*1 court’s sound discre- rests the trial rules, fact-dependent and tion). cause so necessary to remand this Thus, that it is we determine extra plaintiff should have may consider whether the trial court and, also, as report professional’s health care time to file the profes- health care striking plaintiff’s suggest, whether defendants not, course, way, do In we proper. proceeding report sional’s opinion on the merits. express any mean to Winnebago reasons, judgment of the circuit court For these proceedings. further reversed, the cause for and we remand County is and remanded. Reversed SCHOSTOK, JJ., concur.
O’MALLEY and ILLINOIS, ELLIS Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OF OF THE STATE THE PEOPLE AGNEW-DOWNS,Defendant-Appellant. 2 — 09—1196 District No.
Second September 2010. Opinion filed O’MALLEY,J., specially concurring. *2 Henderson, Jr., DeKalb, appellant.
Donald of (Lawrence Farrell, Attorney, Sycamore John E. of Bauer State’s M. Bernhard, Attorneys Office, Appellate David A. both of State’s of Prosecutor’s counsel), People. for the opinion
JUSTICE BOWMAN delivered the of the court: dance, at a Following college defendant, Agnew- altercation Ellis (720 1(a) Downs, resisting was convicted of a peace officer ILCS 5/31— (West 2008)) (235 consumption unlawful by of alcohol a minor (West 2008)). ILCS conviction, For the officer 5/6—20 defendant received 18 discharge, days’ months’ conditional incarcera- tion, and conviction, a fine. For the unlawful of consumption alcohol defendant received 18 supervision. appeals months’ court Defendant convictions, both and we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND incident, In relation to the charged by complaint 6, with two counts on October I alleged 2008. Count that defendant “knowingly resisted the performance Jefferey of Riddell of an authorized act within capacity, being his official arrest of the [defendant], knowing Jefferey a peace engaged Riddell to be in duties, the of pushed, execution his official in Jefferey that shoved alleged defendant, Riddell.” II a person age Count under 21, knowingly consumed an alcoholic liquor.
A two-day July bench trial Jefferey commenced on 2009. Rid- dell, an University, officer at Northern Illinois testified as follows. first university eight had worked as an officer for the about months at the incident, time on September which occurred 2008. On date, uniform, pat- was in supervised who down area for dance Inside event the recreation center. center, recreation a hallway led to gymnasium, where dance was held. The gym entrance to the of doors consisted two sets separated freely a concrete divider. could enter and exit Attendees either set doors. student, later identi- a.m., saw that a 12:20 Officer Riddell
Around intoxicated”; barely up stand Allen, “extremely could fied as condition, another officer ordered vomiting. Based on Allen’s and was to Officer Riddell’s attention Defendant first came an ambulance. Defendant was Allen from the dance. defendant tried to remove Allen from leav- right” “all order to yelling that Allen was removing Allen ambulance, physically ing in an and defendant supervisor had instructed building. Although Riddell’s ambulance, Officer Riddell that dispatch advised him to cancel the way. already on its cancel because the ambulance was too late to defendant, this information must have communicated Someone building. Allen attempting help out because defendant ceased began gym the entrance to the sat down a chair near Allen the floor. vomiting profusely all over Ward, student, as Marcus later identified
Defendant and another becoming reason Allen “and for some were in the same area as were officer, A female very loud and vocal.” extremely belligerent, Brunner, Lucinda were sergeant, a female Weyni Langdon, and extremely agitated. Of- situation, becoming but Ward was to calm the the students or one might strike one of ficer Riddell felt that Ward from the dance to officers, needed to escort Ward and that he he would instructed Ward that defuse the situation. “extremely compli- behavior, and Ward need to leave based on *3 Lee. girlfriend, Kristin ant,” agreeing to leave with his through the doors to necessary go building, it was To exit the Riddell Officer gym to an exit door. gym, and then across rather building exited the and Lee to make sure Ward wanted Riddell gym. As Officer into the crowd just mingling than back Of- out, way forced his between proceeded to escort two to the Lee, blocking the left set of doors ficer Riddell and Ward wedged side and right Riddell’s] [Officer “came from gym. Defendant Lee, body his “placing Riddell and Ward between” Officer himself sticking his arms out.” Riddell] and [Officer towards with his back body into forced his couple steps back and then took a Defendant enough to The force was Riddell, Riddell back. pushing Officer Next, defendant knock him over. body but not displace Officer Riddell’s to the itself, doorway entrance” jamb of the “door grabbed hold and