information removed from this from the database but also the samples destroyed and then we're left with a situation in which we have a convicted felon who's got no d n a information on file but that's actually a grandmother charge and then there would be another sample i mean the idea is in the policy behind it i think the legislature intended to make sure that there's a sentencing in the case of a second conviction under defendant's construction of the statute require him to provide a sample or pay the fee and defend its proposed failsafe in subsection m i simply read differently i person to provide a specimen or the failure to the agency to collect the specimen within forty five days shall not alter the application i read that is it's saying there is an obligation earlier subsection statute that says you shall provide it within forty five days i've read subsection l here to simply state that that if you exceed that forty five day time limit it doesn't free you of the obligation to provide that sample i don't because it's the same information it isn't fact the same information but we always have to reckon with the possibility of the expansion of the information other than the act is there any and also there could be a possible advances in technology grant if they would be slower pace there would be likely changes in the technology but the idea would be that you would have new samples that you could subject to possible new methods of testing and get more accurate results and perhaps more information in the future that would help to both implicate defendants from from the database  trying a small amount of time between the two samples the laboratory has to conduct this kind of analysis and of course that's one of the arguments that some of these cases have said leads to an absurd result that where we have a time of economic issues in backlogs in crime labs that they have to continue to analyze materials when they've only recently analyzed it's been difficult to draw a line the legislature has just if called to draw a line  give you the same mansour that i gave to justice tice that the legislature had to draw the line somewhere in simply a matter of line drawing and they chose to try it here one sample per conviction and it makes sense too because of the expungement provision if you tie that sample to the conviction then you can go back when when you're saying you're convicted of multiple offenses the same day there's one but different offense every day would result in perhaps a sampler yes per case i would take her case number that that sample to the case number two we know if that's how it's it's recorded if it's kept by case number rather than by name of the individual i don't know your honor i'm sorry the record doesn't say i can find out and submit to  i don't know why this is not part of your argument but if you have what it would whether this be as classified as a fee or a fine with that impact in any way on your argument as to bence's and is just as likely just as reasonable to read that regulation as saying this to make sure that provision is to ensure that the defendant provides one simple per conviction but only one  conviction such as if the defendant is already supplied a sample while he was in county custody and when he goes to just part of the rections custody to permit corrections to check first to see if he's already provided a sample of this conviction when he was in county custody is just as likely and i submit more reasonable degree of the regulation o her grand jury even says any person required to submit specimens show paid an analysis fee of two hundred dollars but there be an interpretation that even if i've specimens were required under your argument one analysis would be  thank your honor i think the feeling my state police has the statute figured out properly and is administering it very well and that relates to a question that justice face was asked whether the d n a profile is in the indexed by the person's name or by the case number i might have something helpful there i think that the appendix to my brief includes a letter from the illinois state police to me i asked weather marshall's d n a profile is in their database and they sent me a letter in october five months ago and i simply gave his name and i think his date of birth i think attack that on two i don't listed the case number at all but then they sent me a letter showing that marshall's d n a was on file and they mentioned the case that it was the was a two thousand and two c f case and they said there was one sample on file apparently the i s p in accordance with its interpretation of the statute and the rules that it promulgated has not taken a sample or arrange to have a sample taken from marshall and connection with this case and as again that's perfectly sensible they already have a d n a profile on file form they don't need another one in two thousand  he became a person convicted of a felony he was a person convicted of a felony on the day he was convicted and the next day the next day or the next day and the next day the next day ar regardless of whether he got another conviction or not he remained a person convicted of a felony and under the statute he is obligated to submit a specimen and the i s p is obligated to analyze that specimen generate a profile and store that profile in the database and if somehow he slipped through the cracks in that two thousand two c f case we have this failsafe sub section and the rule from the i s p that allows the highest speed to obtain a sample and generate its profile is for for an issue  here the states was you for for my forfeiture right well i think not because the basis for my appeal is saying that the circuit court did not have the authority to order the sp given that neither thirty five were three nor the implementing regulations contain any requirement that offenders be screened for other convictions prior to d n a sample being expunged how could we be sure that a subsequent sample will even be sought in the first subsequent conviction well i mean that yes he seems quite diligent about maintaining its database and obtaining the d n a samples found there hasn't been one previously profile can be generated and put in the database are there any further questions from the course i thank you for hearing me out thank you mr gleason his number one one zero seven six five people versus early marshall