or the attorneys for the next case present they off good morning please be seated madam clerk will you please call with their case three issue one was that the state failed to prove mr wilkie guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of compliance with a sex offender registration act for failing to report weekly while lacking a fixed residence issue three was that the trial  fist fixed residence report weekly mr malecki reported to the chicago police department to register as a sex offender three days after he was released from prison as required by law the chicago police turned him away refusing to take down any information from him because he did not have a state id six days later he was arrested for failing to register as a sex offender a we get seven days long therefore the state did not and could not prove here mr mikey provided the chicago police with two addresses he was staying at eight twenty south damon which is the jesse brown v a medical center and forty nine twenty eight was school where he could stay with friends with state charges there were two these asserted in the alternative yes the state argued both the will be argued both but can both be true no they couldn't both be true because one would require a fixed residence one would require definitive proof of lacking a so there's no way that they could be could have been guilty of both that would have been but in this case since he was acquitted of the other charge it's it's sort of a moot point  that is incorrect both the sex offender registration act and the state police regulations implementing the act but the duty of completing the registration registering agency which in this case is the chicago police department if you look through the regulations it lists a lot of duties that the police officer needs to comply with for example taking figure prints writing down if it is in fact somebody who's address isn't satisfactory writing down every place that they're going to be staying in that they've stayed for the past week taking down for example websites that the person posts or visits her has control over so all of these are hard things are duties that the chicago police need to do to complete the registration but at the same time there are no duties placed on the person of the need to report them here to register as far as which paperwork to do it and how to actually take that information town that's all on the police so the state was incorrect in asserting that it was mr wilkie student to tell the officer how to do his job the if th show why he was arrested the the testimony was that he was arrested while walking down a roadway at a forest preserve intoxicated he was carrying monoculars and told the arresting officer that he was going to people watch because he liked to look at girls the court allow the state to introduce evidence to explain why he was arrested even though it was not at all relevant to the charge that he was on trial for and it was not relevant to what he was actually arrested for which punishment because of his activities the jury was not given a limiting instruction so the jury wouldn't know how to use this evidence on they wouldn't know to only use it for limiting limited purpose on top of that the state also embellish the circumstances of his arrest  added unsavory made up details such as i ding in bushes and leering at girls that were true the jury this is prejudicial because the jury would have certainly been influenced by it which is evident from the fact that the state was influenced by  the state uses on unsavory edges of such as creepy to describe the offense and has a long argument explaining that the purpose of the sex offender registration act is to prevent this behavior which is not relevant to the issue in the brief but just morning your honour's and have a far procure on behalf of the people of the state of illinois first i'd like to clear up some confusion i think that comes from counsel's argument this statute needs to be viewed in one piece it's an administrative statute and the statute has certain requirements for sex offenders his duty was to register registration proceeds reporting council is putting the cat the cart before the horse you have to register before you can report but if if you if you show up at the police station and truly you don't have anywhere and so you say i don't have any identification i don't have anywhere to live the police officer is going to register you  someone sex offender wearing a fix residence right you don't have to ask for it in that situation if if the person shows up and says i'm a homeless person i'm here you have any idea if occasion that's that's a different that's a different question now because not having identification doesn't make you homeless this is this defendant had three addresses he had the v a hospital which they claim he was living he has the school street address which he told officers when he was arrested he was staying with friends in the p s i i in the in the record he states i was i had a roommate richard joffe and i lived on the mount has the address above there before he went to prison he had before this arrest in the p s i have since that's where he was living so that's three addresses but no id and part of his duty under the statue is to have documentation of where he's staying so so again he shows up he says the police officer i'm staying with friends and school street that's  one living he doesn't hear anything with you to prove they're for the police officer he gets turned away how do how is that consistent with the person purposes of the sex offender registration is to turn  away let him loose because because his duty is to show up with documentation the statute requires his body and documentation to the how can i know officer register somebody was no proof of where he's staying what's the most onerous recording part requirement under the year my opinion but what's the most onerous reporting requirements for a person where in a fix residence right you have to show up every week if you show up there every week and say here's where i've been staying for the past seven days if that's that's that's the biggest burger on a sex offender for sure there is a burden on sex offenders and the legislature has decided that there should be that he should have a duty a person coming out of prison with a sex offense a felony sex offense in the background there are certain requirements minimal requirements that he must me yes he was told where to go and what to do and based on his statement we know he wasn't confused when he was arrested him say i don't know where to go i don't know what to do i have no place to live i'm homeless no he said i'm sorry i didn't complete my registration i know i have to go to the d m v on else then and get a state id i showed the officer my temporary id o c card and he giving you is not beyond for registration purposes there i don't see anything here about the identification card but i thought we know from the testimony of misha there at the at the jury trial that that was explained to him that he was form but that was obviously explained to him because he knew he knew he had a temporary ideo c card and he knew he needed to get a state id in order to register but he showed up at the police station with the temporary i d how does it show he knew it wasn't what  well i think that happens a lot i think that a lot of sex offenders show up the first time they're registering perhaps the second time they're registering i have no idea it was in this defense mind but it was it was made clear to him and he's not challenging the idea that he wasn't on notice that he had to get an identification card not valid for purposes of registration he was told where to go he was told what to do and i deckard is either free or one dollar what you have to go on what has secretary of state says now this is no good go get a state id or a passport and bring it here so the secretary of state requires him to have something with a signature on it like a bank shack cancelled within ninety days it's been prison for the last year or so not likely to happen they need utility bills at the address where he says he lives like we did here so he's he's clearly not likely to have any of this information that would enable him to get a state id i keep going back to why don't the police when a sex offender who they want to keep tabs on shows up with an invalid id nothing to show where they're staying say you must report here every week until you come back