escort move forward ability to Officer Riddell’s gym and blocked Lee to telling Ward and this, doing out. While two report did not police that his admitted Riddell “Go. Go. Go.” Officer cross-examination, Go.” On to “Go. Go. statement include defendant’s to the around simply walk that he did conceded Officer Riddell the dance. Lee out of Ward and gym to escort doors to right set of However, explained ignore Officer Riddell that he could not the fact him. that defendant had physically pushed get Officer Riddell advised defendant that he needed to out of the way so that Officer Riddell could “escort those individuals out.” Defendant either ignored refused or him. Officer Riddell admitted that he never had a “direct conversation” with defendant or made direct eye contact. As Officer Riddell instructed defendant to release himself from the door and let go by, Officer Riddell comply. defendant failed to Officer Riddell then told defendant that defendant needed to leave the area and be escorted out too. hold,” With defendant still “maintaining Riddell, using hand, grabbed his left left just arm above the wrist and placed right his arm on the back of defendant’s triceps. cross-examination, On Officer Riddell testified that he was not arresting time; defendant at that “just his intent was to escort [defendant] from the dance as well.”
At point, defendant broke away from Officer Riddell and somehow knocked Heard, down Officer who was nearby. Officer Rid- dell thought that defendant used his hands to knock Officer Heard out of the way; defendant knocked him down intentionally. Officer Riddell get “had to control” of defendant assaulting Of- ficer Heard while he ground. was on the time, At this noticed baton, Officer Heard’s still collapsed, rolling around on the ground. Officer did Riddell not know whether the just baton fell off of Officer Heard’s belt or whether defendant trying to disarm Of- ficer Heard. Officer Riddell grabbed wrapping his arms around the front of defendant’s arms and interlocking his hands behind defendant’s back. Officer pulled Riddell then weight his own up defendant off of Officer Heard and stand him up. During this time, defendant fight continued to resist and with Officer Riddell and try to free himself from Officer Riddell’s hold. In particular, defendant was “motioning body back and forth trying [Of- to buck ficer Riddell] off of him.” In addition to the already present, officers who included Heard, Officers Langdon Sergeant Brunner, two more officers came onto the scene. All of the officers were in uniform.
Officer Riddell was then happened asked what [he] “after had grabbed a hold of the defendant and to resist [him] for a second time.” Officer explained that he was able to turn them *4 around in get order area, to back into the hall which was less crowded. “pushed” Defendant then the two of them “back into a set of lockers” that lined along the wall the hallway. Officer Riddell still had hold of defendant’s arms as try defendant continued to “to break himself free.” Officer Heard and Sergeant helped gain Brunner control of needed to be defendant. Officer Riddell determined that defendant “get stop resisting, him to and to the chance of handcuffed to anyone harming any of the officers else area.” Officer and/or gave the use his lower grip Riddell’s on defendant still result, they arms. As a Officer Riddell “made the determination” “in going get ground prone to to defendant down onto the were have him, position” continuing in order to handcuff “as he was to resist the handcuffed got ground entire time.” The officers defendant to the outside, Next, got up, him. Officer Riddell walked under for officer. While explained that arrest defendant, Riddell the odor of alcohol on his talking to Officer noticed breath. cross-examination, testified that defendant
On during into contact Allen’s vomit should not have come wall, altercation, against because the vomit was the left and the lock- up against right on the wall. they ers that ended were John, Sergeant duty Jason was on outside the dance at the who incident, next as After Officer Heard time of the testified follows. inside, Sergeant him that there an altercation John went advised He inside “towards the middle to the end of this incident.” observed led go defendant to let of a crash door that Officer instruct part the door defendant into the dance. It was hard to describe what onto; holding Sergeant thought edge it was the of the door. John Riddell, gym, to inside the told defendant who was “very go let of the door two or three times. Defendant was loud very Sergeant with Officer Riddell.” John recalled Ward’s angry away something pulled that then defendant girlfriend yelled Lee Riddell, pushed the arm. Defendant from Officer who had him, and he back Officer who was behind Heard, him. who was front of booking process handled the for defendant’s
Officer Daniel Leifker drinking, Officer Leifker smelled a Though defendant denied arrest. breath, glassy, eyes and defendant’s were strong odor of alcohol on his red, bloodshot. arrived at the dance around testified as follows. He
