questions on any and all of them but at the outset i would like to focus on two related problems with the new jersey statute that i think make clear that the statute is unconstitutional and it also may help streamline the issues that the court needs to resolve the first of these issues is that the new jersey statute directs courts consistent with the principle that i think emerges from stacking the whale to pay the least restrictive combination of conditions necessary to  tensional condition that's actually been the historically preferred option for two centuries namely monetary dale how do you take it off the table takes it off the table because it is at the critical second but i think ultimately the question is by putting the monetary bail option behind class emergency brake only class it seems to be a yes it's for every individual because instead of the court being yes fin the least restrictive combination they basically said the least restrictive combination but don't consider monetary bail and do consider something is restrictive of pretty proud liberty before before he does  these these conditions these non monetary conditions would work out and that he would also be in the p and l plus three category but he did that to be sure to think of the choice seems good he's given the choice between a process that couldn't consider monetary bail at all but could consider home arrest with electronic monitoring that was option one and then his second option was a possibility being incarcerated in jail but his parents had a that that may well be said to speedy trial clock and list a speedy trial clock in ways that will severely prejudice his ability to actually get a trial and get these restrictions on its liberty removed so just to be clear i think it is very clear that you set of conditions necessary to satisfy both the government's objectives then she did no work monetary bail and entirely in some cases it's believed part of what makes things worse restrictive it sounds like what you're saying stupid combination of conditions which is both what i think is the constitutional power but it's new jersey state wrong picking the least restricted set of conditions you keep it or entirely significant problem that broad alkan in new jersey and there is a cross section of groups of government that are trying to work something out and they're fighting you know based on things like this research that and i do think subsidy process is the easiest way to decide this case it's not a shocks the conscious standard and this court's cases made that clear but it's shocked the conscious when you're dealing with executive action but when you're dealing with a challenge to a constitution in a very particular way we see this being the taste of monetary pale off the table entirely and it forces the judges to do something that i don't think the constitution permits which it says pick the least and proposed the sorts of conditions no not not unless he challenge the constitutionality of the statute under the statute there is no way for him to ask for a hearing that said i don't want to be under house arrest and i don't want the electronic mind because that is going to cause me to give up my second child i really want to monetary bond i'm happy to post it whatever amount we think is necessary because if you can use the bond i'll be able to keep my second job so i'm in a position to post it i want to do that take off considerations off the new jersey legislature and carefully considering the prior system of criminal justice in new jersey he says and richard fortune we focused on monetary bail and guaranteed essentially that wall defendants would be eligible for monetary payout regardless of the danger that they posed to the community were their ability to meet to bail and that system created two major problems first  sufficient financial means well who were released on bail even with a pose a substantial risk of danger to the community secondly many poor defendants who had minor charges but to have a financial may be the way to go where the new jersey legislature evaluated that after getting a report from the joint committee had looted the beer history to new jersey it had with monetary bail and said we're going to go for a system which will be used for such a person it's use for somebody who presents an extreme danger in the community and has other dangerous attributes that is why we did ads been presented to the end of the first year for our system provision also prohibits those elements this is a provision of the ada minutes talking of battle excessive conduct by the government it's not creating any affirmative right shitty that i don't know all the details that's not on the record he could make a motion he could make god a quirk in trying to make the argument that i'm really first so not a flight risk i'm not dangerous you're over but on the issue of dangerousness that was clearly a major concern here and that's why he got the flag pretty violent criminal activity yes he was under risk for pretrial detention but on the issue of the cash bail that only every other week and whatever which is what was imposed on him but he never took that opportunity so therefore it's our position that he waived that right so he  interests of the government which is the issue of flight risk and major concern on the table here was the issue of dangerousness he committed a violent crime we have the defend the weight on how to go to the hospital he other conditions that's why we're arguing in fact that mr hollande does not have standing here because the issue of dangerousness would have to be addressed through the conditions that he's challenging here correct which includes detention electronic monitoring and our position is that he doesn't have standing because the dangerous component would have to have been addressed with electronic monitoring home detention in our position is that you cases we basically uniform even before so worn out that there was no right to bail there's no right to bail they can of beer have no argument on the substance due process clause that there's some type of fundamental right to monetary bail the issue is certainly there is a prohibition audie excessiveness and we believe it or statute deals with that in fact he sees that standard because it doesn't and as long as they're considering that as part of the conditions they're closing it seems to me that there is a constitutional obligation for them to police consider monetary bail as part of the mix what they didn't see was a flight risk so you didn't need the money but you need the other