People v. Gutt

9 Citing cases

  1. Madsen v. Park City

    6 F. Supp. 2d 938 (N.D. Ill. 1998)   Cited 21 times
    Holding stop without statutory authority violates Fourth Amendment only if it is "without probable cause or [the officer] violated some other constitutional prohibition"

    Arrests outside an officer's territorial jurisdiction, however, are limited to certain circumstances. Generally, the arrest must still be for an offense committed within the officer's jurisdiction People v. Gutt, 267 Ill. App.3d 95, 203 Ill.Dec., 863, 640 N.E.2d 1013, 1015 (2d Dist. 1994); People v. Leinweber, 234 Ill. App.3d 748, 175 Ill.Dec. 658, 600 N.E.2d 901, 902 (3d Dist.1992); People v. Thompson, 215 Ill. App.3d 514, 159 Ill.Dec. 27, 575 N.E.2d 256, 260 (4th Dist. 1991)

  2. People v. Kirvelaitis

    315 Ill. App. 3d 667 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 15 times
    In Kirvelaitis, the defendant argued that his arrest for speeding and driving while under the influence was without authority and the suspension of his driving privileges must be rescinded.

    People v. Lahr, 147 Ill.2d 379, 382 (1992). When an officer is outside his jurisdiction, he does not possess any greater right to arrest than the right given to private citizens.People v. Gutt, 267 Ill. App.3d 95, 98 (1994). Thus, a police officer outside his jurisdiction may not use the powers of his office, such as a radar gun, to make the arrest when those same powers are not available to the public.

  3. United States v. Correa

    908 F.3d 208 (7th Cir. 2018)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Correa we addressed the actions of a DEA agent who drove around a Chicago neighborhood pressing the buttons on a confiscated garage-door opener to determine which door it opened.

    See id. at *3. Under Illinois law, he could conduct a traffic stop outside his home municipality based on his observation of a turn made illegally without signaling. See People v. Gutt , 267 Ill.App.3d 95, 203 Ill.Dec. 863, 640 N.E.2d 1013, 1016 (1994). Even if the stop had not complied with state law, that would not affect the constitutionality of the stop, for which the officer’s observation of a traffic offense gave him probable cause, or the resulting search.

  4. Klingler v. City of Chi.

    15-CV-1609 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2017)

    Harroun v. Addison Police Pension Bd., 865 N.E.2d 273, 278 (Ill. App. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing 65 ILCS 5/7-4-8 and 65 ILCS 5/7-4-7). Outside of his or her police district (or any other exception), a police officer may only make a citizen's arrest. Id. (citing People v. Kleutgen, 833 N.E.2d 416, 419-20 (Ill. App. 2005)); see also People v. Gutt, 640 N.E.2d 1013, 1017 (Ill. App. 1994) ("when outside her jurisdiction, a police officer's right to arrest is no greater than that of a private citizen"). The City of Chicago does not fall within the jurisdictional authority of a Will County deputy sheriff, and if Griebel was acting as a citizen to restore the peace, he was not acting within the scope of his employment.

  5. People v. Williams

    74 N.E.3d 58 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    ΒΆ 31 In spite of these unusual events, we conclude the trial court's ruling misapplies existing case law. In People v. Gutt , 267 Ill.App.3d 95, 99, 203 Ill.Dec. 863, 640 N.E.2d 1013 (1994), the court upheld an extraterritorial arrest, similar to the case at bar. In that case, the off-duty officer first used a radar gun to obtain evidence but later observed the defendant fail to use his turn signal.

  6. People v. Frost

    2014 Ill. App. 5th 130428 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)

    Likewise, the subsequent breathalyzer test did not invalidate the arrest. See Plummer, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 253 (extraterritorial arrest for DUI based upon breathalyzer test was not improper, where officer stopped the defendant after observing him driving erratically); People v. Gutt, 267 Ill. App. 3d 95, 99 (1994) (extraterritorial arrest for DUI based upon breathalyzer test was not improper, where officer stopped defendant after observing him make a left turn without signaling); Gupton, 139 Ill. App. 3d at 534 (extraterritorial arrest for DUI based upon sobriety tests and breathalyzer test was not invalid where officer stopped the defendant after observing him swerving); Rowe, 128 Ill. App. 3d at 724 (extraterritorial arrest for DUI based upon breathalyzer test and statements made by defendant was not invalid where officers stopped the defendant after observing him swerving).ΒΆ 32 We further note that the supreme court's concern in Lahr with police authorities establishing extraterritorial radar surveillance for speeding is not applicable here. Lahr, 147 Ill. 2d at 386-87.

  7. People v. Part

    2014 Ill. App. 5th 130423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)

    Likewise, the subsequent breathalyzer test did not invalidate the arrest. See Plummer, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 253 (extraterritorial arrest for DUI based upon breathalyzer test was not improper, where officer stopped the defendant after observing him driving erratically); People v. Gutt, 267 Ill. App. 3d 95, 99 (1994) (extraterritorial arrest for DUI based upon breathalyzer test was not improper, where officer stopped defendant after observing him make a left turn without signaling); Gupton, 139 Ill. App. 3d at 534 (extraterritorial arrest for DUI based upon sobriety tests and breathalyzer test was not invalid where officer stopped the defendant after observing him swerving); Rowe, 128 Ill. App. 3d at 724 (extraterritorial arrest for DUI based upon breathalyzer test and statements made by defendant was not invalid where officers stopped the defendant after observing him swerving).ΒΆ 28 We further note that the supreme court's concern in Lahr with police authorities establishing extraterritorial radar surveillance for speeding is not applicable here. Lahr, 147 Ill. 2d at 386-87.

  8. People v. Plummer

    678 N.E.2d 1079 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 5 times
    In People v. Plummer, 287 Ill. App.3d 250, 678 N.E.2d 1079 (1997), a Clark County deputy sheriff had driven to Edgar County on official business.

    When a police officer outside his jurisdiction conducts a valid traffic stop based upon evidence obtained through his observations, the subsequent use of his power as an officer to acquire further evidence not available to a private citizen does not invalidate an arrest. See People v. Gutt, 267 Ill. App.3d 95, 640 N.E.2d 1013 (1994) (extraterritorial arrest for DUI based upon breathalyzer test was not improper, where officer stopped defendant after observing him make a left turn without signaling); People v. Gupton, 139 Ill. App.3d 530, 487 N.E.2d 1060 (1985) (extraterritorial arrest for DUI based upon sobriety tests and breathalyzer test was not invalid where officer stopped defendant after observing him swerving); People v. Rowe, 128 Ill. App.3d 721, 471 N.E.2d 578 (1984) (extraterritorial arrest for DUI based upon breathalyzer test and statements made by defendant was not invalid where officers stopped defendant after observing him swerving). For these reasons, we find defendant's arrest for DUI was not improper.

  9. People v. Vargas

    277 Ill. App. 3d 289 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)   Cited 4 times

    The common law rule concerning warrantless interterritorial arrests has been modified in part by sections 7-4-7 and 7-4-8 to allow officers to make arrests in adjoining municipalities to suppress a riot, to preserve the peace, and to protect the lives, rights, and property of citizens. ( Stanley, 264 Ill. App.3d at 95, 637 N.E.2d at 1073; People v. Gutt (1994), 267 Ill. App.3d 95, 640 N.E.2d 1013; People v. DeBlieck (1989), 181 Ill. App.3d 600, 537 N.E.2d 388.) However, Illinois case law limits "the scope of section 7-4-8 to the arrest of persons who are dangerous enough to the public to require emergency action."