they please the court only water requires the chicago police department to maintain the only sex offender registration chicago police department is responsible for making factual determination regarding status or individual who lacks a fixed address the time of registration the person has to notify the police department in a report weekly thereafter from december sixth two thousand and ten to october of two thousand and thirteen the chicago police department rarely registered people who lacked a residence at the time of registration the police department to not have a m what is the constitutional significance of that is there any constitutional requirement that people who lack a permanent address to be registered there is your honor because if a person is not registered his or her liberty is in jeopardy he or she is in jeopardy but no one in this class actually lost liberty that's incorrect or honor michael douglas not on marie was arrested for the class is not defined as people who lost liberty the classes defined as people who wanted to register but didn't that's correct or right so we have to go with the way the class has been define class do not have a meaningful process or procedure to have a hearing when he or she went to the police department registration office you know was the pride of the opportunity to register as lacking a fixed residence are you arguing that there should have been some their address in where they're going to reside the second page of this form provides that if the person lacks the residence here she shall notify the law enforcement agency that their residing that the homeless in the law sex offender is required to do to register as lacking a residence at the time of education is to provide notice in to come to the police department every seven days into provide evidence of where he or she stayed during the prior  the point of class and the pointis michael bailey and douglas montgomery did not have any meaningful process or procedure to challenge the police department's denial of registration this is the private than of due process and put their liberty in jeopardy i mentioned mike douglas marc emery he was released from prison in january of two thousand and eleven for failure to register a charge he signed a form that said you would be homeless in the city of chicago he relocated to chicago you know in january twenty seventh two thousand and eleven he went to the police department he told a registry officer at the police department that i'm homeless i have been homeless for some time the police and he had this registration paper that's clearly said he was homeless in the police officer in the registration office told him the city is not registering homeless people right into council can you precisely  mandatory civil penalty it requires that the person be classified on the illinois state sex offender registration website to be non compliant it extends a registrants registration responsibilities for an additional ten years so these significant consequences implicated a liberty interest in this is the only way for these vulnerable and marginalised people in our society to remain free and the whole point of the state just require these people to come into the police department every seven days with the recognition that they are homeless in the police department wants to the state was to keep a close eye on people who are almost in the city disregarded this the city disregarded their obligation to monitor and track these people for the public transit you press this website point and the point below i saw that you allege in your second amended complaint and he stayed there in there was a bed check that was conducted on him and he was then triggered as non compliant because the police department found he was not residing at the homeless shelter even though he was coming there every night and there was a motion injunctive relief on that aspect and this was several years ago so we have pressed the issue about how the registration act implicates your status on the website you society and your overall ability to remain free the government has to provide some type of productive ation process when there's an established state procedure at issue in this case the state procedures of registration act that's the procedure that the city of chicago administers at the police department headquarters for sex offenders the end in shepherdess the court reviewed a very similar law in it held of the registration is an established a procedure that requires some form of productive ation process so in this case the parties agree that there was no process when the city of chicago turn honor it's at least department headquarters so perhaps there could be a supervisor in the in the office that could analyze the registrants facts you make a determination  register there should be some review process that assesses whether the factual request by the person who spoke portuguese without a residence to register for a week in the last seems suggest if a person to the police department headquarters and says i'm homeless that person should at least be registered for one week because he must come back the following week and document each place stayed during the past seven nights and saying anything on these registration paperwork in the forms is a felony and would subject that individual to significant penalties in addition the city has an administrative hearing office and that could also be an avenue for the city to make a judgment to have an independent person make a judgment whether a person can qualify in register is lacking a residence time registration in addition the officers at the registration office and it's a very small office they had no guidelines there was no internal process for them to judge whether a person would be registered without this lacking a residence in is evidence of the uncertainty to the plaintiffs in the plaintiff class about whether they're able to register comply with this law you want to save some time for a sending these people alway good morning and may it please the court throughout this litigation plaintiffs have consistently described a pervert revealing emphasize that there are so complaint here is what the city supposedly misapplication of the requirements of illinois sex offender registration law indeed the reply brief admits that their the core of their complaint here is quote that the city refused to comply with state law and quote that their claim arises out of the city's implementation of state law and they even concede with they have been agree with our characterization that they've consistently described their claim precise in those terms but that it only admits that point is don't have a valid procedural due process claim here procedural due process is not a manner in which to does decision and shepherd shepherdess didn't involve a circumstance of mere mishap haitian a state law shepard's it was as the parties described on page one of both of their briefs as the district court recognized on page one of a summary judgment ruling and as the ultimate judgment order entry in that case that case involved factual disputes that worked being properly resolved by the by the state there is no procedure offered by the state of indiana to address genuine factual disputes into court and demand process merely to review a state's with legal interpretation of the law of the various requirements of a sex offender registration act and the court this court even acknowledged shepherds and didn't see a conflict with that notion and we would we would posit that that core principle that basic principle of the federal state divide the one thousand three sets up in this case right then and there and that comes the flip side of another problem of play i'm so focused on the matthews factors but matthews itself was about the right to an evidentiary hearing and this court has recognized undercard versus belcher's that procedural due process comes into play only when plaintiffs have a factual dispute it's not whether there's a there's a there's a different question whether facts are resolved correctly but when there's no factual dispute in the first place then due process isn't triggered at all and plaintiffs here of identified no facts that were at dispute that it's under spewed there is no dispute when they came into the registration they were homeless they even include in their reply brief a document with that says homeless on it there is no dispute there their disputes centers on how the city officers believe that it came into play with the requirements of illinois sex offender registration and that's simply not a proper subject for procedural due process  clay regarding of just quickly regarding the question of pretty probation hearings plaintiffs did not i i'm aware of no where in their opening brief the plants requested a pre deprivation hearing that seems to be newly arrived at  argument their claim was that after registration was denied that the city was required to provide a some sort of review process again of legal questions in the plaintiffs proposed and initially they proposed to the city's post deprivation and they've given no indication here that that such post operation process is even necessary if this court has no no questions will rest on her bri there should be some type in the city concedes this they can see that montgomery was homeless and he was not allowed to fill his requirements and the law in your may not register for several of this policy of the sea of not registering people but not having any internal any process he's a pre or post to challenge these officers decision after this class mr morrissey mr pryor said no such request for a pre death of asian hearing was made in the district court or here so i've just one of the great advantages of having the briefs online and i just missal this case i'm mono and well you can choose to make any arguments you wish i'm just observing that your opening brief does not contend that there was a violation of any constitutional demand for a hearing and so i'm asking how you have preserved this argument i believe so you are because the brief does talk about matthew's ballots and test and throughout the whole course of this litigation there are you disagreeing with mr bryers representation that you did not make such a request in the district court i can verify what requests who've made in your briefs here are you disagreeing with his representation about what happened in the district court the district court in the district court i'm not certain i can supplements after reviewing the purchase the issue that's ben in the district court for years has been there is no due process for individuals seeking to register and have been to prop to progress strange in that was what was litigated for years about how there is no pre or post the probation procedure and