NOTICE 2015 IL App (5th) 140423 Decision filed 02/11/15. The text of this decision may be NO. 5-14-0423 changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE the same.
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT ________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Madison County. ) v. ) No. 14-TR-8913 ) CHRISTOPHER M. GEILER, ) Honorable ) Elizabeth R. Levy, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, presiding. ________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE MOORE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Stewart and Schwarm concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 The State appeals the July 31, 2014, order of the circuit court of Madison County
that granted the motion of the defendant, Christopher M. Geiler, to dismiss a traffic
citation for failure to timely file the citation with the circuit clerk within 48 hours, in
violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 552 (eff. Sept. 30, 2002), as a part of a clear and
consistent violation of said rule. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶2 FACTS
¶3 On May 5, 2014, the defendant was issued a traffic citation by the police
department of the City of Troy for driving 15 miles per hour over the speed limit. The
1 citation was filed in the Madison County circuit clerk's office on May 9, 2014. On June
11, 2014, the defendant filed a pro se motion to dismiss the citation, alleging that it was
not processed in a timely fashion, in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 552 (eff.
Sept. 30, 2002).
¶4 A hearing on the motion was held on July 30, 2014, 1 at which the following
testimony and evidence was adduced. Todd Hays testified that he is employed as a
detective by the Troy police department and has been so employed for over 11 years. He
described the citation and complaint filing process as follows. Once a citation is issued,
it is deposited into a secure bond box in the dispatch office. Every Monday and Friday,
the supervisors remove the citations from the box, review them, record them on bond
sheets, and deliver them to the courthouse. Hays testified that it is impossible to transport
the citations daily, and he estimated that there are approximately 30 to 50 citations filed
every Monday and Friday. Hays noted that citations issued over the weekend are brought
to the courthouse on Monday and those issued through the week are brought to the
courthouse on Friday. In response to specific questioning regarding citations issued on
Tuesday, Hays agreed that those are not filed at the courthouse until Friday.
1 The matter was previously set and the defendant at that time had a stack of
citations, in addition to the one issued to him, that had been issued by the City of Troy.
The citations were admitted into evidence and reviewed by the State, after which the
State refused to dismiss the citation against the defendant. The matter was reset to July
30, 2014.
2 ¶5 Hays averred that he is familiar with Supreme Court Rule 552 (eff. Sept. 30, 2002)
and explained that "the tickets should be up within 48 hours." He emphasized, "[I]t's not
a mandate. *** [T]his is our decision that if you can get them up in 48 hours, if possible,
that's the way it should be."
¶6 The circuit court entered an order on July 31, 2014, granting the defendant's
motion to dismiss, based on a finding of a clear and consistent violation of Supreme
Court Rule 552, pursuant to this court's ruling in People v. Hanna, 185 Ill. App. 3d 404
(1989). The State filed a timely notice of appeal.
¶7 ANALYSIS
¶8 The issue on appeal is whether the circuit court erred by granting the defendant's
motion to dismiss. "[W]here there is no factual or credibility dispute and the question
involves only the application of the law to the undisputed facts, our standard of review is
de novo." People v. Robinson, 322 Ill. App. 3d 169, 173 (2001).
¶9 Supreme Court Rule 552 provides, inter alia: "The arresting officer shall complete
the form or ticket and, within 48 hours after the arrest, shall transmit [it] *** to the clerk
of the circuit court of the county in which the violation occurred." Ill. S. Ct. R. 552 (eff.
Sept. 30, 2002). In People v. Hanna, we addressed whether DUI citations were properly
dismissed by the circuit court when the arresting officers failed to file the citations with
the circuit clerk within 48 hours, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 552. 185 Ill. App. 3d
at 408. We stated in Hanna that "Rule 552 is part of article V of the supreme court rules"
(id. at 408), which "was adopted *** to ensure judicial efficiency and uniformity as well
as 'to expedite the handling of traffic cases.' " Id. (quoting People v. Roberts, 113 Ill. 3 App. 3d 1046, 1050 (1983)).
