In re Dystyn, 2017 IL App (4th) 170103 (June). Episode 385 (Duration 6:42)
Delinquent minor is forbidden from entering a college campus. Is that legal?
Accused minor and a codefendant demanded cigarettes from a gas station clerk.
She refused, so they just took some lighters.
Each was brandishing a knife during the robbery.
He was adjudicated delinquent and put on probation which included an order that he
“not be present on the University of Illinois campus unless he/she is in the presence of his/her parent, guardian, or custodian or unless provided advance permission by the probation officer.”
On appeal, he challenges this provision of his probation.
Section 5-715(2) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/5-715(2)) describes the different kinds of conditions a trial court may impose on a juvenile probationer.
Section 5-715(2)(r) provides that a court may require the minor to do the following:
“Refrain from entering into a designated geographic area except upon terms as the court finds appropriate. The terms may include consideration of the purpose of the entry, the time of day, other persons accompanying the minor, and advance approval by a probation officer, if the minor has been placed on probation, or advance approval by the court, if the minor has been placed on conditional discharge[.]”
705 ILCS 405/5-715(2)(r).
Additional Illinois sentencing provision can be found here.
Generally, courts have broad discretion to impose probation conditions, whether expressly allowed by statute or not, to achieve the goals of fostering rehabilitation and protecting the public.
However, the court’s discretion is limited by constitutional safeguards and must be exercised in a reasonable manner. Courts will uphold traveling restrictions if they are reasonable.
Specifically, a restriction on a probationer’s travel to a particular geographic area is reasonable only if
(1) there is a valid purpose for the restriction, and
(2) there is a means by which the probationer may obtain exemption from the restriction for legitimate purposes.
The touchstone of this evaluation is reasonableness.
For example, banning a kid from an entire city is not narrowly tailored and unreasonable.
Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing this geographic limitation upon respondent as a probationary condition.
This defendant was 13.
He had no real business on a major college campus.
He was not flat out panned from the campus, and it was entirely reasonable and consistent with the goals of fostering rehabilitation and protecting the public.
The University campus is the crown jewel of the Champaign-Urbana community, and efforts should be made by local law enforcement agencies, as well as the local trial courts, to do all they can to ensure that the campus will be a sanctuary from crime, particularly violent crime, as in this case.
The University is a world-class institution, attracting tens of thousands of students and faculty from around the world. Efforts to provide extra protection for such persons is entirely understandable and commendable.
Such efforts include barring 13-year-old armed robbers from the campus.
Indeed, one would expect no less.
The defense argued he was being deprived of valuable public resources available on the campus.
The court said the notion that this probationary condition would somehow restrict respondent from seeking valuable educational pursuits on the University campus is hyperbole of the first order.
Frankly, given his conviction for armed robbery, he has no business being there at all.
The condition is narrowly drawn because it contains exemptions for legitimate access to the University campus and does not categorically ban respondent.
The ban does not apply when either
(1) respondent is in the presence of his parent, guardian, or custodian or
(2) respondent has received advance permission from his probation officer.
People v. Minnis, 2016 IL 119563 (October), (disclosure of internet use constitutional under SORA)
People v. Crabtree, 2015 IL App (5th) 130155 (July 2015) (sex probation sentencing terms prohibiting computer proper even though the crime did not involve a computer)