o me about our foreman just as if you were in the courthouse in elgin it will each have up to fifteen minutes for your arguments the appellant will also have up to five minutes for bravado as you've heard mr kaplan has a there which will indicate the end of your time do not have to use all of the time allotted of course and i certainly will remind you that as is our practice in the nd appellate that we have all read your briefs ahead of time what will be different this morning is that we will not interrupt your argument with our questions as we usually do we felt that since this was being done remotely it would be too difficult to proceed and that manner so we will save our questions for each of you until you have completed your argument that is after the appellant argues we will all ask you questions after the apple e argues the saying i would like to remind you that no one except the clerk is permitted to record this proceeding today do either of you have any questions regarding our procedure no your honor ok all right at this time then mr cent tell  prohibiting resisting or obstructing peace officers does not prohibit innocent or inadvertent conduct when the officer is invited to talk on the front steps and gave him no indication they needed to enter his house to continue the investigation and ali cooperated with the officers he did not act with knowledge by reacting when the officers grabbed him and attempted to put him in handcuffs without giving him warning and i will note before i continue that the charges described actions that happened in quick succession and overlap so up to for clarity when i refer to the  allegation that ali resisted officer hese performance by stiffen his arms to prevent arrest i want to start with the argument that the rant did not take an authorized act in strolling a lead to the ground put him in handcu the issue here is not whether exigent circumstances existed so that laurent could enter the house and i'm not arguing whether rand could permissibly enter the house or not he was lawfully investigating a nine hundred and eleven call but when little rant invited ali to talk on the front step by saying i'm not saying i'm going to go inside or anything and then allowing ali to go inside to get a shirt while the rant waited outside behind a locked changed his mind about the rents behavior wired to grabbing ali to prevent him from going to get his shoes would have indicated to ali that he was doing anything wrong or was being should have try to stop ali from going inside the st time to get a shirt or at least said something to stop him or were told him that he didn't want him going back inside again but even if laurent was lawfully investigating and nine hundred and eleven call it can't be the case that he acts one way and changes his mind to act another way without telling anyone why and then takes all these reaction of pulling away from being grabbed as a reason to throw him to the ground put him in handcuffs that was not authorized and all these reaction was not resistance violating the statute i'd like to turn now to the argument that i probably did not act with knowledge when he pulled away from the rant disobeyed his command to stay outside knowledge is proven by circumstantial it can be proven by circumstantial evidence but any inference of knowledge must be based facts and not intervening inferences here there's no established fact that allows for an inference that ali went inside to obstruct the police investigation he asked multiple times as heard on the body house right told ali it's not like i'm going to go inside or anything that's established and rent stood right next to the sister aleesha and watched her go back inside the house without trying to stop her it's reasonable to infer that when ali saw his sister allowed back inside without any officer trying to stop or he took that to mean the officers didn't need to enter the house to conclude their investigation only reasonable inference supported by the facts is that he was trying to go inside to get issues and his socks so that he could continue talking with the officers it was february it was five am the officers commented it was cold  he went to get a shirt and came back with no problem there's no reason to think lee would have done anything differently if lorenz didn't grab him the nd time to try and stop him from getting is inside earlier so we thought it was fine to go inside now this isn't proscribed by the statute and this court should reverse all his conviction of resisting well rense performance on that basis and it turned to  the case here he said made it he never told or he was under arrest he said we're done playing games it is true that he thought i'll leave to put his hands behind his back but it's not the case that in that every and shouted something ali didn't hear it when you watch the body cam footage it's clear that he was not involved in the conversation between ali and lorenz he was off to the side of the house for the entirety of the conversation until he decided to roll up and even after all he was in handcuffs and he finally tells me he has been arrested ali says i wasn't the one being arrested and shows no understanding of what he had been trying to do this does not show just awareness lee was not talking with heath he was talking to lorenz so when he came up and grabbed him it was innocent conduct for ali to stiffen his arms and innocent conduct does not violate the statute to briefly conclude before any questions  i the evidence here shows all these actions were innocent and taken in response to what the op a series had communicated to him throughout the interaction a police officer should not be permitted to stay and act one way through our interaction  changes her mind without telling a person and infused that person's reasonable reaction to resisting a peace officer if that person has been cooperating throughout the interaction this court should therefore reverse both while these think he would act acting or executing an authorized act at the