¶ 10 We further recognized that when making the determination whether the language
of a statute is mandatory or directory, the Illinois Supreme Court has held that:
" 'a statute which specifies the time for the performance of an official duty will be
considered directory only where the rights of the parties cannot be injuriously
affected by failure to act within the time indicated. However, where such statute
contains negative words, denying the exercise of the power after the time named,
or where a disregard of its provisions would injuriously affect public interests or
private rights, it is not directory but mandatory.' " Id. at 409 (quoting Carrigan v.
Illinois Liquor Control Comm'n, 19 Ill. 2d 230, 233 (1960)).
¶ 11 Based on the principles in Carrigan, we concluded in Hanna that "the duty to file
or mail a traffic citation with the clerk of the court within 48 hours is directory" because
"[n]othing in the rule suggests that failure to follow the rule will injuriously affect a
party's rights." 185 Ill. App. 3d at 409. We noted, however, that the supreme court does
not make useless rules and if we reversed without directions, we would condone a
violation of Supreme Court Rule 552 and hinder the circuit court's control of its docket.
Id. Accordingly, we remanded with directions for the circuit court to determine whether
the procedure used by the officer or police department was a part of a pattern of clear and
consistent violation of Rule 552. Id. at 409-10. If such was the case, dismissal of the
citations would be warranted. Id. On the other hand, if the circuit court determined that
the violation of Rule 552 was inadvertent, dismissal would not be warranted. Id. at 410.
¶ 12 In this case, the State argues that the circuit court erred by granting the defendant's 4 motion to dismiss, based on People v. Hanna, because our ruling to remand that case for
a determination of whether the procedure used by the police department "was part of an
ongoing violation of Supreme Court Rule 552" (185 Ill. App. 3d at 409) was an
unauthorized supervisory order to the circuit court.
¶ 13 We begin by noting that the State forfeited this argument on appeal by failing to
raise it in the circuit court. See People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 175 (2005) (generally,
issues not raised before the circuit court are forfeited on appeal). The State argues that it
would have been futile to raise the issue at the trial level, because the circuit court was
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE 2015 IL App (5th) 140423 Decision filed 02/11/15. The text of this decision may be NO. 5-14-0423 changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE the same.
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT ________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Madison County. ) v. ) No. 14-TR-8913 ) CHRISTOPHER M. GEILER, ) Honorable ) Elizabeth R. Levy, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, presiding. ________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE MOORE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Stewart and Schwarm concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 The State appeals the July 31, 2014, order of the circuit court of Madison County
that granted the motion of the defendant, Christopher M. Geiler, to dismiss a traffic
citation for failure to timely file the citation with the circuit clerk within 48 hours, in
violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 552 (eff. Sept. 30, 2002), as a part of a clear and
consistent violation of said rule. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶2 FACTS
¶3 On May 5, 2014, the defendant was issued a traffic citation by the police
department of the City of Troy for driving 15 miles per hour over the speed limit. The
1 citation was filed in the Madison County circuit clerk's office on May 9, 2014. On June
11, 2014, the defendant filed a pro se motion to dismiss the citation, alleging that it was
not processed in a timely fashion, in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 552 (eff.
Sept. 30, 2002).
¶4 A hearing on the motion was held on July 30, 2014, 1 at which the following
testimony and evidence was adduced. Todd Hays testified that he is employed as a
detective by the Troy police department and has been so employed for over 11 years. He
described the citation and complaint filing process as follows. Once a citation is issued,
it is deposited into a secure bond box in the dispatch office. Every Monday and Friday,
the supervisors remove the citations from the box, review them, record them on bond
sheets, and deliver them to the courthouse. Hays testified that it is impossible to transport
the citations daily, and he estimated that there are approximately 30 to 50 citations filed
every Monday and Friday. Hays noted that citations issued over the weekend are brought
to the courthouse on Monday and those issued through the week are brought to the
courthouse on Friday. In response to specific questioning regarding citations issued on
Tuesday, Hays agreed that those are not filed at the courthouse until Friday.
