People v. Hammond, 2011 IL 110044

Consolidated appeal: Alberty (Cook County) argues probation officer lacked authority to file a petition for violation of probation; Hammond/Donahue/Gaither (Livingston County) involve petitions to revoke probation filed by State’s Attorney and use of the Administrative Sanctions Program (ASP).
Statutes central to dispute: 730 ILCS 5/5-6-4(i) authorizes offering intermediate sanctions in lieu of filing a violation of probation; 730 ILCS 5/5-6-1 requires a system of structured sanctions; section 5-6-4(e) preserves judicial control over revocation decisions.
Issue in Livingston cases: whether the probation department’s offer of intermediate sanctions can foreclose or delay revocation proceedings and how ASP interacts with prosecutorial discretion.
Procedural posture: appellate courts held the probation officer may file a petition for violation of probation and that the State’s Attorney cannot veto sanctions; the supreme court consolidates the cases and affirms.
Court’s focus: statutory construction of 5-6-4(i) and separation of powers, with analysis of whether probation officers’ actions impermissibly delegate judge-like authority to the executive/probation department.
Result: probation officers have authority to file violations; 5-6-4(i) does not give State’s Attorney veto power over intermediate sanctions; judgments affirmed across Alberty, Hammond, Gaither, and Donahue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority of probation officers to file VOP petitions	Alberty argues officers lack authority	State argues 5-6-4(i) contemplates sanctions but not veto	Probation officers may file VOP petitions.
Constitutionality of 5-6-4(i) re separation of powers	State contends 5-6-4(i) infringes on prosecutorial powers	Court rules maintain separation by keeping discretion with judiciary	Statute does not violate separation of powers; no veto by State’s Attorney.
Effect of intermediate sanctions on timing of revocation	State argues sanctions could be bypassed or circumvented	Sanctions program structured to avoid revocation for same violation	Completion of sanctions bars revocation for the same violation.
Role of ASP rules and circuit court oversight	State critiques local rules as procedural hurdles	ASP provisions structure discretion and provide judicial review	ASP framework valid; not violative of separation of powers.
Whether the ruling applies to all three Livingston cases and Alberty	N/A (pleaded collectively)	N/A	Rule applies to all; judgments affirmed.

County of Kane v. Carlson, 116 Ill. 2d 186 (1987) (separation-of-powers overlapping powers accepted)
Phillips v. People, 66 Ill. 2d 412 (1977) (probation authority and treatment not infringing court’s sentencing power)
In re D.S., 198 Ill.2d 309 (2001) (circuit court may order prosecution in best interests of minor; separation not absolute)
In re T.W., 101 Ill.2d 438 (1984) (probation officer consent implicated judicial function; overlap recognized)
People v. Walker, 119 Ill.2d 465 (1988) (separation of powers not a total divorce; overlaps allowed)
Phillips v. People, 66 Ill.2d 412 (1977) (statutory scheme permits nonjudicial action without violating sentencing authority)