this case could very well be considered because as you can see from the record and comprehensive report that was by all this section three eight ten requires there's always a reference to past history and as a practical matter in the course of most hearings at the traffic court level past education it's a mental illness or even a pass has four stations come up in the course of a hearing he's never had a commitment that we know of based on this record he may have had have any issues with paranoia but i would believe that once the secret service became interested in your client that the issue of collateral consequences go because the cop consequences of attack and he will be on the radar in that part of the psychiatric history is going to be with him for the rest of his i don't know he found himself at the police i mean he sought them out the way i read the record and they never charged him so i i don't think he was and them and that danger pleading issue dealing with section three dash six zero one and part of this issue is my personal bias as well as the way i think the legislature and handed article six to be read it if you're going to and this case takes someone to a mental health facility to force them to go through emergency commitment process then i think the legislature broke these preparations of article six so they would be valid i think cases have repeatedly said strict compliance is mandated and i don't think it takes resources and we do not have either the time or the resources to do anything more than what we've already done because nobody's giving assuming resources and we don't know what we're supposed to do be on i mean i go on a tour a lot and i think i'd add that in my response maybe to get somebody's attention but as a practical matter what is it that carries can do in situations like this i think it takes petition and that really says it should be held than them i don't know i i just think for a case like this to go forward especially when you're taking away i mean i know when you talk about taking away someone's liberty it just sounds like a law constitutional kind but if you have ever visited anyone that stuck in a facility even for ninety days or you ever just go in there to visit someone when you're going to leave you understand that for some people it's it's traumatic and it's a very i think it's it's very significant and i know we're balancing this faith centrists accounts players but but i just think it still comes down to where i start is that if you're going to put someone through abuse proceedings then especially in this day and age i don't even know what the number is for right now for filing just from in this county this year i know it exceeds eight hundred and i have a whole stack of them sitting on my desk and i don't even know what the numbers are but but at any rate in this day and age especially in this county where we have one facility one state facility that deals with with everything from i guess rockford on down to wherever the southern illinois facilities would pick but again the statute clearly requires that a person if they're going to be committed must be placed in the least restrictive the syllabi ok now what does it take when very are they have a whole staff i mean if you look at  e reports in this case mcfarlane file twenty light ten or fifteen pages just for the report you would think they could do more than just check the box on the front page that says there are no less restrictive alternatives they always are they're supposed to consider anything that's less restrictive place in his case it couldn't have been placed with relative so that wouldn't have counted but there is softball especially in this county a spectrum of out patient services that are available to people or could become available to people with some ponding manipulation but at any rate just to even say that different options could be available and if that's not saying they have to be considered appropriate for everyone but why are they appropriate it should be more than what happened in this case bacteria do you read do you recommend hospitalization yes is there a treatment plant child yes is it the least restrictive alternative yes should he stay there for ninety days yes and that suits them a bit i think that  that's not really the problem that's before the sport smore the problem we have this case is society's problems with mental health individuals people who are suffering from the health who are not properly cared for and that are left basically to fend for themselves on our streets and how is our society going to properly care for these people and how can we economically and appropriately safeguard the r what we have in this instance is a individual living on the streets he's clearly suffering from a mental illness he's a threat to himself or others he meets the criteria for involuntary put it in the dishwasher it does it do any good and will never teach him to put that oh ok if you just keep doing it for him and that's what this court does repeatedly week for the trial court meal how cases what they did not do for themselves by saying well we considered it but everybody was trying to do the right thing and this was just you know if you need to get really affect anybody's rights and we're not seen any improvement we're not seeing any change and i think miss tracy's point and i think she was very candid that there isn't any information here but filling in ya properly is not that much extra effort no matter how overburdened the staff might otherwise be able it's and i think just to spite me rhoda i don't remember if it was just majority opinion a concurrent special concurrence regarding use of the same kind of checklist that you teach young prosecutors to using traffic court misdemeanors there are certain things that have to be done and if you do need those the process there may be they have ten or twenty more of these hearings to go i don't know what their specific motivation could be on that particular day but i mean they're thinking to themselves we don't need to get in to why alternatives unavailable it's plain for any reasonable way it will see this guy he's incarceration hospital setting away yes no family he's living on the street he's a clear danger to himself or others i mean i am not trying to make excuses i'm just trying to say you know this is what's really going on and you know it when we look at it months later and we're looking at a written record you know if it's easier for us to look at  i'm not suggesting that but absent that i don't know how you would really say you know what i'm really serious about this particular matter but on the other side that i have to think that you know i've tried my share cases and i doubt that i've ever tried case where there was somebody or some kind and i think it's fair to suggest to the responded he has counsel right there that if they feel something is a bit stiff they feel this man's rights are being trampled if there's some concern whatsoever raise it say something at that time that's the time to say hey ever have they really looked for somebody else in the family this guy saying that he'd like his sister to be here or hey if you really consider alternative treatments this gentleman looks like he might be able to function and some outpatient care facility those things weren't asked of the defense counsel either and i and say i understand the court's frustration i understand that the courts tired of dealing with the same issues i'm sympathetic with the court i don't think the court should be wasting its resources dealing with the same issues like this time and time again i think the issue has been addressed i think that the defendant is fired now raise it shows some prejudice in the word to safeguard this particular type of there and with regard to whether or not this is the least restrictive environment here to respond i think has an obligation to stick to challenge that if they feel it should be challenged the record it only contains some information which w this whole you know this is one of those cases that's just clear cut i think everybody in the room do it and perhaps a route if you edges in their efforts to short circuit things because they all realize where it was going h nature being what it is it's it's it's not appropriate hindsight but it's understandable i don't think it's the type of thing this court needs to use its limited resources so i would curse the court to dismiss it this court to them address the issues that he thinks are significant i agree that most of these procedural matters should be dealt with in the traffic court i think that's that's the objective i think i think that both sides should attempt to achieve that when cases are before the court and and i think that to talk to people and saying women tell me about trying to secure these defects and to clean things up and i did that and i and i think i think there's an awareness and and