time of your client's arrest i don't think he was executing an authorized act at the time of all these arrests no it's i think that he was committed to investigate the nine hundred and eleven call i think that it was permitted that he could even go inside of the house but the problem here is that he never communicated that intention so always and always was cooperating with him and so when when he didn't decide that all he could no longer go back inside the house after an something about what you stand behind your back isn't that sort of love and to know that you're under arrest i don't believe it is in all context your honor and i don't think that was the case here  i believe that when when he regarding chiefs actions the established fact that she was off to the side and not involved in the discussion believe that he had done anything wrong or that he would be put in hand and so i think based on the conduct or based on the context excuse me and the circumstantial evidence doesn't show he would know that he was being arrested on that statement because he had he had done nothing wrong and the obvious here is agree that they had no reason to suspect him of a crime he wasn't charged with anything additionally so no i don't think in the context that the circumstantial evidence shows that he knew he was being put under a was back inside the house and the offices were all locked out waiting for all the to come back they didn't show any urgency of trying to get inside the house they didn't show any concern that all it was was potentially going to go commit a crime and they didn't seem particularly worried that he was going to come back it wasn't until the nd time when all he went inside to get his shoes and socks that the officers  said no you have to stay outside now and he's also testified that he had no reason no suspicion when he arrived so there was there was no arctic you bill tradition here at all showed they did not know when all the was placed under arrest and i don't think that you could pinpoint on the video where anyone decided ali was under arrest and so i  handcuffs and in this context it's very unclear where they decided he was at st detained and then when that turned into an arrest he said that he wanted to arrest but he was but he also said he was doing that lorenz orders and he was following lorenz lead despite the fact laurent said he was just trying to detain ali and so it's really unclear where he decided he was going to arrest ali idea he said i wasn't the one being arrested he did not understand that he had been arrested or why this this is not a this is a case where the officers were not communicating with each other about what they were trying to do  performance because the actual charges describe a very brief time period we always had no idea what was happening thank you very much i have no further question jeff is enough i just have to you would agree would you not that certainly resisting even unlawful arrest is a violation of the statute isn't that correct well your honor there is case law that says that in illinois you're not permitted to resist an on lawful arrest however this case is not a case where it's it's merely just an officer not communicating that he is going to arrest the defendant and this case as i've said the officers were not aware  communicating with each other that they were going to either arrest or detain ali and then they see his reaction to him pulling away when laurent grabbed him and say well now he's  resisting but that was an image that was innocent action that was inadvertent i would say it's a natural reaction to somebody grabbing you when you don't expect it and so i think the issue here is not whether or not he was just whether or not he was told under arrest it's that he didn't know and he didn't know because no one under arrest or that he was doing anything wrong right that these were police officers this is not some you know somebody not in uniform grabbing him i mean he was in the presence of police officers and you're saying even though he was grabbed by a police officer a natural reaction would be to defend one's arms as opposed to submitting to the questions the best of his ability and i would keep in mind he is just walking up was twenty years old based on the circumstances i would say he's done everything correctly at that point but when he had been after the officers interactions with him you believe that he was allowed to go get his shoes and socks i even when an officer is the person that grabs you i think that's a natural reaction because he didn't have any reason to believe that he had anything to worry about from these officers or that he had done anything wrong and there was no activity but who committed a crime that there had been another nine hundred and eleven call during the middle of the night and the place where aware of that and were aware of an argument that he had taken place between alley and hall his sister correct so you're actually i would i would want to point out th that call which he said responded to st i don't think it's clear from the record what time that call was i don't recall in the record that it was at midnight i believe it might have been the worst i'm sorry that the middle of the night i don't i didn't put a time on it but sometime within the past twelve hours let's say prior to their arrival at five something in the morning but then a very recent period of time the police had been when he came to the house in response to the call issue in this case he had no reason to suspect that ali had anything to do with this or that he had committed a crime or that there was some sort of ongoing  actually indicated breast ration that alicia hall seemed to just continually call nine hundred and eleven he referred to as a one thousand and ninety six and said that she might have had mental instability he repeatedly asked why his sister kept calling nine but at the trial level no one focused on the earlier call as being a potential reason why they would suspect ali of the crime suspect