Defendant friends told drinking had been earlier. Defendant’s midnight and Allen, his last defendant did not know guy him that some named “dazed,” defendant name, Because Allen was feeling well. “for a second.” Defendant talked to Allen thought he was intoxicated. dance, enjoy thought any Allen was not condition Defendant pick up Allen. acquaintance a mutual arrange so wanted exit, a few officers helping Allen walk toward As defendant was The Allen from the dance. he could not take advised defendant that *5 Smith, did explain why, professor officers not and Derrick event, university chaperoning help get who was told defendant to Allen building. out of the Defendant understood from the officers that relinquish Allen, he would in trouble or if did arrested however, began vomiting so he did. Allen then sat down in a chair and some more.
Defendant, standing who was near the “left-most door” to the gym, they discussed the matter with friends as Smith some waited Ward, for the ambulance to neighbor- arrive. who lived hood, was another concerned friend of Allen’s. Defendant denied other; he and Ward became belligerent with each defendant “an was Although Ward, associate” of Ward. he did not come to the dance with they together. stood line Defendant was not aware that had Ward leave, been asked to talking because defendant was with Smith about Allen’s talking situation. Defendant was with some friends when he just “was kind up against of brushed on the back and kind grabbed.” “yanked” Defendant figure “looked back like to go- out what was ing on and this officer to” him. arrest The officer “had his cuffs out trying get” defendant. Defendant “caught guard” off when Officer grabbed Although from behind.
may grabbed have initially on, door to see going what was he did not continually hold on to the door. Officer Riddell did say anything prior grabbing his arm. Defendant did not know that Officer Riddell was behind him until grabbed Officer Riddell his arm. None of the officers told arrest; defendant that he was under they told that he being escorted from the dance. Defendant blocking denied standing between Officer Riddell Lee; Ward and interfering denied any with Officer Riddell in way.
Officer Heard then came on the scene and tried to “take” defendant “down” a few times. The first time Officer Heard lunged at defendant, defendant way, moved out of the causing Officer Heard to miss him. Defendant did if not know Officer Heard fell down. Officer
Heard then became angry” “more and hit defendant in leg a few times with the baton. pushed Defendant never Officer Heard or knocked him down. Two more officers in getting assisted defendant to the ground. officers; Defendant never any of the “simply trying to avoid” “puddle throw-up.” thrown into a Defendant did not know how he smelled of alcohol unless there was some clothes, alcohol on his or unless the odor came from some of the vomit gotten that had on his clothes. Smith,
Derrick university, teacher and counselor at the testified as Initially, follows. Allen, Smith advised defendant to help his friend intoxicated, Sergeant
who out of the dance. Smith then heard Brun- telling building, ner defendant that he could not take Allen out of the doing liability university. because so would create a for the Based on information, giv- pulled apologized Smith defendant aside and ing helped him incorrect advice. Defendant “backed off’ and Allen sit that, know, “guy,” down in a chair. After another whom Smith did not “screaming hollering cursing” police came out at the officer guy pushed “young lady way” ap- and Smith. The out of the and was Allen, parently “trying to defend” in the chair. Smith and who was talking doorway gym they defendant were heard a “ ” “ T police say, you replied, told to leave twice.’ Smith ‘We ” “ said, didn’t ‘All anything,’ you do and defendant had to do was ask ” Then, said, me to move.’ another officer rushed from the side and “ ” said,’ grab” and he ‘Youheard what he “went to defendant. Both of *6 converged the officers on defendant. Smith tried to tell the officers that they and that talk defendant. necessary this was not should let Smith to down, gave the almost fell the officer Smith a When one of officers look,” on,” going up “little so Smith “knew what was and he backed put let defendant’s arms behind and the officers continue. The officers while, calling asking All and the his back. the on Smith they doing. got the officers defendant in the officers what were When hall, leg defendant’s or times in order to one officer kicked four five the knock defendant down. Defendant fell face down and both of offi- jumped cers on his back and handcuffed him. Defendant was not told he was under arrest until after he was handcuffed. Smith denied that and he denied going gym, defendant blocked the officers from placed police people that defendant himself between the and other the dance.
