as five slash three dash one thousand five be authorized lasalle county state's attorney to appoint special investigators to participate in joint drug trafficking investigations with local law enforcement agencies by conducting traffic stops to allow authorized to appoint special investigators to conduct investigations that assist the state's attorney in the performance of his duties now this court has recognized and i don't believe the defendants dispute that state's attorneys as the chief law enforcement officials of the counties have an affirmative duty to investigate suspected illegal activity where local law enforcement agencies need investigative assistance my ass where you derive that principle all this court in people  investigate newly discovered evidence that he did not commit the crime for which he was sentenced to death this core saying that of course there are times when the sister a should investigate need not investigate those facts because the newspapers were doing a good enough job of investigating the newly discovered evidence some time later it became clear that mr williams was wrongly existence of a duty of states for use to investigate suspected illegal activity in support of local law enforcement agents and in williams as as your honor notes it may have been better served had the state's attorney investigated that newly discovered evidence and done further independent investigations so certainly we would argue that people the williams doesn't suggest that the state attorney does not have such a duty and again that the defense don't don't dispute that and it makes sense crime well section three dash one thousand and five a lead it's eleven a provides teachers also have such other duties are enjoin by law and that of course includes common law and so our position is that where the owner the courts have recognized a duty beyond the specified in numerated duties and a that one of those duty is the investigation of suspected illegal activity and certainly the history of law enforcement illinois reflects this collaborative investigative shared investigative duty we provide a strong side of cases not for the proposition that they stand not for the proposition that that is legal or that that is is lawful but as as illustrations of the fact that the various investigative bodies of the executive branch have historically acted in concert supporting one another's investigative efforts so a good example is drug trafficking along interstate eighty when a local law enforcement agency encounters a particularly challenging investigative case it makes sense for the the other law enforcement agencies in the area to pool their resources to support the agenc efforts states attorneys in particular may have speaker expertise investigators may provide expertise and narrow areas like complex financial crime cyber crime interstate drug trafficking they also just provide additional bodies i mean if you're going to conduct a major investigation you need bodies equipped with police powers to do so if you're canvassing an area for a murder you can only doors a time as you know of personnel to knock on doors so to the extent that you can get support of personnel from the state's attorney who are equipped with the powers necessary to expand your investigative capabilities  to the good and investigations of interstate drug trafficking along interstate eighty is exactly the kind of daunting investigative challenge that local law enforcement agencies need assistance with i eighty is one of the major drug trafficking corridors in the country is either the primary or secondary highway route used by traffickers to transport cocaine marijuana heroin m d m a and methamphetamines across the country and about thirty miles of this drug trafficking superhighway ones straight through lasalle county south county is relatively large geographically is also relatively rural and the communities along i eighty a relatively small of the population of peru illinois is about ten thousand people and if you move east along i eighty the population the city of lasalle is about ten thousand people keep moving east and you run in ottawa which is the largest city in the county in the county seat its population is less than twenty thousand people and according to the city of other was official government website the police departments in ottawa is thirty three sworn officers since those officers are probably not working twenty four hour shifts seven days a week if you take them split them across three eight hour shifts they've got staggered days off and so on you're probably looking at less than a quarter of those thirty three sworn officers actually on duty at any given time they have to respond to all of the law enforcement responsibilities in that county all the traffic accidents all of the domestic violence calls all of the community welfare checks all of the things that we  in addition they have several miles of this significant drug trafficking corridor running through their jurisdiction and if they have a couple miles of at your stiction and the drug traffic is moving through about seventy miles an hour they have a matter of minutes to tr identify the culprits the people who are involved in any given time in that drug trafficking so it's not surprising that they they needed assistance and the states attorney offered that assistance in the form of special assistance as evidenced by the fact that they entered into these arrangements these investigative joint arrangements to investigate drug trafficking along i  respond to state's attorney traffic stops if they would call in the stop and then the proof police department would dispatch that he one unit which was waiting nearby to be sure to arrive in time to affect the drug sniff without unconstitutionally prolonging think in response to the fact that it's it's not the be all i think of the plan to make the argument that it's like the state's attorney have their own local police force and you indicate where one of the protections is it has to be in coordination with other agencies  it's absolutely