t the county suggested that this litigation is barred by the rocker feldman doctrine that there was a proceeding in the lake county courts it's concluded so we have a final judgment after he pleads guilty and he's sentenced and what you're trying to do the argument would be is undo what the state courts have done  that of course is precisely what rooker feldman prohibits it does not give federal courts jurisdiction to effectively sit in review of state court so i would be interested in your response to that well i would i would agree situation where because he was a nonresident of lake county and the probation as well as stage attorneys insisted that he be placed on electronic monitoring which was an possibility since he was not a that is flawed in some fashion you know maybe there's some constitutional problem with saying you have to have a lake county residence why isn't that something the state courts are entirely capable of evaluating the the insistence and and i have another question about that that let's stick with fell on the right now right so i don't think there's an exception right so again we're not appealing to the judgment of the state but we're not looking for a second bite of the apple which is what worker feldman doctrine locally that is correct and that the are you not suing the judge and you're not attacking that ruling correct you're claiming the error he was in the implementor implementation of that ruling when there was a statute that allowed for relocation  then when the when the evaluation was done and the probation comes in with their report again the defense was not provided with a copy of the report but that's not the normal internal to the state you just told judge connally that you're accepting everything that happened in the state proceeding that's right we're not attacking the judge's right to or entry of theirs so that oh daraa assessment is fine you know they're allowed to to put them on surveillance i 'm just trying to figure out how you are managing to desexed out your your challenge to this particular custody requirement and there's a lake county address and i'll just throw out a bunch of other concerns on the table one of my concerns is i don't read the statute to address pretrial detainee's it appears to address only rely on probation and the second problem is i can't figure out what h damages are because it looks to me as so he gets credit for for the six days that he's detained pretrial when he gets the twelve day sentence and we can't challenge the sentence without setting the conviction aside but you're not asking us to collateral attack on the judges right to make the order is not issued the order it's not the attack on the order this is like your whole the point is that he sits there in the jail and lake county for what he doesn't know how long it's going to be it winds up being six days because he decides to plead guilty to the telephone harassment correct but there's nothing wrong on the face of things with that guilty plea people plead guilty all the time and maybe in part because they would just assume come to grips with what they've done substantial period of time the probation office knows that and the person is is facing this difficult situation where they they aren't they don't have residency so they're not going so at that point you can see where the probation office feels an obligation to make some arrangements whereas this is a pretty trial pre plea temporary period of time isn't there some discussion with the probation office where they were even but let's assume the statute even applies to that right isn't something get some discretion to decide whether it's worth the trouble of working with a whole other county and placing period for a short placing someone for a short period of time in this case it was six days obviously would necessary know that but it he was going to be a long period of time what even if the step to give them permission where is the clear constitutional violation when they decided it wasn't worth the trouble because it's going to be a short period of time what the member of the probation office and the state's attorney's office did here is exercise and show tensional indifference deliberate indifference to the create that that's that's a given that's a circumstance under which they were but left i agree but there is a substantial amount of discretion in the manner in which the probation office implements but you just put your finger on substantial discretion with the probation office how can the exercise of that discretion whether at least some justification for not rushing to make arrange it so that in the county become deliberate indifference as a all they stated it was impossible for them to implement the judge's order meaning electronic monitoring and there was no way ever that they were going to be able to t where in the record that was in there i believe when the a probation officer came into the court and a motion for reconsideration where the judge said you know it doesn't matter what we know he's not the resident of lake that is correct as far as the judge is concerned there is absolutely so if the judge can say that the probation office is still acting deliberately indifferent or by implementing what the judge said because was the intention  because if they can set up outside of lake county electronic monitoring for goes individuals who have been convicted of crimes or put you'll take that and are part of their probation department oversight process they can do prejudice for jurisdictional flaws there might be some remedy in the state courts that we wouldn't want to see precluded because the point of record feldman is you're just in the wrong court you're in the wrong side of the street so to speak so shouldn't this be a dismissal without prejudice if there's a book or feldman issue the court below found several bases or just within this case so if there's but if there's no jurisdiction she shouldn't have gone mean the state or the county i'm sorry raised this and then didn't really brief it in this court is that because you concluded for some reason there is no look of film and gravel and i believe i order of conviction but he is essentially attacking the judge's order requiring electronic monitoring and requiring the detention following here in the emergency motion where he understood that the l address was a condition all right so let me let me ask you this about the feldman half of record feldman actually that's a split decision so in feldman the supreme court says that mr feldman is not entitled to attack the precise decision on his ability to be admitted to the d c bar but he isn't titled to go forward with his general attack on the constitutionality of the standards that are being used and so my question here is if the essence of mr jakob of the churches complaint is that it's i'll just say maybe a violation of substantive due process or something for a county in the state of illinois to say we will allow electronic surveillance of pretrial detainees only for people with addresses inside this county no matter how proximate the other county is no matter how easy it is no matter how anything why isn't that a generic attack on the the law sort of like the second half of the feldman case and one that you can get over the bar says that the general attack on the the rule i think was an accredited bar you know graduation accredited law schools that could go forward it's just that mr feldman couldn't say district of columbia court of appeals you should have admitted me because that would be review of their decision and they were analogize to the state and that was that well so i'm just wondering why he's not able to just pull out this rule there might be other issues there might be issues of standing now that he's not subject to it anymore but i'm not sure it's a ricker feldmann problem well if if the if he was someplace like the town i live in which happens to straddle du page and cook county about a quarter of the