ali of committing a crime and that wasn't a focus and it shouldn't be a focus here those those calls appear to be unrelated and there don't appear to be anything there doesn't appear to have been anything from that call that affected the officers behavior in this instance and so i i don't think that there's anything that can be relied on to say that all we should should have known the officers would suspect them of anything from the earlier call thank you  convictions both for obstructing and resisting corporal lauren an officer he says defendant refused to comply with lawrence order to remain outside and he pulled away from laurent when laura tried to keep defendant from going back inside  during the investigation of the nine hundred and eleven call once the defendant was told to put his hands behind his back then and stiffen his arms and fought multiple officers who were trying to handcuff him as the state as the   they did not know as perhaps it was a miss dial or not nothing you know nothing there was no emergency happening however a lot of things happened between the time officer heath the arrived at the residence which was arrived you know he didn't know my my opposing counsel argues that officer he didn't didn't suspect defendant of anything while a lot of things happened in that and sewing time  including hall coming to the door and responding to the knock and then she said someone is climbing out the window and no one came out of the house and arguing with her inside of the residence officer he was then told by another officer that hall would not let the opposite side call then comes out of the house and is walking around outside the house and he says trying to communicate with hall and find out what the emergency is paul is very distraught she's on the phone she's refusing to speak to the officer and then she says in a very strange and agitated voice that the problem has been removed and that she was done senate was charged with refusing to comply with commands pulling away and refusing to be handcuffed those charges were in the disjunctive meaning that any if evidence was presented of any one of those acts defendants was as the senate concedes he was justified in later just fine entering the premises to investigate the nine on one call were testified it wasn't clear who was involved in the dispute called was refusing to talk to them there was no indication that this was a nother dispute between defendant and hall or if there was someone else in the in the house that was keeping hall from from going back outside  the officers could reasonably operate under the assumption that the situation in the house had not been resolved at that point in time lauren then decided he needed to detain the defendant and keep him outside of the home  defendant turned to go inside and law officer lauren told him not to this is the point when you know these these these these these encounters happen heard all of those facts and heard the facts that you know and rejected defendant's version of the fact that he didn't know he was being arrested and that he was trying to go inside and get his shoes you know that again needs to be considered in light of all the preceding facts all of the other facts involved this was not a case where the defendant just came to the i'm sorry where the officer just came to the door and the defendant you know is not aware why the officers are there and the defendant asked to go inside and get dressed the fact that the defendant kept kept asking to go inside indicates that he you know he knew he was  that lauren told him that if he did not come out of the house because we're going to come in and defend a testified he was trying to prevent unlawful entry while while he was standing at the door therefore he knew the officers wanted to enter therefore defendant knew that he was obstructing the officer's investigation the defendant testified that lauren ordered him to come out and talk to us as the video shows at stating you know shouting to tell people to lock the door as he is being handled by the officers send an argues that you know a reasonable inference could be drawn that he was trying to go inside and get dressed well if that's the case then then why did defendant feel the need to repeatedly ask permission from officer lauren to go inside and get this close it's clear that the defendant knew he was under the officer's order to remain that it's not clear you know when the office decided to arrest defendant i mean doctors are going to be standing around and talking about and deciding under arrest someone these are these are circumstances that happen quickly these are things that you know happen within a matter of seconds when you know it's not clear from officer heats the camera video what the entire interaction was between defendant and borders we do have defendants testimony and book and corpora lawrence testimony and so when the officer he was walking back to the door the defendant was trying to get inside  arrest but as as the court is noted it's not necessary for a defendant for an officer pardon me to make a formal declaration that an arrest is taking place the test is and  his arms and put both arms under his body the video shows this exchange and the amount of time this the struggle took you know defendant concedes that this took more than thirty seconds i think it was between thirty seconds and a minute you know if if it's taking that long then then i think it's pretty clear that the signing is resisting their you know the jury watched the video the struggle is heard on the body camera audio you can hear you know by you know by various people the officer both officers defendant so this was this was something that was there was clearly a struggle taking place i believe at one point the use of a taser was threatened but not employed you know that certainly is a is an extreme measure that was not used in this case but it demonstrates the fact that the officers were or were having trouble getting defendant under control and he was not