right well isn't one of the other protections the younger print requirement which in this case the reliance upon fingerprints from twenty years ago him and you doing your own background checks rather than an independent background check isn't that another safe heard that was not met in this case well to two answers one is we argue that that safeguard was followed because his fingerprints were taken in the whole though the reason that fingerprints are used for identification for criminal background checks is that they are persistent i mean if you take someone's fingerprints ten years ago it's so that if they commit a crime now and you you can match the fingerprints they're  are all are all connected because suppression only serves a deterrent effect where the conduct you're attempting to terror is sufficiently deliberate and sufficiently culpable so that the sorts of circumstances where the court has applied suppression where cases where the the condition that render the conduct unlawful was something that officers could actually take into account and factor into their decision making process so where the court upheld suppress for arrest outside of an officer's jurisdiction to effect arrests extraterritorial arrests that an officer is aware of whether he is physically within or without his geographical jurisdiction and can decline exercise its police powers if he has no jurisdiction to do so similarly an officer knows whether he saw someone run run a red light he's going to pull someone over running a red red red light he knows if yes probably cause to do so or not he can decline to do so or he doesn't  an officer knows the amount of force that he or she is applying and so he can decline to use force beyond what's called for about situation an officer knows whether he's given the defendant or miranda warnings and can decline to without having advised of their rights these are all conditions that an officer is aware of and so and comport himself accordingly and so they are susceptible to deterrence but where the condition is unknown to officers like an arrest warrant the officer runs the runs a warrant check ok and the rest one pops up the officer has no access to whether that warrant was validly issued or not it's no this warrant is in the system and if  same lack of access to that condition and this is where the de facto officer doctrine comes in another condition that's invisible to an officer who is acting under apparent authority which is apparent both to him and to the public isn't invalidity his color of title administered his oath of office his appointment is approved by the county board he starts receiving paychecks he's issued his official state's attorney vehicle with the lights he's got a citation book to read traffic warnings he's stopping vehicles for the purpose of the acting canine sniffs as far as he knows as far as the public knows he is a special investigator of the state's attorney's office with all of the powers of that office  if there was some defect in his color of title there is no way for him to take that into account when he is affecting searches or seizures the only way that this would be unlawful conduct that we would  expect officers to refrain from from participating in would be if there is a legal requirement that a police officer or a sheriff's deputy refuse to perform their duties to effect searches and seizures until they've confirmed to their own satisfaction that notwithstanding their employers representations they were actually appointed instruction clients with the governing statutes and administrative regulations which would require that they go through their personnel files and the records of their employers so as that of probably file fo to get the records of the various administrative bodies and regulatory bodies that have to go through all of the governing statutes administrative regulations ordnances department rules and then only then if they're satisfied they're actually officers could they then go out and act as officers and under these sorts of circumstances suppression just doesn't justify the cost that it imposes of letting tenants go free if you ultimately the unlawful condition that defendants complain of the flaws in detective a through his appointment are unrelated to the acquisition of the evidence that they seek to have suppressed if you go through a narrative of any of the defendant stops investigator gaither pulls them over based on probable cause that they've committed a traffic violation while he's performing the traffic stop a canine unit arrives the canine unit conducts a sniff alerts to the vehicle and discover drugs nowhere in those narratives does the failure of the illinois state police to send a letter to the state's attorney about the results of a background check come up in different regions case where there is a proof police officer in the car defendant gaither was the one who pulled the vehicle over he's the one who turned on the sirens if he had not pressed the button to turn on the sirens if the officer officer brown pressed the button to was no excessive force it's simply the fact that somewhere in the past investigator gaiters appointment was was flawed but as far as anyone at that scene knew he had a parent authority to act as a special investigator  investigations are are earth traffic stops are part of investigations drug in or drug trafficking investigations are they required to stop a vehicle you can't conduct a canine sniff at seventy miles an hour you have to stop the vehicle and then when you stop the vehicle while affording defendants their constitutional rights have probable cause there's no traffic offense so a traffic stop here isn't probably the primary investigative tool for investigating drug  trafficking and there are other kinds of seizures that are also of course investigative tools the terry stop although a lot of the pat down is also known as an investigatory stop it is a seizure for the purpose of investigating suspected illegal activity  so in order for safe conduct to be authorized in this case they must