Patrick Thomas testified that he went to the dance with defendant. they the dance until were Both of them tried to escort Allen out of defendant, that, Thomas, by police to do so. After instructed Then, standing doorway gym. in hall near the to the Smith were the in their direction. down the hall there was a scuffle that moved [defendant] Thomas saw that an officer “had come into contact with maybe couple words very quickly the contact turned from Defendant did exchanged very like attack on” defendant. to violent any of them from any shove of the officers or push or that just standing there. Thomas testified entering gym; the through the door and instead “[m]aybe trying the officer was to come to move wanting go anything just wanted around up fight about way.” put of the Defendant did not [defendant] out the officer was moving way. thought the Thomas that out of reason, vomit, particular into the for no [defendant] “slam got violent got another officer physical, the first officer behind.” After point, At this into the vomit. not shove defendant after he could put knees on their had surrendered. Three officers defendant he was on legs to hit his while back and used their batons ground. defendant argument, maintained that During the State’s the State resisting arrest; needed simply be to be did not have to court, however, that noted act the officer. The authorized point, At what alleged defendant had resisted arrest. complaint that arrest, in know, under because was defendant the court wanted to resist, similarly arrest.” Defendant “order to one must first be under fairly apprise charging of a instrument was to argued purpose that with, charged that there was “no indication him of what he was on part the criminal conduct here that the nature of During an officer.” State’s obstructing [had] defendant do with struggling with argument, argued that Riddell was rebuttal him; grab defendant, pushing that Officer Riddell had who was struggle; while defendant continued to and that ground. The court pushed another officer to the indicated its shoving prior to the ar- pushing notes showed occurred rest, agreed and it asked the State to address this issue. The State that he that the formal arrest which defendant was advised Still, argued under arrest occurred later. the State that the act tak- arrest, ing taking custody statute, “into him into under ‘Sir, told, you very beginning started from the [defendant] ” State, out According need to move.’ to the defendant did not move Then, way, push but started to Riddell back. there was that, pushing defendant in put continued after that Officer hug”; against back push “bear defendant continued to wall; or the to flail his arms and the lockers defendant continued *7 struggle. The next wanted to the basis for defendant’s ar- court know that, replied point, rest. The State at that Officer Riddell could have obstructing “authorized act” arrested defendant for Officer Riddell’s by of “do control” “trying to control of the situation” and crowd belligerent.” escorting out individual who had “been guilty consumption of unlawful of The court found defendant resisting charge. Specifi- ruling alcohol but reserved its on the arrest charged pushing with cally, the court noted that defendant was rather, shoving and Heard; charged pushing down Officer process Riddell in of arrested. The court’s recollec- the before shoving pushing of the that “the and occurred tion evidence was according to the “resisting as qualify the arrest” thus would complaint.” 20, 2009,
On August parties the in appeared court for the ruling resisting charge. on the The court stated had reviewed the transcript finding and was defendant guilty resisting peace of a officer. According court, the “the occurred after an arrest.” parties’ agreed-upon approved court,
The by sentence was the timely appealed.
