apologize to the court that's entirely my fault mr johnson moved to wisconsin and it never occurred to me that that would implicate standing in this court it doesn't mr johnson still is suffering as a result of this illinois law in wisconsin wisconsin basically takes a look at other states and if that person is required to register for life in another state and move to wisconsin they are obligated under wisconsin law to then register for life so if mr johnson were to prevail in this case he would no longer have to register as a sex offender in illinois or with us and that i think clearly give him article three standing on the merits there's a in an issue that the state raised in its letter pertaining to the merits and that's how do we evaluate what the end intents or the effects of this law are and so it's useful to take a look at the legal framework that the supreme court set out and smith the first thing the supreme court said is when we're looking to see if a law is conceded this is intended to be a regulatory scheme the next step then that the supreme court goes to is ok it's it is a regulatory scheme but do the effects of the scheme the whole analysis they look not to an individual plaintive so they don't look mr johnson didn't need to allege below for example i really like going to parks and now i can't go to parks that's not how we analyze if the statutory scheme as a  punitive as to outweigh the legislative intent or not we look at the effects on everybody in the state we look at the entire statutory scheme and we do it according to those five factors so just because m johnson is now not subject to certain restrictions in illinois he's not subject to the wisconsin restrictions that has nothing to do with the analysis of whether the illinois law is a p law and the subject of the ex post facto clause in analogy might be if mr johnson were convicted of a criminal offense in illinois that carried collateral consequences but he wasn't punished for it but he got time certain sense of probation something like that that doesn't mean that it's not a punitive law perhaps he doesn't suffer the collateral consequences in illinois he moves to wisconsin you're talking about if he doesn't follow the rules no what it what i'm saying is we don't look at it to see to what are the effects of the the entire statutory scheme and the entire class of people who fall under it so it's not pleasant news for sure i mean having to register and keep up with it and that's that's right came up later but still they were aware of that when i guess when he was sentenced eking same lethally so stealing two stakes right which is shoplifting and there's a felony there's got to be more than stealing two sticks well the reason it's a felony it would be a misdemeanor except he had a prior conviction that's it and that's it  bothers me but it just may be just the fed to get a felony which is exacerbating this whole thing without that felony you know here that's right and the and and that entire requirement seems to be derived from the adam walsh act so this this this really starts with congress right because what congress said was we're going to let the attorney general decide how states can comply with the federal sex offender registration notification act and what the attorney general said is we're not going to require that all states register everybody who's ever been convicted of a sex offense that's just administrative leave impossible so what we're going to do instead is we're going to say if they come into your system again in particular if they get a felony conviction then we'll say you've complied as long as you register those people and so what governor quinn indicated with new felony convictions but year your honor is absolutely correct in illinois especially if you have a record is very very easy to get a felony conviction for what we might consider relatively minor behavior  so it's a problem that i think that the you know this whole question of whether this is approach is punitive or not it is almost about you know the the old adage about the the road t being paved with good intentions right the intentions here are we're going to create you know this administrative regulatory scheme that will keep people safe that will deter recidivism all of that but at some point as we keep piling on these regulations and restrictions we get to that place at the end of the road that is punitive and so the question is this in this case is has illinois gotten there we certainly think under the five factors in  basically the court and assistant attorney general hands at sister turn general christina hanson here on behalf of the defendant so issue that plaintiff raised in this appeal is whether the illinois sex offender registration act as applied to him is an impermissible as we raised in our letter to the court because he was no longer a resident of illinois the registration requirements those requirements that he pointed to as making the law punitive in effect no longer apply to him indeed the sole basis that he claim first continued standing to bring his claim is that illinois initially impose a registration requirement on him he contends that wisconsin now requires him to register because illinois and nationally impose a registration requirement and doesn't illinois jurisdiction in which you either reside or are temporary damped siloed for three or more days and so illinois does not follow persons who have been required to register and under the act or not followed into other states when they leave the state that's illinois and so for that reason but having been branded the sexual president the predator in illinois could subject him to requirements in other states that he wouldn't be subject to goodman right but what he is raised in this case is and has applied challenge to the illinois registration s so we have to look at which provisions of the illinois registration registration scheme apply to him and whether the humulin effective those provisions transform the state's intent to create a regulatory scheme into a p statute and in that regard this court's decision in mueller b raman is instructive because in that case which the plaintiffs challenged provisions of the wisconsin registration risk wisconsin's version of the registration law while they resided out of state and this court looked at the specific provisions of this statute and whether they applied to him whether they apply to those plaintiffs for example the wisconsin law included probations and sex offenders working with children offenders in the category in which those plaintiffs fell's working with children because the plaintiffs student reside in wisconsin those provisions of that provision of the act the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge that provision of the act  what was left with respect to the wisconsin act in mueller was the mere fact of having to update your registration requirements because wisconsin required to act and that this court found fell squarely within the dhobi smith analysis here illinois does not require a continuing continued updating of the sex offenders registration requirements while he is out of state so the fact that he is out of state his claim he no longer has standing to bring it guilty to felony theft and that's what triggered the registration requirement that was almost two years after the amendments to the illinois act went into effect the touchstone of retroactive legislation is that the party has to be  notice of the consequences of their criminal conduct here he was on notice like i said this statute that amendments to the sorra were passed almost two years before he pled guilty to that felony conviction and therefore the statute was simply not applied  being knowingly present in an illinois park that statutory scheme is essentially what the supreme court considered and then found not to be an think your honor i think first i ought to clarify the the as applied challenge mr johnson's claim is that the only sex offender registration act is an unconstitutional expose facto law as applied to him because it was an acted after the conviction for which he is required to register as a sexual predator that's the application when you do the analysis as to whether the law is punitive or not you don't look at an individual plaintive the state never raised below that for example mr johnson didn't have standing because he didn't allege that he likes to go to public parks if if you don't like to go to public parks and you never intend to go to a public park you don't have standing to challenge this restriction on going to a public park that's not the claim he's not claiming that this is a deprivation of his right to go to public parks he's claiming that this is an unconstitutional ex post facto law according to the entire statutory scheme and smith vidoe doesn't look at individual claims it looks at whether the law is punitive or not that's a that's a question of law and according to th five factor test so that that part of the standing argument i disagree with mueller did make those those very particular as applied challenges and said this is unconstitutional this is unconstitutional this isn't the district court rejected most of those but said yeah the fine is unconstitutional that's not the claim that we're making here we're saying the entire statutory scheme is punitive and thus applying it to mr johnson would be unconstitutional the last thing i i really disagree with the claim that this is not a retroactive law the rape conviction was in one thousand nine hundred three this law was passed in the ninety's two thousand the recent amendment in twenty eleven twenty twelve the state clearly and the federal government clearly have intended this to be a civil regulatory scheme if i can just finish sure the that they clearly have intended this to operate retroactively that's the entire purpose of the legislation identify who's been convicted of a sex offense and put them on the registry are content we've conceded this was intended to be a civil regulatory scheme but our contention is under the smith veto factors it is so p