assist they must conduct investigations that assist the state the state's attorney in a performance of his duties it does not do that and because it does not see that the trip to traffic stops issue has not been contested or litigated at any point i like to focus the argument my argument addressing the state's argument that safe functions in an effort to assist the investigate the facts of the alleged criminal acts that has already occurred in tulum is circumstances when local police are in actually investigating that criminal act or when they need investigative assistance to investigate that criminal acts i believe it's just in the abstract that i would say no if there is a specific incident that of suspected drug trafficking or drug dealing then yes suppose the state's police force and they are going out to discover the occurrence of crimes that have not yet occurred that's a far cry from the police coming in saying we need your help to do this is this your argument  is a new argument that the state is making at the last minute because the facts are not on your side the law is not underside and common sense is not on their side there was an agreement in evidence that they're relying upon and that he cites when the brief is the fact that a deputy from a local law enforcement agency comes along with the stop and brings a drug dog which actually didn't happen to mr sexton's case no the agreement is to provide assistance and support to say cooperation even if you want to call it a joint investigation as a state calls that does not mean that safe is assisting the state's attorney in performance of his duty to investigate now granted in order for the special investigator step police powers are consistent vehicle prosecutors act we need to function in cooperation focal law enforcement but that doesn't get them to the point reverse system the sr any in a performance of duty to investigate you still have to have a situation where there is an alleged criminal act assist in the investigation searches conduct investigations which assist the stage attorney in the performance of his duties if we were to read the statute mean performance of his duties as to prosecute crimes whether cases to generate investigations on their own to generate investigations or state three i would like to make one important point and that is that the circuit judge found in mr sex th dui and the police investigate that scenario but the police do not give up with such force that is an inadequate investigation therefore that the prosecutor can go out and they can get a subpoena and they can obtain was what awful test results that's really the scenario that's not what this that's not what i think the intent of legislature was you need a situation where the local law enforcement is actually investigating an alleged criminal act and then be turned over to the would you help me when the state's raise using a special investigator what statutory provision are you relying upon you tell us the provision that requires this is or finding of inadequacy of the city wide agreement or  because because what i had read said that the special refused by the state's attorney the state's theory must consult consult with local affected police agencies and that more than consultation it is that requirement was the statu y or needing assistance that is not in the statute that is what the duty to investigate for purposes of as stated in the few the court decisions that not only are they the arresting officer the arresting party on behalf of the state they're also the eye witness the primary eyewitness to a crime and the primary eye witness in the state's prosecution of the accused lee in employer employee scenario and in every case that results you just safe conduct you necessarily need a special prosecutor for that case i do not think our legislature intended to create a scenario envision a scenario where you have a recurring need for a special prosecutor in prosecution unless of course and you for questions for me were so let me ask you this yes are there five stops at issue is that right stop you have a man in a in jeans in a beige coat we don't know where he's from and you have some sort of an officer in a black uniform thirty minutes into the traffic stop attorney's office any evidence gathering taking a statement we would can you say the same thing that you that it's not reliable as a result of that i mean i don't see the difference no you are certain that the argument can but what i'm talking about is different from a scenario where you have an employee of the sisters office of the collecting evidence here you have an employee the sister is office acting as the primary when the sort of state is making the traffic s case the state's attorney in red i would suggest your reservation courts will increase the telkom the future site of the business from up from twelve and a half percent to sixty six percent the site had to put his people in the front line so that you can be found in the cross examination record when i asked about bias or prejudice and not us to testify falsely in connection with the case so going through the a substance of what the issue is here it's the illinois exclusionary r that was all going on everyone was aware of him from versus hammer him and i know that all of us sort of been able to remember that the chicago police eddie hammer hand his members has special investigators happened to run into the black panthers limitation is that when we look at the statute you're limited to this rule out for some the statute in which were put together and strung together like a general somebody has here and so it's to assist in the performance of his duties well his duties are to prosecute crimes from to the statue of justice tyson asked about that too early in the statute and that includes a grand jury and a grand jury can very well have a special investigator and the grand jury can conduct investigations that's also so summonses maybe in paternity cases or some other part where the state's attorney is trying to get service on up father who hasn't paid his