People v. Bond
67 N.E.3d 531
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- At ~2:45 a.m., a Blue Island officer (Chickerillo) observed Kevin Bond’s vehicle stopped with part of it in the westbound lane on 119th Street, the municipal boundary between Blue Island (south) and Chicago (north). Officer considered this an illegal parking/parking-on-roadway violation.
- Officer observed the car again ~10 minutes later, pulled alongside on the Chicago side, saw the driver appearing asleep with the car in drive, and called for backup. He then awakened Bond, detected alcohol odor, opened the door, and observed slurred speech.
- A LEADS check showed Bond’s license was suspended; Bond was arrested for driving with a suspended license and later charged with three counts of DUI.
- Bond moved to quash arrest and suppress evidence, arguing the Blue Island officer lacked authority to exercise police powers in Chicago; he did not contest other arrest facts.
- Trial court granted the motion, holding the officer lacked legal basis to investigate because he only observed a parking violation (a petty offense) and relied on Code of Criminal Procedure section 107-4(a-3)(2) to require seeing a misdemeanor/felony to act extrajurisdictionally.
- Appellate court considered whether Municipal Code sections authorizing police power within a police district (adjoining municipalities) permitted the Blue Island officer to act in Chicago and remanded for factual findings, vacating the suppression order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bond) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Blue Island officer could exercise police powers in Chicago after observing an illegal parking (petty) offense | Municipal Code §§7-4-7 and 7-4-8 allow police in a defined police district (adjoining municipalities) to exercise full authority across the district, so officer could act in Chicago | Officer had no authority to exercise police power in Chicago for a mere parking/petty offense; §107-4(a-3)(2) limits extrajurisdictional arrests to officers who observe misdemeanors/felonies | The Municipal Code provisions permit extrajurisdictional police authority across adjoining municipalities; appellate court concluded officer had statutory authority and vacated suppression order, remanding for factual findings |
| Whether Code of Criminal Procedure §107-4(a-3) conflicted with Municipal Code extrajurisdictional authority | §107-4(a-3) does not conflict; it governs statewide extrajurisdictional arrests while Municipal Code extends authority within a police district | §107-4(a-3) should limit officers from acting outside primary jurisdiction absent its enumerated bases | Court held no conflict: §107-4(a-3) restricts statewide extrajurisdictional arrests but does not negate Municipal Code authority within a police district |
| Whether suppression order should be affirmed on jurisdictional/legal grounds alone | State argued legal authority existed under Municipal Code; remand needed for factual findings since trial court made no credibility findings | Bond argued trial court correctly ruled officer lacked authority and suppression proper | Court vacated order and remanded for trial court to make factual findings/credibility determinations before reconsidering suppression motion |
| Whether citizen’s-arrest statute need be addressed | State alternatively argued arrest could be a citizen’s arrest under §107-3 | Bond did not rely on citizen-arrest defense | Court found it unnecessary to reach §107-3 given Municipal Code conclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jones, 215 Ill. 2d 261 (addresses standard of review for suppression rulings)
- People v. Davis, 352 Ill. App. 3d 576 (defining manifest weight standard)
- People v. Kirvelaitis, 315 Ill. App. 3d 667 (holding officers may make extrajurisdictional arrests within same county under Municipal Code)
- Harroun v. Addison Police Pension Board, 372 Ill. App. 3d 260 (interpreting Municipal Code extrajurisdictional authority)
- People v. McChriston, 2014 IL 115310 (statutory construction principles)