in this case was charged with the offenses of armed robbery and arm violence he was found unfit to stand trial i discharge hearing was held in this case and they had a hearing resulted in a finding of not not guilty in other past privileges they were seeking supervised off grounds privileges to allow him to attend certain off site activities in various locations such as a local library and an off site drug treatment had significant contact with mr davis she testified that she had been dealing with him for a number of years in general we saw him usually two times a day she also indicated that she and regular basis received input from other people who dealt with patrick on a regular basis and she basically indicated that mr davis was quite an individual he was attentive cooperative obedient not in any way disruptive threatening more aggressive hopefully towards ultimately regain fitness she also indicated that she did not believe that mr davis in any way posed any type of flight risk she did that he was certainly not to be considered dangerous  hearing she had been dealing with mr davis for approximately ten a period and regularly sign about three times per month she also indicated that she was in contact with other individuals at the h s who regularly dealt with mr davis significantly she also indicated that he understood the importance of maintaining those medications and keeping up with them she hated that he was not experiencing any side effects was having no behavioral problems in a indicated that they believed the typical safety protocols in place at the h s were sufficient to prevent there from being any type of threat they indicated that these procedures and protocols have been in place for quite some time and historically they never had any problems with anybody causing any problems i nonetheless the word indicated that it wanted increased safety practices in this particular case we actually went through the process of taking the h s to ascertain whether or not in this particular instance anything above and beyond their typical safety practices could be put into place it was indicated that they could not as a practical matter about some past practices that have been in place if any just namely the court took issue with the fact that up until a few weeks prior to the time of this hearing the policy of the ages had been to allow  fact he relevant factor he cannot be the sole decisive factor in in fact i would point out that there certainly is no perceived rule in place that has ever been on lead anywhere that suggests that the f determination whether or not these types of privileges should be allowed and that is not merely an issue for the doctors who are treating the individual while we have knowledge that is in fact of the case and we certainly know is that it's the purview of the trier of fact of the court in this instance to make that ultimate terminations on nonetheless when we have a situation like we have here where there is no question victory of against the recommendations of the treating doctors and mental health professionals should additional safety measures could be put in place for mr davis we took a step and i think it was a drastic step i'm ultimately the answer that we got from v h s was that there was nothing additional that they can do the indicated essentially that it was not practical to make exceptions for individual cases there was nothing above me and what they normally do that they'd be willing or able to do for that matter for this particular individual and they expressed again that they is you need a guarantee ensure that this guy can get a life and is it is that a reasonable standard to apply to these situations because first of all the court  but does it the fact that there is risk does that make it unreasonably dangerous and i think that if the court standard is you've got to have security that will guarantee the safety of everybody you know go get some more security one here we gots more well that's not enough either won't you know what do you want to do judge i don't know but i'll know when i see it and and on the run a system like that yeah that w sufficient would it have been reasonable for the trial judge in your opinion to have said look we're not going to allow to have patient treatment plan and then come back in six months or year whatever after strongly that it needed to be more security in any would tend to agree with the trial and it seems to be no security or very little here he at least in i think it's worth pointing out that the trial court in this case expressed not only the philosophy that there was a first time for everything but the court even like in this situation to the  when the space shuttle blew up and i believe that what the trial court in that instance was trying to get across was that well something eventually did go wrong so basically we have to count on something going wrong in the future and obviously that's not a realistic or practical approach second taken and certainly is a lead iran has already suggested mr davies cannot be put in a situation where he has to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that there is guarantee that nothing will ever go wrong in the future and nobody has the ability to make that type of prediction to pick up on a point that was right out as to the differences between the types of passes i suppose by either the witnesses that would indicate that they saw any particular reason to differentiate between the two passes on unless again i believe that the inherent authority i does exist to need to differentiation will was or wasn't there a  different level security of the two different grasses the library past what was it was a vet really less security than a patient to an extent i would agree that that's the case i do believe that a with the  did appear to be a little closer on watch if you will taking place my understanding of the situation is that the people the company mr davis to the treatment would be right outside the door to the library i mislead there wasn't quite the need for the time or the concern about the confidentiality of anything going on but they nonetheless felt that that was an appropriate type of pass to grants mr davis and again they thought that that would be beneficial to him insofar as it would help in alternately continue on and make progress so i do believe that to a certain degree to the extent that they were not positioned right outside the door there was some difference in the level of security and also i suppose the fact that mr davis would be and presumably larger room with perhaps other in closer price may go to members of the public i suppose the extent there would be a difference as well that judge i would only i just suggest to the court did i'm in this type of situation as it's an agency of the state and they're certainly aware of their potential for liability and they've been doing this for quite some time the evidence is that the security protocols that are in place have been there for quite some time and they've been successful historically there's no reason that they should be different or that they should be deviated from in this particular case and to require such