II. ANALYSIS Resisting A. a Peace Officer arguments Defendant makes several why the evidence was insuf ficient prove beyond him guilty a reasonable of resisting doubt peace A officer. criminal conviction not be will set aside unless the improbable evidence is so or that it unsatisfactory creates reasonable Synnott, doubt of the guilt. People App. 223, defendant’s v. 349 Ill. 3d (2004). 228-29 “In reviewing sufficiency evidence, ‘the whether, question relevant viewing after light evidence most prosecution, any favorable to the rational trier of fact could have ” found beyond the essential of elements the crime a reasonable doubt.’ Synnott, 229, App. Collins, quoting People 349 (1985). 3d at v. 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 mentioned, previously
As charged in this case with knowingly resisting performance by Officer Riddell of an act authorized within his official capacity, being the arrest of defendant, knowing Officer Riddell to engaged be a duties, execution official shoved Officer Riddell. statute The under which defendant charged is section 1(a) provides: person the Criminal Code of “A which who 31— knowingly resists or performance by obstructs the one known to the person officer, a peace to be firefighter, or correctional institution employee any authorized act within capacity his official commits a 1(a) (West 2008). Class A misdemeanor.” 720 ILCS The statute 5/31— prohibits person committing physical act resistance or physical impedes, hinders, obstruction —a act that interrupts, prevents, duties, delays performance or by of the officer’s such as going limp forcefully resisting People or 378 Ill. McCoy, arrest. (2008). “Resisting” withstanding “resistance” means the force or effect of or the exertion of oneself to counteract or defeat. Synnott, Ill. App. 3d at 225. addressing arguments, begin clarifying
Before defendant’s we sequence events, specifically point at which defendant arrested. Riddell testified that when defendant held on to ability door and blocked his Ward and Lee from the escort dance, arm grabbed placed his arm on defendant’s
227 as well. him from the dance him, escort but to triceps, not to arrest at this arresting not testimony that he was Riddell’s Officer arrest the act of court that answer to the the State’s point contradicts was when defendant very beginning” ing defendant “started important event, of events sequence In any move.” told “to period on the time arguments many of his defendant focuses because Although the under arrest. placed defendant Officer Riddell before trial court crucial time of arrest was recognized pinpointing arrest, in resisted defendant had fact determining in whether under ar actually point at specify court did not what that the transcript and determined Still, rest. the court reviewed arrest, infer the time are able to resisting occurred after the we Rid- testimony. According to Officer Riddell’s arrest based on Officer dell, him and used his away from it was not until defendant broke determined hands to knock down Officer Heard that arresting defendant, interpret as which we “had to control” (2006) (an People Washington, defendant. See restrained person’s a freedom of movement is arrest occurs when determining whether authority; or a show of the test physical force whether, surrounding light in suspect has been arrested is circumstances, reasonable, person would have considered innocent leave). grabbed hold of defendant himself free to After Officer Riddell time, “pushed” the two of them into set the second try and continued to to break himself free. lockers mind, argu- line in turn to defendant’s first With this time we ment, peace that he was aware that Officer Riddell was a which is alleged support position, time of his resistance. To him dur- standing Riddell behind defendant contends Officer encounter; Officer Riddell admitted ing stages” “the relevant direct eye defendant or had a that he never made contact with him; allegedly ignored Officer Riddell’s conversation with demonstrating that requests to and did not act in a manner move officer; never told peace and defendant was knew Officer Riddell was argument Defendant’s under arrest until he was handcuffs. lacks merit. officers,