required to abandon his efforts to or any of the officers to their efforts to or to arrest defendant and in the face of defendant's obvious resistance defendant knew that the act is active stiffening his arms would impede or  hinder the ability of the officers to arrest him you know and the defendant denied in his testimony that he struggled with the officers and that testimony is simply unworthy of belief because it's clearly refuted by the audio video that indicates the struggle was going on so the jury was free to reject that testimony it's not credible as the as the court is aware that you know this is a jury trial and  sufficient to the evidence case the state asks the court to look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and consider all of the surrounding facts and circumstances that occurred before corporal lauren and defend were standing in the doorway the evidence clearly supports defendant's conviction for insisting and i'm struck during the acts of these officers accordingly the state of the defendant's officer he just prior to engaging the defendant said i am tired of playing games that change your position at all i mean that aren't really any indication being under arrest isn't it that that is that is on the video that is that is a statement that officer he's made is your question whether whether that indicated t defendant that he knew he was under arrest yeah i mean how does that communicate that you're under arrest or more importantly does it communicate that you're not under arrest that perhaps these officers are very angry but you're not  well yeah i see what you mean from what i can recall from the video the officer he was walking toward the door he saw that there was a kind of a struggle or kind of a confrontation beginning between lawrence and defendant and sir he then did state kind of you know maybe under his breath you know we're tired of playing games i'm not it's not clear whether he stated that you know to defendant you know there's that part of the video is hard to see because it is dark because of the lighting because of background noise but i don't know that defendant heard heard he say that i think defendant might have been more focused on corporal or it was right in front of him and trying to keep them from going back inside but it doesn't change change my my you know you're posing council said you know there had been some exchange between the defendant and these officers nothing seemed to be amiss go ahead go back in the house go get a sure let him go back in the house you lock the door behind him and then he cooperates and comes back outside again so why would he think that i mean why what had changed in the circumstance that would now allow officer lauren to even enter the house well  i think it should be noted that when when sir he st knocked on the door upon arriving at the house alicia hall came to the door and asked if she could go get dressed and he let her do that so i think they were they were eleven call comes in the door and you go ok fine just go ahead lock the door again we'll just wait right here i mean that's that conveys an inference not that there were existent circumstances but that there were not defendant called we don't know who called so but but the fact that the fact that hall was allowed some time to drive and then the fact that defendant was came outside and then he was allowed to go back in and get a shirt on or whatever i mean i think that shows that was that was reasonable i think the officers were trying to make them make them comfortable but there was still something going on inside the house there were people arguing there were people that you know they were there were intimate in fact in circumstances there were people arguing the defense called and called nine hundred and eleven and ask the officers leave and the officer still had no idea who was in who but i think it was officer he asked the defendant why did your sister keep calling nine hundred and eleven now i would infer from that that they know it's her and that they have a history with her calling nine  be that they did believe even when they encountered her in the beginning that she was the one who made the call two that that is a fair in french as he did say you know your sister needs to stop calling him one on one again i think that was just a statement of frustration you know we were we're out here trying to figure out what's going on and she won't talk to us and she needs to stop calling nine hundred and eleven and call the sister was the was allowed you know at some point she went back inside the house and the officers did not stop her but the  remains that the defendant was standing at the door he knew you know he descended testified that he was trying to prevent an unlawful entry he knew the officer wanted to enter the house he he could not be cannot reasonably argue now that proceeding the arrest you know when there's a nine hundred and eleven call you know you know the whole reason that the officer show up is because there there there is apparently an emergency that needs to be taken care of inside the house and no to this point the officers still do not know what has happened no one is telling them what the emergency is just the jargon since you have any other questions i do not thank you just  standing in the way of an officer who's trying to go into a house i think that could be you know deemed innocent conduct i i just i think i think there has to be some knowledge even circumstantial that were authorized to enter the home i mean were there any circumstances yes your honor i do i do and i think you know i think the officers were were showing you know we're trying to deal with that from outside they gave you know they were they heard arguing they were they when they saw you know the sister hall came back out came out and said there was no problem and went back again but the fact that defendant was standing at the door and then when he went and then descended the tells his sister to lock the door behind him he's being as