trial support but there's nothing in here about right on highway patrol there's nothing in the statute about getting out on the highway and plane reading of the statute how how do we look just at the wording of the statute we're just conduct investigations and say drug trafficking investigations are not investigation well first of all i i i'm not like m couple reasons to stop the car or truck basis and i'm going to show you that right here when you take a look at these photographs of ok what word would you use to describe what they did if it was not an invest but i don't want to beat a dead horse here but i've been trying to do is do we have are you saying that the word investigation is ambiguous and we have to look for outside aid to  that section three dash one thousand five b does not define the term to have that term investigation but the dictionary does and i don't believe the parties disagree on the dictionary definition and it saxon provides in his brief that defines investigation as a searching inquiry for ascertaining facts and finds to investigate as to search out and examine the particulars of an attempt to learn the facts about something hidden unique or complex especially in attempts to find a motive cause or culprit and that is exactly what happened here we know that i eighty is a major drug trafficking conduit through the state but we don't know is the specific culprits at any given time and so that's exactly what was happening here they were investigating specifics of the drug traffic you've got the conversation going here has been focus and many of the word investigation i've been concerned about the meaning of the language of the statute the state's attorney in the performance of his duties and my concern is how we define the duties of the state's attorney and that's why i answered some questions about the statute that defines the duties in terms of appearing in court and conducting grand juries and then you suggest that there's a broader catch all that this falls under is it your position that one hundred two different states attorneys across the state should have i should say should have the authority to create their own units to have parallel police enforcement units alongside all the local police departments the sheriff's state's attorney is authorized to appoint special investigators to assist in the province of his duties our position is that those duties include providing investigative assistance where they're saying yes yes we think yes and we would suggest that this case lot provides trading the sort of collaborative relationship my personal favorite is people the nolan of the first district which concerned a large scale drug investigation and was called operation hollywood and it was supervised by it was a joint investigative effort with local law enforcement and the cook county state's attorney the cook county state's attorney special investigator was supervising the operation a cook county special investigator it was also involved in i believe a surveillance team along with police personnel special investigator was also involved in performing undercover buys of drugs in the area i believe backed up by a mixed team of special investigators and police and that of course makes perfect sense and even more so in small communities where you may need says that special investigators shall be peace officers with all the powers of policeman in cities and of sheriffs provided that they will exercise those powers after contact and in cooperation with local law enforcement there is no reason to provide them with all the powers of the police if the general somebody did not believe it appropriate for them to have all of the powers of police so just as one could say that trying briefly back to the question of the definition of investigation just as one could say the police are investigating a murder and could also say the police are investigating drug trafficking along interstate eighty why did the proof police department have a canine unit station by the on ramp while the police are investigating drug trafficking along interstate eighty and also i'll note in passing that even if the requirement were that investigations into specific offenses that have already been committed all of the offenses in this case were fences that were committed the defendants were in possession of the drugs at the time they were pulled over they'd already they already were possessing illegal drugs  the provision of police powers under the statute also shows why the concerns about sort of the optics of the case well they had a vehicle with flashing lights they had firearms doesn't that feel police  way that we don't think of as appropriate for state's attorneys well the general assembly has said in the statute that special investigators or may carry firearms with the permission of the state's attorney that provided that they pass a basic police training course and and are acting in cooperation local law enforcement that they can exercise all of those powers exactly the powers that were exercised here  second i would note that the the nature of our we've we consistently disputed that suppression should be granted and this court has explained that you forfeit issues not arguments all the various doctrinal rationales the nature of the suppressi remedy the de facto officer a doctor in the citizen's arrest precedent which suggests that an invalid of type color of title is not a sufficient basis for suppression because of course a citizen affecting arrest has no claim to office at all and yet a citizen's arrest would still result in miscible evidence defendants were would result in a situation where a citizen could affect this traffic stop and the drugs would be admissible but a special investigator who affects the same stop in the same manner only difference is that his title was defective in some way result in the suppression of the same evidence would suggest that under these sorts of circumstances suppression simply doesn't pay its way for those reasons we asked the court reversed the district and trial court thank you