First, like the other undisputed it is that Officer Second, if Officer Riddell’s defendant concedes that uniform. defendant’s, was events, dramatically from differed version which indeed believed, inference that defendant permit then it would trial, At peace officer. aware that Officer Riddell was a me as saw [defendant] to think testified that he “would have girlfriend and his between Mr. Ward positioned [defendant] himself findings express any factual the trial court did not myself.” While case, apparently testimony in this credited Riddell’s over Third, testimony defendant’s. defendant’s own belies the claim that he not aware that Officer Riddell was a officer. Defendant testified that he did know Officer Riddell was behind him and that *9 caught guard off grabbed him from However, behind. defendant further that testified when he “looked figure on,” to going back out what was “this officer to” ar- Thus, rest him. was aware Officer a defendant that Riddell was officer. a argument, challenges
In related defendant Officer Riddell’s testimony as overwhelming weight incredible contradicted defendant, of trial. According evidence introduced at to no wit- other defendant, ness confirmed Officer Riddell’s events version of whereas Smith, and interposed Thomas all denied that defendant himself Ward and between Lee Officer Riddell or backed Riddell Officer gym. Also, out argues Sergeant of defendant that John’s version of Riddell; events contradicted that of Officer and there was no evidence providing motive for defendant’s alleged behavior. given
Determinations witness credibility, weight to be testimony, and the to be reasonable inferences drawn from fact, responsibilities reviewing are evidence of the trier not the McCoy, App. court. 378 Ill. 3d at 962. While defendant offered conflicting happened, version of for the fact to what it was trier of which McCoy, App. determine version events to believe. See 378 Ill. (although presented 3d 963 the defendant a different version of events, it was for the trier of fact to determine which events version of believe). case, evidently to In the trial Rid- court found Officer defendant’s, testimony say dell’s more credible than and we cannot improbable that the evidence unsatisfactory was so that it leaves a regarding addition, reasonable doubt In not ac guilt. it is say Sergeant testimony curate to that John’s contradicted Rid- Officer testimony. Sergeant with testi dell’s Consistent Officer John go fied that Officer Riddell instructed defendant to let of the door. Sergeant defendant with John’s of what description While takes issue to, part holding Sergeant explained the door defendant on John hold part that it was hard to describe what of the door defendant was to; Moreover, it ing edge on believed that was the door. is Sergeant entire consequence of little John did witness the leading arrest, because, previ sequence up of events to the eventual as stated, away until ously not under arrest he broke required was not to Finally, knocked down Officer Heard. the State (1994) Curtis, prove App. motive. v. 262 Ill. 3d 884 People See crime). (motive is not an essential element of a engaged was not Riddell argues next Defendant statute, “police because required under the act as authorized as a substitute from behind grab person not authorized person communicating authority or her establishing justified Riddell was follows that Officer verbally.” argument The around taking 5 seconds to walk rather than in “grabbing [defendant] face.” him face to a discussion with front to have [defendant’s] events, version of Officer Riddell’s ignores again, Once credited, his own. Officer and substitutes trial court which the behavior, he “belligerent” “loud” and testified that based on Ward’s agreed compliant that he needed to leave. Ward advised Ward and Lee Riddell did not want Ward Lee. Because Officer to leave with out, the two crowd, attempted to escort in with the to blend back Carroll, People to do. See which he was authorized (1971) (“authorized” authority). To exit means endowed with it. It gym enter the and walk across building, necessary it was Lee that escorting out Ward and was when Officer Riddell was them, body into Officer himself forced his wedged between back, to the door to grabbed and then on Riddell and ability point, to move forward. At this block Officer Riddell’s *10 he escort way Riddell defendant to out of the so that could advised Logically, Of out, ignored request. defendant his these individuals but impeding ficer Riddell also authorized to defendant from argues Officer Riddell’s essentially this task. While defendant that act, argu an authorized defendant’s response to his conduct was not facts, trial court ment his which the dependent is on version rejected. Riddell was not at argument
