People v. Legoo, 127 N.E.3d 1154

On May 6, 2016, an off-duty officer who knew Patrick Legoo was a convicted child sex offender saw him riding a bicycle in a public park and reported it.
Mendota police went to Legoo’s apartment; Legoo admitted he had been in the park to retrieve his son, who was watching a baseball game and refused to leave.
Legoo was charged under 720 ILCS 5/11-9.4-1(b) (presence of a sexual predator or child sex offender in a public park), a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense.
Legoo’s defense sought to import an exemption from 720 ILCS 5/11-9.3(a-10) (which permits parents/guardians to approach children in parks) into section 11-9.4-1(b).
At a bench trial the circuit court found Legoo guilty and sentenced him to 30 days in jail and two years conditional discharge; Legoo appealed on statutory-construction grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the parent/guardian exemption in §11-9.3(a-10) must be read into §11-9.4-1(b) so a parent present in a park cannot be convicted	The State: §11-9.4-1(b) is clear on its face and prohibits presence of listed offenders in parks; no exemption applies	Legoo: §11-9.3(a-10)’s parent/guardian exception should be read into §11-9.4-1(b) to avoid criminalizing a parent retrieving his child	Court: Rejected Legoo’s request; statutes are distinct and §11-9.4-1(b) applies as written; conviction affirmed

People v. Williams, 239 Ill. 2d 503 (discussing that statutory language is the primary indicator of legislative intent)
People v. Pepitone, 2018 IL 122034 (noting overlap and differences between related sex-offender statutes)