Recently, David G. Sigale obtained a reversal of the Defendant’s conviction for resisting and/or obstructing arrest in State v. Elliott, 2022 IL App (2d) 210359-U. In Elliott, a police officer began following the Defendant, whom he believed he observed speeding. After following the Defendant for some time, the officer realized the Defendant was actually home. In fact, by the time the officer turned on his squad car lights, the Defendant was in his driveway and pulling his car into the garage.
The officer hurried to the garage door and stuck his foot across the threshold, triggering the safety mechanism and causing the door to rise. Without a warrant, the officer ordered the Defendant to come out and get a speeding ticket, and the Defendant refused to do so. The officer came back with a warrant for the ticket and an arrest for obstruction of justice, based solely on the Defendant’s lack of compliance with the officer’s order to exit the garage. The Defendant argued the warrantless entry violated the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, and that the Defendant had a right to refuse to leave his home that could not be the basis for the resisting/obstructing arrest charge. The trial court denied both arguments, and the Defendant was convicted of resisting/obstructing.
On appeal, the Firm obtained a reversal of the conviction. The Court held that the officer had no warrant, there was no “hot pursuit” or exigent circumstances, and thus no reason to enter Defendant’s home, including sticking a foot onto Defendant’s property to prevent the garage door from going down. Since “the officer lacked authority to enter the home under the circumstances, he had no authority to order defendant out of the home.” “The physical entry of the home is the “chief evil” against which the fourth amendment is directed.” People v. Koniecki, 135 Ill. App. 3d 394, 398 (1985). The Court discussed the exceptions to the warrant requirement, including the “hot pursuit” exception, and found none of them applied. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held in Lange v. California, 141 S. Ct. 2011 (2021), that the “hot pursuit” exception generally (if not presumptively)
applies to felony suspects, but its application to misdemeanor suspects (such as for speeding) is determined on a case-by-case review of “whether there is a law enforcement emergency.” Id. at 2023-24.
Basically, without a warrant or recognized exception, all a police officer may do at someone’s home is “approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 8-9 (2013). As examples, without a warrant the officer may not veer off to the garage and look through the windows, or bring a evidence-sniffing dog onto the front porch. In this case, the Court found the officer’s actions went way too far, and the Defendant’s refusal to acquiesce to the illegal actions could not be the basis of a resisting/obstructing charge. The Court noted that “refraining from physical action or failing to cooperate with the police is generally not considered the same as resisting or obstructing an officer.” People v. Cope, 299 Ill. App. 3d 184, 189 (1998).
The Firm is pleased it was able to correct a constitutional injustice, and rein in the law enforcement overreach in this case.
The Law Firm of David G. Sigale, P.C. was founded to serve the legal needs of the Chicago metropolitan area. Mr. Sigale has counseled and represented corporate and individual clients across the United States and internationally. He believes in protecting Americans from improper attempts by the government to infringe upon their constitutional rights. His firm services clients in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall and Will Counties, and as well as reviews matters in other locations on a case-by-case basis. Contact the firm for a consultation.