Defendant’s next is that Officer resisted, he did not allegedly him he and that tempting to arrest position in defendant’s is that persuaded. resist. are not The flaw We Of wrong the time line. It is true that when part he focuses on the in release his hold on the grabbed ficer defendant order to Riddell Rather, Officer door, arrest him. attempting Officer Riddell was not to dance as well. that needed to leave the Riddell instructed defendant followed, i.e., breaking away defendant It is the series of events that Heard, Riddell to seize that caused Officer knocking down Officer around the front of by wrapping arrest his arms or defendant back. hands behind defendant’s interlocking defendant’s arms and his (an (2005) Torres, 234, 242 arrest 214 Ill. 2d City Champaign See v. 1). under section made is an “authorized act” by peace a officer 31— the arrest itself Moreover, argument’s if sake that even we assume for impact on defendant’s finding a would have no proper, was not such This is because resistance resisting peace a officer. conviction 230 arrest
even unlawful a known officer is a violation of section Torres, 214 31—1. See Ill. 2d at 242. Although downplays conduct, his Riddell that Officer testified defendant continued to resist fight by “motioning trying his back and body forth to buck [Of him,” ficer Riddell] off of and that defendant both him Of ficer Riddell back into a set of See 378 Ill. McCoy, App. lockers. 3d (the struggling wrestling acts of police physi with a officer are cal acts of officer, support resisting peace resistance will conviction of unwarranted). attempted if underlying
even arrest is For reason, this made determination that defendant prone in a position ground needed to be on the be order to handcuffed, and it took accomplish additional officers to this task. Lastly, claim that point defendant’s there no one where he should testimony have known he was under arrest belied by is his that when on, he looked back see going to what was an officer was ar to sum, rest him. In there is ample support evidence to the trial court’s finding that defendant resisted arrest. argument respect
Defendant’s final to charge justified in preventing police is that tripping throwing him or hallway to a floor covered in vomit. On hand, one person that a to concedes is authorized force by peace use to resist an arrest that he knows is made of ficer, even if he believes the arrest is unlawful and the arrest (West 2008). fact unlawful. 720 ILCS See Defendant cites 5/7—7 People Wicks, (2005), however, App. for the general proposition exception that an to this rule exists when of case, uses force. In ficer excessive there is no evidence that the of ficers used force. court on say, excessive As the Wicks went to “the of required ficers were entitled to use the protect force themselves and Wicks, effect arrest.” 355 Ill. 3d at 764. The here altercation began placing with defendant himself between Officer Riddell and using body push Ward Lee and his back Riddell. After Officer grabbed hold of the door block Officer Riddell from enter ing gym, placed grabbed Officer defendant’s arm arm on triceps. other the back It was defendant who free and down Heard. broke knocked When Riddell saw ground, Officer Heard’s baton on the he restrained defendant *11 assaulting Officer Heard he was on the while greater response The use of force in direct ground. officers’ argues defendant’s While defendant “thrown” onto actions. conduct, justified floor vomit” Riddell testi a with “fresh located in differ fied that the was a nonissue because it was vomit Viewing light most ent area from the altercation. the evidence State, argument fails. favorable to the
231 a Minor Alcohol as Consuming B. there was insufficient is that argument appeal on
Defendant’s last agree a minor. We consuming alcohol as him of evidence to convict failing this issue defendant has forfeited the State that with Sakel authority. See legal argument support develop the (2009) (the 795, failure to as App. Ill. 3d Campbell, lariadis legal authority is a viola supported by argument sert a well-reasoned 341(h)(7) (210 341(h)(7)), Ill. 2d R. Rule Supreme Court tion forfeiture). resulting
III. CONCLUSION court reasons, judgment of the circuit For the aforementioned County De is affirmed. of Kalb
Affirmed.
