Read the Transcript of RM133: Torsilieri v PA and Legoo v IL
After a well deserved week off, we come back into the trenches with a couple decisions; one good and one less than good.
We had a decision from Illinois that didn’t go very well. Mr. Legoo’s child ended up in a park, which is on the restriction list for a PFR. He is not allowed to knowingly go to a park. Mr. Legoo goes to retrieve his child from the park and is recognized by an officer. Talk about a Hobsian choice: A) Go to a park to retrieve your kid, and risk getting arrested for being somewhere you are not allowed to be. B) Let the kid run wild, and let some other person report your kid unsupervised and child protective services will come and possibly remove your child. C) Call the police for assistance, and then they will call protective services and you risk losing your child. All around this is terrible policy.
In the Pennsylvania case involving Mr. Torsilieri, the judge in this case decided to kick the ball back and bring in more evidence. This has the sad side effect of delaying a decision. Many of these decision rely on the statement of “frightening and high” recidivism. This has been debunked countless times in the past. As I understand it, this is the judge telling the state to prove the frightening and high statement. We’ll see what they come up with in the coming months.
Michael Flynn Circuit Court Opinion
[43:50] Legoo vs Illinois
People v Legoo Illinois Supreme Court Park Restrictions
[1:07:28] Torsilieri vs Pennsylvania
PA Supreme Court 2020
Leave voicemail: 747-227-4477
Email us: firstname.lastname@example.org
Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/registrymatters
Follow us on Twitter: Twitter
Join the Discord server: https://discord.gg/DAmupkf
Want to support Registry Matters with some swag: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/registry-matters