1 The matter was previously set and the defendant at that time had a stack of
citations, in addition to the one issued to him, that had been issued by the City of Troy.
The citations were admitted into evidence and reviewed by the State, after which the
State refused to dismiss the citation against the defendant. The matter was reset to July
30, 2014.
2 ¶5 Hays averred that he is familiar with Supreme Court Rule 552 (eff. Sept. 30, 2002)
and explained that "the tickets should be up within 48 hours." He emphasized, "[I]t's not
a mandate. *** [T]his is our decision that if you can get them up in 48 hours, if possible,
that's the way it should be."
¶6 The circuit court entered an order on July 31, 2014, granting the defendant's
motion to dismiss, based on a finding of a clear and consistent violation of Supreme
Court Rule 552, pursuant to this court's ruling in People v. Hanna, 185 Ill. App. 3d 404
(1989). The State filed a timely notice of appeal.
¶7 ANALYSIS
¶8 The issue on appeal is whether the circuit court erred by granting the defendant's
motion to dismiss. "[W]here there is no factual or credibility dispute and the question
involves only the application of the law to the undisputed facts, our standard of review is
de novo." People v. Robinson, 322 Ill. App. 3d 169, 173 (2001).
¶9 Supreme Court Rule 552 provides, inter alia: "The arresting officer shall complete
the form or ticket and, within 48 hours after the arrest, shall transmit [it] *** to the clerk
of the circuit court of the county in which the violation occurred." Ill. S. Ct. R. 552 (eff.
Sept. 30, 2002). In People v. Hanna, we addressed whether DUI citations were properly
dismissed by the circuit court when the arresting officers failed to file the citations with
the circuit clerk within 48 hours, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 552. 185 Ill. App. 3d
at 408. We stated in Hanna that "Rule 552 is part of article V of the supreme court rules"
(id. at 408), which "was adopted *** to ensure judicial efficiency and uniformity as well
as 'to expedite the handling of traffic cases.' " Id. (quoting People v. Roberts, 113 Ill. 3 App. 3d 1046, 1050 (1983)).
¶ 10 We further recognized that when making the determination whether the language
of a statute is mandatory or directory, the Illinois Supreme Court has held that:
" 'a statute which specifies the time for the performance of an official duty will be
considered directory only where the rights of the parties cannot be injuriously
affected by failure to act within the time indicated. However, where such statute
contains negative words, denying the exercise of the power after the time named,
or where a disregard of its provisions would injuriously affect public interests or
private rights, it is not directory but mandatory.' " Id. at 409 (quoting Carrigan v.
Illinois Liquor Control Comm'n, 19 Ill. 2d 230, 233 (1960)).
¶ 11 Based on the principles in Carrigan, we concluded in Hanna that "the duty to file
or mail a traffic citation with the clerk of the court within 48 hours is directory" because
"[n]othing in the rule suggests that failure to follow the rule will injuriously affect a
party's rights." 185 Ill. App. 3d at 409. We noted, however, that the supreme court does
not make useless rules and if we reversed without directions, we would condone a
violation of Supreme Court Rule 552 and hinder the circuit court's control of its docket.
Id. Accordingly, we remanded with directions for the circuit court to determine whether
the procedure used by the officer or police department was a part of a pattern of clear and
consistent violation of Rule 552. Id. at 409-10. If such was the case, dismissal of the
citations would be warranted. Id. On the other hand, if the circuit court determined that
the violation of Rule 552 was inadvertent, dismissal would not be warranted. Id. at 410.
¶ 12 In this case, the State argues that the circuit court erred by granting the defendant's 4 motion to dismiss, based on People v. Hanna, because our ruling to remand that case for
a determination of whether the procedure used by the police department "was part of an
ongoing violation of Supreme Court Rule 552" (185 Ill. App. 3d at 409) was an
unauthorized supervisory order to the circuit court.
¶ 13 We begin by noting that the State forfeited this argument on appeal by failing to
raise it in the circuit court. See People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 175 (2005) (generally,
issues not raised before the circuit court are forfeited on appeal). The State argues that it
would have been futile to raise the issue at the trial level, because the circuit court was
bound by the Hanna decision (185 Ill. App. 3d 404). We find this does not excuse the
State from properly preserving the issue by asserting the argument before the circuit
court. Accordingly, we find the argument is forfeited.