SCHOSTOK, J., concurs. O’MALLEY,specially concurring: JUSTICE them, majority resolve as the trial court and the Under the facts dance removing defendant from the question there is no that Riddell’s so capacity,” act official [Riddell’s] constituted “an authorized within classified, defendant’s that, regardless may Riddell’s actions be of how (720 ILCS supports conduct a conviction of 1(a) (West 2008)). major- the trial court and the only The reason 5/31— is that amounted to an “arrest” ity require Riddell’s actions have charging instrument described the authorized act that on the date of the dance [defendant]” resisted as Riddell’s “arrest of event. notes, freedom majority person’s an “arrest” occurs when a
As authority, by physical is restrained force or a show movement suspect has been arrested determining and the test for whether circumstances, reasonable, in whether, light surrounding Ill. himself free to leave. 404 person nocent would have considered 23; In re 3d at see also App. citing Washington, App. 3d at 363 Ill. (1995) (“A J.W., has been arrested person 957-58 App. by means has been restrained when his or her freedom of movement is, Thus, “arrest” authority”). the word physical force or a show of “synonymous with” purposes, fourth amendment least for J.W., Under these defini 274 Ill. 3d at 957. concept of a seizure. interaction with tions, exactly Riddell’s the word “arrest” describes him to arm and ordered point he took defendant’s defendant from the resisted Riddell’s said that defendant complaint leave. The could have *12 232 act, wit,
lawful “to Riddell’s use of force to control defendant’s move- ment,” just or it could used the have shorthand “arrest” to describe same thing. problem the I see no choosing with the State’s the latter disagree option. Accordingly, majority I with the that must we precisely placed determine defendant was under I when formal arrest. that, regardless formally would hold ar- whether defendant was pushed rested he he was arrested the sense he that seized was when he Riddell.
The approach
requiring
departs
a formal arrest
from the above
unnecessary
definition
“arrest” and introduces
confusion
into
While
case.
there is in some contexts a distinction
ar
between a formal
(such
Ohio,
1,
and a lesser
Terry stop (Terry
rest
seizure
as a
v.
U.S.
392
(1968)))
889,
L.
20
Ed. 2d
Ct. 1868
a community caretaking
88 S.
Luedemann,
(2006)),
stop (People v.
It is if from true defendant had with Riddell start, diffused, and would have defendant would situation formally initially been The fact that Riddell did not have arrested. defendant, however, change does not formally intend arrest analysis. Indeed, the same manner as the even if resisted in him, indicate, to formally here Riddell declined arrest facts but would Rid- defendant’s actions still have amounted resistance to (i.e., him attempt by removing seize him him from dell’s to arrest dance). That evolved a seizure-arrest to a formal the encounter prior arrest does not irrelevant defendant’s conduct render arrest. formal
Further, very case make charging instrument in this would refer if the word were understood to little sense its use of “arrest” arrest, only only to a formal and not to a seizure. It after physical place resistance that Riddell resolved fact, under formal arrest. In ground defendant’s resistance was the for the formal arrest. If defendant not under formal until after arrest resisted, then how could Riddell “resisting have arrested My reading meaning arrest”? broader “arrest” word as charging “seizure” in the likely instrument is also far the more interpretation under the facts of complaint against this case. The premised “push[ing], shov[ing] on his [Jefferey] Rid- dell” on the date of the language dance. This is a clear reference to *13 the evidence that Riddell after Riddell took him the arm dance, to escort him from the and it leaves no confusion as to the misconduct that alleged to have committed. my view,
In the word “arrest” as it is used in this case refers to a seizure, Thus, not to a formal arrest. enough should be say the evidence here showed that defendant resisted while Riddell was trying to dance, remove him from regardless of whether Riddell’s actions amounted to a formal arrest or some lesser seizure. Although the trial court based its finding guilt on the idea that defendant committed acts of resistance arrest, after his formal finding its State’s favor leaves no doubt that it would also have convicted if it had read complaint I it, as would read to refer to defendant’s pushing shoving Riddell at point during some their Thus, encounter. I would affirm judgment the trial court’s on the I basis describe above. al., BALMA et
LADYS al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EDWARD G. HENRY et Counterplaintiffs Defendants and Counterdefendants-Appellees.
Second District No. 2 — 09—1301 Opinion September filed Rehearing denied October 2010. 2010.