Village of Mount Prospect v. Kurtev
91 N.E.3d 532
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Martin Kurtev was cited for speeding (56 mph in a 40 mph zone) and running a red light in Mount Prospect; officer Melendez testified and radar evidence was admitted.
- Trial was a bench trial; Kurtev made a directed-finding motion arguing the Village failed to show the posted speed limit, traffic control devices, and road markings complied with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and that an engineering study established the speed limit. The court denied the motion.
- Kurtev presented no evidence or testimony to support his MUTCD/engineering-study challenge and declined to cross-examine or put on a defense witness.
- Village municipal code adopts the Illinois Vehicle Code and treats traffic-control devices as presumptively compliant; driving in excess of a posted limit is prima facie evidence of a violation.
- The court found Kurtev guilty of both offenses; Kurtev appealed pro se arguing the Village had to prove compliance with MUTCD and that the speed limit rested on an engineering study.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecution must prove traffic signs/devices and speed-limit establishment complied with MUTCD/regulations before sustaining traffic citations | Village: No; signs/devices and speed limits are presumptively valid and evidence of speeding and red-light violation was sufficient | Kurtev: Prosecution must prove signs/devices comply with MUTCD and that speed limit was set by required engineering study; otherwise citations are invalid | Held: No. Prosecution’s unrebutted evidence established violations; defendant bore burden to introduce competent evidence to raise doubt about conformity; without such evidence, presumptions stand |
| Whether a defendant may defeat citations by merely asserting noncompliance with MUTCD without offering evidence | Village: Mere assertion is insufficient; must present competent evidence to raise doubt | Kurtev: Oral assertions of statutory/regulatory noncompliance should suffice to require rebuttal | Held: Rejected defendant’s position; courts disregard unsupported factual/legal conclusions; defendant offered no factual proof |
| Whether officer’s radar and observation provided sufficient proof of violations absent challenge to equipment calibration | Village: Radar calibrated and officer’s observation suffice | Kurtev: (raised but not pursued on appeal) questioned radar authorization and tuning-fork testing | Held: Trial court found radar testimony adequate; Kurtev did not preserve or pursue radar-equipment claims on appeal |
| Burden allocation when defendant attacks legality of posted speed limits or devices | Village: Presumption of validity applies; defendant must rebut with competent evidence | Kurtev: Burden should be on municipality to proactively prove compliance | Held: Court affirms presumption; burden on defendant to present evidence to rebut |
Key Cases Cited
- Francis v. Mills, 214 Ill. App. 3d 122 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (MUTCD adopted in Illinois to govern local traffic control devices)
- People v. Perlman, 15 Ill. App. 2d 239 (Ill. App. Ct. 1957) (proof of driving over posted speed limit raises rebuttable presumption of violation)
- People v. Russell, 120 Ill. App. 2d 197 (Ill. App. Ct. 1970) (if defendant raises doubt about legality of traffic device, prosecution must rebut)
- People v. Powers, 89 Ill. App. 2d 120 (Ill. App. Ct. 1967) (defendant must present evidence to raise defense unless prosecution’s evidence opens the issue)
- Village of Oakwood Hills v. Diamond, 125 Ill. App. 3d 58 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984) (speeding conviction reversed where defendant proved ordinance invalid)
- State v. Morse, 572 A.2d 1342 (Vt. 1990) (conviction reversed where defendant offered competent evidence showing no engineering study for speed limit)
- Commonwealth v. Kondor, 651 A.2d 1135 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994) (conviction affirmed where prosecution rebutted defendant’s challenge to underlying engineering study)
Affirmed.