In re Mathias H.
2019 IL App (1st) 182250
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- A 12-year-old (Mathias H.) was arrested for robbery; juvenile court released him to home confinement with electronic GPS monitoring after probable cause was found.
- After repeated monitoring violations, the State sought revocation and asked for guidance because Cook County had just enacted Ordinance §46-4 forbidding detention of anyone under 13 in the county jail or JTDC.
- The juvenile court judge ordered Mathias detained at the JTDC, concluding the county ordinance conflicted with state law and would hamstring the court’s statutory detention authority.
- Mathias filed an emergency habeas corpus petition; the circuit court denied relief, holding the Cook County Board lacked home rule authority to enact §46-4 because the General Assembly preempted the field.
- On appeal the Appellate Court (majority) affirmed: it applied the public-interest exception to mootness and held the ordinance invalid because the Detention Act and Juvenile Court Act specifically limit concurrent home-rule regulation of juvenile detention.
Issues
| Issue | Mathias / Cook County’s Argument | State / County’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Cook County Ordinance §46-4 (ban on admitting persons <13 to county jail/JTDC) | Ordinance valid under home rule; General Assembly did not expressly limit county power over detention age | Ordinance preempted: Detention Act and Juvenile Court Act specifically limit home-rule concurrent authority over juvenile detention | Ordinance invalid; General Assembly specifically limited concurrent home-rule power via Detention Act and Juvenile Court Act; affirm denial of habeas corpus |
| Mootness of appeal (Mathias released) | Mathias: appeal moot | State: took no position below but argues appeal merits review on appeal | Not dismissed as moot — public-interest exception applies; court resolves merits to guide future juvenile-detention decisions |
| Whether State’s change of position below waives appellate argument | Mathias: State previously conceded ordinance controlled and cannot now defend denial | State: as appellee may advance any argument supported by record on appeal | Court allowed State to defend judgment on appeal; waiver/concession did not preclude appellate argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Novak v. Rathnam, 106 Ill. 2d 478 (mootness doctrine)
- In re Shelby R., 2013 IL 114994 (appeal mootness where sentence served)
- In re Dexter L., 334 Ill. App. 3d 557 (public-interest exception applied in juvenile detention context)
- In re Randall M., 231 Ill. 2d 122 (distinguishing police custody rules under Juvenile Court Act)
- Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass’n, 2013 IL 110505 (standard for home-rule preemption; express statutory limitation required)
- City of Chicago v. Roman, 184 Ill. 2d 504 (home-rule powers and limits)
- In re Presley, 47 Ill. 2d 50 (State’s parens patriae interest in juvenile welfare)