Former USD232 social studies teacher Keil Hileman and his attorney Scott Gyllenborg appeared in court Monday, Dec. 11 to request Hileman’s removal from house arrest. Despite arguments against the request by the prosecution, Judge Neil Foth ruled that the bond conditions would remain in place, but house arrest parameters would be adjusted so that Hileman can leave his home with permission from his house arrest officer.

Gyllenborg made the argument that there is no risk in allowing Hileman off house arrest due to his good behavior over the last 383 days. 

“I think [house arrest] is an unreasonable restriction on his freedom,” Gyllenborg said. “My argument [is] this is not a rape case… It happened at one location he has no access to. The public is not at risk and the victims are not at risk. There is no reason to think he’s been pursuing [the alleged victims] outside of the alleged complaint.”

While Hileman has not violated his bond agreement, including the no-contact conditions, state prosecution attorney Ryan Walkiewicz argued that the bond restrictions should remain in place.

“Those conditions were put in place for a reason and those reasons haven’t changed,” Walkiewicz said. “There is a risk [he could come into contact with the accusers]. Just because someone has been successful on house arrest for a year doesn’t make it so they shouldn’t still be.”

“It’s a different universe now than it was a year and two or three months ago or a year and a half ago,” Gyllenborg said. “The allegations are related to him being a teacher, but he’s not a teacher anymore. They were related to him being in the school district. He’s not there anymore. They were related to his ability to have contact with students. He can’t have contact with students anymore.”

Despite Gyllenborg’s argument, Walkiewicz stated that there have been concerns expressed by the families of the alleged victims on how Hileman will be monitored until a plea agreement is reached or the case goes to trial.

“I do not think that modifications [to the bond agreement] just because someone’s been successful on house arrest is sufficient enough for this modification to take place,” Walkiewicz said. “I have received concerns from the victims in this case from the families indicating they don’t feel comfortable or safe not knowing that he’s being monitored, and he’s not going to be in the community or around others.”

Ultimately, Foth reached a compromise between the two requests, keeping the bond conditions in place but expanding Hileman’s house arrest beyond his house and his father’s nearby home.

“I tend to agree with the state’s argument,” Foth said. “I’m going to leave house arrest in place. I’ll allow the defendant to go to other approved places, instead of staying directly at home. [If Hileman] wants to go to church or wants to go to a job interview [he must] get approval with the house arrest officer.”

Gyllenborg indicated both sides are working on reaching a plea agreement in the case. Any agreement will be presented at the next scheduled hearing, Tuesday, Feb. 13 at 11 a.m. If no agreement is reached by that date, the case will go to trial.