¶ 14 Forfeiture notwithstanding, however, we find the State's argument unpersuasive
for various reasons. First, Hanna was decided in 1989 and is still good law. After Hanna
was filed, there was a petition for leave to appeal (PLA) to the Illinois Supreme Court,
which was denied. The State had the opportunity to assert this argument in Hanna, but
the Illinois Supreme Court did not see fit to grant the PLA. Moreover, there is no case
law contrary to our decision in Hanna and there is no negative history relative to the case
to support the State's argument.
¶ 15 Second, we note that Illinois Supreme Court Rule 552 (eff. Sept. 30, 2002) has not
been amended in any way since Hanna was decided. Had the Illinois Supreme Court
found a need to amend the rule based on the argument advanced by the State, there has
been ample time to make such amendments as necessary, but none have been made. 5 ¶ 16 Even assuming, arguendo, that Hanna was an improper supervisory order, there is
nothing in the record to indicate that the circuit court believed it was bound to follow
Hanna but wished to do otherwise. In other words, even had the court believed Hanna
was an unauthorized supervisory order, it could have independently reached the same
conclusion because the logic in Hanna is sound. The circuit court here could have
recognized on its own that, although the 48-hour deadline requirement is directory, the
supreme court does not make useless rules and the dismissal of the defendant's citation
would be warranted if exceeding the 48-hour deadline was a part of a clear and consistent
violation of Rule 552 by the Troy police department. For these reasons, we find that the
circuit court did not err by granting the defendant's motion to dismiss.
¶ 17 The State next argues that the appropriate disposition of this case would be to
remand with directions for the circuit court to first consider whether the violation of
Supreme Court Rule 552 resulted in prejudice to the defendant or impaired the circuit
court's management of its docket. We disagree. As stated above, People v. Hanna is still
good law. Under the analysis found in Hanna, only when a court has found the particular
violation of Rule 552 at issue was inadvertent, and therefore was not a part of a pattern of
clear and consistent violation of the rule, would the court consider whether the violation
resulted in prejudice to the defendant or impaired the circuit court's management of its
docket.
¶ 18 In this case, Detective Todd Hays testified that the Troy police department
consistently transports citations to the circuit clerk on Mondays and Fridays, causing
citations issued on Tuesdays to be filed beyond the 48-hour deadline, as well as those 6 issued on Mondays and Fridays after the other citations are brought in for filing.
Accordingly, a clear and consistent violation of Rule 552 has occurred, dismissal of the
defendant's citation is permissible on that basis, and, as a result, there is no need for the
circuit court to conduct a prejudice analysis in this case.
¶ 19 CONCLUSION
¶ 20 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the July 31, 2014, order of the circuit court of
Madison County that granted the motion of the defendant to dismiss the traffic citation
issued to him by the Troy police department on May 5, 2014.
¶ 21 Affirmed.
7 2015 IL App (5th) 140423
NO. 5-14-0423
IN THE
FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Madison County. ) v. ) No. 14-TR-8913 ) CHRISTOPHER M. GEILER, ) Honorable ) Elizabeth R. Levy, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________
Opinion Filed: February 11, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________
Justices: Honorable James R. Moore, J.
Honorable Bruce D. Stewart, J., and Honorable S. Gene Schwarm, J., Concur ______________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys Hon. Thomas D. Gibbons, State's Attorney, Madison County for Courthouse, 157 N. Main Street, Suite 402, Edwardsville, IL 62025; Appellant Patrick Delfino, Director, Stephen E. Norris, Deputy Director, Patrick D. Daly, Staff Attorney, Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, 730 East Illinois Highway 15, Suite 2, P.O. Box 2249, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 _____________________________________________________________________________
Attorney Christopher M. Geiler for 1501 Malia Drive Appellee (pro se) St. Jacob, IL 62281 ______________________________________________________________________________