he's being arrested i think the officer certainly had before arresting the defendant had had a clear clear ability and claire clearance to go inside and investigate the purpose of the nine out well not not at the time she went back inside before before the before corporal lauren and defendant were standing at the door while hall or some point we're not sure when hall did return and sigh because once one after the officers arrived the sign and did you know paul did come back outside the home and i believe defendant conceded in his argument this morning that the that the officers were authorized to go in the house but  officer hall i'm sorry ms hall came outside and then she refused to speak to the officer so that gives the officers even more reason to do since to to to suspect that something is going on  inside there could be another person who is inside who is you know who was telling hall to call the police off and get get the police thought of there we don't know you know they also didn't know at that point what is happening so  made it made a remark in the in the video or in the on the audio that they they were the seem that they were aware were aware of her you know that doesn't mean that that doesn't mean  it was pretty clear that there was just circumstances were necessary i mean did one rant have a belief that exigent circumstances were present in this case evidence of imminent threat of light or property well the evidence is that no no one has the officers it was never made clear to the officers by hall i think the fact that hall was walking around outside on a cell phone ignoring officer he and saying that the problem had been removed when when earlier she said someone was climbing out the window and no one came out there are just there just so many facts here that that that seems like call was maybe rethinking maybe maybe she was you know were grabbing the fact that she called nine hundred and eleven and she wanted you know whatever the situation was inside she wanted to just kind of resolve on its own but the fact but you know hall hall then went back inside the house instead instead of instead of the state remaining outside and telling upsurge you know what you know i made a mistake you know my brother and i are arguing or whatever the whatever the circumstance was she did not explain it to the officer she simply went back inside and asked the officers to leave and the police dispatcher told he in the on the body camera audio that hall needed to go back outside and and explain you know what the problem is you know instead of trying to call you know have the option to leave so you know that doctors are still waiting outside trying to find out what the issue is and that's the point when they are then they start talking to defend at the front door ok thank you  if it was a fact that the defendant there rest is although to an officer and kept trying to hit him three officers through all lead to the ground and got on top of him and he behave this is not an instance where he was accused of fighting these officers in fact if you look at page one hundred and sixty seven dollars on the record the prosecutor said in her opening statement that when ali was on the ground he wiggled not fought wiggled that's not the basis of the form the inference that he was fighting and i also want to point out that the record shows that alina cho was the person to place t eleven call that's clear through the fact that she is the one that came to the door it's clear from the fact that she came outside when the officers had arrived and kept saying that the problem has been removed and the officers understood her to be the person that called nine hundred and eleven and i also want to talk about how opposing counsel cited to seventy five in the record where ali said at trial that lawrence had told him if he didn't come out they were not they were just going to come in the reason why this does not show i really had knowledge the officers were trying to come in because it's undermined by the body camp footage while it's true that not all of the direct conversation between all the and low rent was captured after all  came outside it's clear that what the rent said to ali is do you want to come out and talk it's not like i'm going to go inside or anything and multiple instances  from what opposing counsel said in her brief and their argument body can put it contradicts a lot of what the state's case was at trial  so i want to just go through my response to the new argument about will rent if i want to reiterate that there is no indication that there was a dispute between ali and alicia at this time in fact there is no dispute from from any of the witnesses or in the state's response brief that ali was asleep until early show woke him up by yelling at his room no one disputes that and if there's no additional charge that had been added to our leave that he had committed any sort of domestic violence toward alicia or done anything like that so it's not clear who alicia was arguing with she was seen on the phone  and also i also want to talk about the heath charge in response to what opposing counsel said he body can footage and encourage your honour's to watch that makes it very clear that obviously he did not say we're done playing games under his breath and it was not difficult to see his action when he was going towards the door and saying we're done playing ali really did not know what he was doing when he threatened and finally i want to septa no thank you d and i don't have any additional questions either so at this time we would certainly like to thank console for their arguments this morning the court will take the matter under advisement and render a decision and due course court proceedings are concluded for this particular case we do have another oral argument that we'll be continuing with this morning so thank you again counsel we appreciate your participation in this new and different way to do oral argument so take care everybody and everyone is now up to hang up thank you