with a valid id your i'm going to register you with a person la registered in the database then whether and how he reports is decided whether he reports weekly or ninety days or every year that that follows and because this defendant did not show up that day and say i'm a homeless guy and i don't know where i'm going to stay the police officer did not go that route of viewing him as a homeless person and based on the record i don't think he should be viewed as a homeless person he has a reactor esus where in the worst where's the proof that the state presented at trial that between june eleventh and june twenty ninth he didn't spend five days on school street with us for we don't have to prove that your honor we had to prove he didn't register we put on the police officer who testified that he came in and did not complete registration and didn't return within that seven days and that's that was only six days later he was arrested six days after he was released from jail we start counting after he's released we don't start counting from monday when he showed up and didn't complete registration that's the that's the example the prosecutor argued at trial of a person who goes to get a license and stands to lobby and then leaves and gets arrested on his way home and says but i was i was there i was standing there he didn't complete the registration and that minimal that's not a good thing he's not in the database and the purpose of the statute is to get these guys in the database so we know where they're living and where we can follow up with them and having him with a temporary ideo see card with an address that is not verified keep track of where they are if the statute were designed that way could that potentially work maybe but the way it's designed in the way it's working is to have sex offenders get a valid identification it's cheap it's easy council gets this court turn around with the briefs and hear an argument talking about how we didn't prove he was staying here or staying there we didn't have to prove that we had to prove that he didn't register that he didn't police and wouldn't let him or just because we  didn't have what we have a dress that i do see gave him there's nothing that tells us that he wasn't there there's nothing that tells us that there is a legitimate address the cop just wouldn't take because under the statute  your honor respectfully you have to have your body and documentation in order to register he didn't have the proper documentation the i do see identification card and yes my colleagues you know when you get out of jail when you get out of prison the likelihood that you're going to have a utility bill were make it down or any of those things is remote and it's going to take a while to establish those things so saying go to the secretary of state and get an id card when you're standing at the police for with your ideas he heard saying this is the address that idea of city gave me this is the this is the one place that i'm going to have contact with on a regular basis because i'm in this program here you'll be able to find me there i don't  you're a prisoner you have no control and they give you something and it's of her daughter right to believe that this your honor his temporary ideal c card is just it's just not an issue here whether that's a proper one address and end up going to another address or they require a valid i d to come once you're out i have i have no idea why it's done that way but under the statute the officer did nothing wrong here he wasn't making up rules he wasn't sending people away he was sending sending them back on the street doesn't it frustrate the purposes of the the officer sent the defendant out to do what was his duty to do with his legal obligation which was to get the state identification and come back and register see himself in the system and if that point the reporting that would follow whether his coming every week or every ninety days or every year would what would kick in so under the statute the officer did exactly what is expected he did not make up his own rules he did not send this guy away for failure he wasn't sent in a bureaucratic black hole and we know this from his statement his statement was and i don't know what to do i don't know where to go poor me i thought i had no idea i thought my idea was a valid id now he said i know i know i'm sorry i know i'm supposed to go i know i was to do he just happened to get arrested you know within within that same week i'm lucky guy before he did what he presumably would have done which is go and get his  himself registered move on to the other issue the council spoke of the circumstances of his arrest which i'm just alluding to this was proper the the court heard argument and emotion and the court way the probative versus the prejudicial value of these circumstances and there certainly was not an abuse of discretion when when these circumstances were explained to the jury there would be no other explanation for why this guy was crime it was suspicious behavior he was stopped he was questioned his name was ron and then he was arrested of course concerned about the circumstances that came out that before the jury but the jury the jury was also told specifically that these circumstances were not to be were not to be considered in fact in the closing argument defense counsel says has absolutely nothing to do with the case make sure you remember he's not being charged for the circumstance of his a you remember the fact that he's hiding behind bushes looking your girls and swimsuit has nothing to do with this case the jury was instructed that way the jury the jury was not prejudiced you know because the act with a not guilty on one count and a guilty on the other count this was a thoughtful jury that as it was you couldn't you couldn't you have a guilty on both counts but the way the counsel argues this in her brief that that we somehow or you know during this defendant's that they would just send him away forever and it that there's just no evidence of that this jury awful they asked for definitions they consider the evidence they were told not to consider the circumstances of his arrest in terms of of the crime he was charged for and there's no reason to believe that that they did so that i think the bottom line here conclude in the light most favorable to the people this jury could have reasonably found that this defendant did not have a fixed address he did not register and he did not report weekly and therefore we ask the court to affirm his conviction thank you th interpretation of the sex offender registration act removes the requirement that all criminal acts criminal can liability requires a voluntary act so if somebody shows up at the police station to register it with here you know ready to register and the police turn him away the lack of registration is not a voluntary act that mr wahid doesn't have the power to put himself in the database so the fact that he's not in the database has to be is not defined as a state id of the registering address so the identification requirement if lies to the charge he was acquitted of for example a charge of will not  registering within a few days of establishing at a residence the charge of that is actually at issue here is lacking a fixed residence and failing to report weekly does not have an identification requirement so the  bunch of the states argument is based on something that's just not not relevant to the instant case mr like you statement is not does not really do anything to help the state because it's based on an officer met as a statement to him so although mr lucky says yes i needed i know i needed to go get id he's basing that on what the police told him but it's not based on the law the law requires positive id i don't know that the the state police would interpret it to require an actual state id which your honor noted this ferry difficult to get at the idea may be sufficient because it's not really an issue in this case it wasn't discussed in the briefs but this is this is a simple case he did report weekly he reported ready to register here i am and the police officer did not take any information from him i did not take his fingerprints take his photograph or any of the duties that are imposed on the on the officer by the act he did not he did nothing but turn him away so and on top of that he was convicted of of this while lacking a fix residents here's a hole that is something the state needs to prove he gave the state several