town's cook in about three quarters of its engine page and suddenly you would be told up you know you can't have electronic monitoring because you live in the do page half the complaints didn't allege that the complaint alleges that these four individual defendants should have transferred hands or released him despite the judge's order and that they were deliberately indifferent for not actually going is there anything in this record that would tell us that there's a rule in general procedure that refuses to allow release to another county even if it could be arranged you know like where is it written down this is something ordinance of lake county the illinois there's no there's no rule that says that that says they cannot be transferred it is the way the electronic the jeep is i understand and i understand the technology exactly but the way the technology works is you come into the jail where you meet with probation and they set up the g p s monitoring that is a confederal process that is contacting the victims finding where the ranges are where you are excluded from and that is county programs whether it's the technology how it works or whether it's the probation officers only have jurisdiction in their own county and the judge has put you under the jurisdiction of the probation department and there are you know the system works assuming that  more the three of them didn't even know that he was still being detained how could they be deliberately indifferent to him by failing to release or transfer him  plaintiff and submitted a report to the court and she had that she had no further involvement she didn't know what the judge ordered she didn't know that he didn't have a lake county address how could she possibly be responsible under section one thousand and eighty three for any deliberate indifferen is the state's attorney did what he supposed to do as a prosecutor he asked for electronic monitoring because the report indicated that she was a risk and this is not there to protect the victim no further involvement the state's attorney now is supposed to go down and i bet that's just not some that's not how things work that's not how how would he have the authority to go down there after the judge already entered just order so that leaves her in the pretrial division he's the pretrial unit manager it's just me tell you an it manager but not specific to this case that he was responsible for developing policies and procedures and that he could have develop policy or procedure to transfer people to other countries and actually that's where i keep wondering where are we at the general level and where we have to set the global he further new policy claims this is what this is against him first individually that he did not transfer him you know but that's the way it's done you see if somebody is following a policy that's an unconstitutional policy views to that person for injunctive relief forget about damages going to someplace allows for very temporary residential arrangements how expensive would that be i don't know but that happens often in addition his trial date was set for december fifteenth so this was a two week issue he had a court date set for four days later where he very easily could have brought this up with the judge again and said she flees give me my bond my five hundred dollars bond standing with authority but you're also saying they had no authority i had they think there was a policy there was absolute the there didn't have discretion he just had to implement the orders entered by the judge because there was no long term situations and it's a complicated process to transfer the responsibility for monitoring and supervising eight individuals to another county it's not done like that even  rely on it would have taken more than the five days he was in jail because you would have to get he would have to organize it for the two weeks before the actual trial or the weeks before trial so the transfer issue  i don't think would have helped would have would have gotten him out any earlier is to protect people in positions like this from constant litigation based on the nature of their work and the people they interact with and if a state's attorney could be sued every time he requested bail that someone couldn't meet for whatever some you know a judge raised the bail or did something rely i'm adverse to them relying on the report their job to be very difficult and that would and that's the purpose of providing immunity or any other question i don't see any so thank you very much ok thank you anything further mr breck they have no authority well these are the cases where bond has already been set so there's a difference between cases where the the accused has big appear before the judge and the judge set parameters of a bond of release versus those who have not yet gone to a bond hearing are being held by the sheriff without having gone for a bond hearing itself you know they're there waiting for a lemon eric probable cause here and they're waiting some other pullin eric matters t knew they said no they try to enter into a lease month to month lease and it and the probation department said no because his id says he's a resident of cook county and therefore you can't establish now at whim residency some difficulty with the surer i i don't see where he unilaterally could have done something well what the sheriff because what are you suggesting the sheriff was aware of this quote policy and therefore he should have done something what i'm saying is that the sheriff wasn't even didn't even have a policy they didn't even have a policy for pretention processing of people for electronic monitoring purposes and as we stated on average this is a case of first impression really there are no cases under these factual circumstances that have dealt with this situation so you know the sheriff's office as we have argued exercised deliberate indifference you know  didn't know about this particular defendant per se but certainly through the proceedings before the judge through the participation of the state's attorney's office that a participation of the probation department there was aware there was paperwork the sheriff receives this prisoner yes and what what should he know that you're suggesting he should be aware on preceding his receipt of that christer and under the direction as i see the supreme court that he on his own has the ability to release pretrial taney subject obviously to a consent decree or an order i just i'm just struggling with where we are with the sheriff with respect to the sheriff sheriff is just a elected official yeah where is his discretion i understand your argument about the prosecutor you can say the prosecutor never should have brought the charge because the prosecutor knows about these limitations i understand your position on the probation department but i just don't understand where the sheriff and his ministerial limited role is supposed to be aware of everything that occurred prior to his receipt of the prisoner receipt of recei that's right and what he should have done on that day i guess is what i'm asking you were his indifference he should talk to the state's attorney about why this charges brought knowing that he's a nonresident i mean it just gets a little challenging for me  or right what that what the sheriff should have been aware of or some agent or employee of the sheriff's office should have been aware of that when the judge issued in that in the script for taking this particular defendant into custody and i provided for a an electronic monitoring release that it wasn't in possibility that could never become fulfilled and someone should have said wait a minute here you're asking us to do an  cannot simply do anything other the circumstances with this particular kind of thing that lets the probation of office out because they had you're saying there was no possibility of doing anything well they could have taken steps other than to say it's not our problem everyone