all right we will proceed with the oral argument thank you for calling the case and counsel cumin you need proceed your honors good morning your honor good morning counsel may please the court katrina coon for the people of the state of illinois the trial court erred in granting defend its motion to suppress in this case the officer stopped attendant for making an illegal left turn in suppressing the contraband that was recovered as a result of that traffic stop the truck perlite and a single on the road and to which the turn was made nd even if the court disagrees with the people's interpretation of the statute officer florence operated under a reasonable belief that the defendant violated the vehicle code by making an illegal left turn and rd because officer florence had no reason to suspect this initiation of the traffic stop was not supported by the law this case warrants the application of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule now this court standard o be completed in the innermost lane available on the road and to which the turn is made the st sense of the statute requires the motorist to turn in the correct direction and i am to quote a lame lawfully available on the road and to which the turn has been made the statute does not state that a turn may be made into any lane the left lane here was the only lane onto which the defendant had lots of a complete left turn and excuse me the nd of the sentence of the statute that begins whenever practicable also governs hope the church should be made by stating that a vehicle must be left at the center of the intersection here defendant bypass the left lane and made a wide turn into the outer lane or the right lane of northbound highway forty one as shown on the map and into evidence the nd sentence of the statute cannot be interpreted to a lot of turn into the rightmost lane by making such a wide arc in left turn that turning vehicle but that be changing lanes while executing a turn and changing lanes in the middle of an intersection creating a safety hazard the statute has been given a low entropy taken by one panel in another political correct which the trial court in this case was required to follow this  not similarly restricted not only is the th district decision and people vs walker not finding here it's interpretation of the statute is not persuasive moving to my nd point the police officer here acted with an objective lead reasonable reasonable belief that defendant committed a traffic violation in executing his left turn a police officer need not conclusively establish a violation of the vehicle code before initiating a traffic stop in reviewing the officer's actions this court must apply an objective standard and consider whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the stop late and reasonably prudent person in the same circumstances to believe that the stop was justifying your officer florence initiated this traffic stop with an objectively reasonable reasonable if that a traffic violation occurred again at the time of the stop no appellate district in illinois had spoken on the statute furthermore the stated reason for the stop was supported by the language of the statute courts and at least two other jurisdictions have construed language comparable to that in the allowed by statute to require a motorist to turn into the leftmost lane when completing a left turn the montana and ohio statutes that are set out in my brief contain language comparable to the l and i statute instead of stating the turn must be made so as to leave the intersection and lane lawfully billable to traffic the montana and ohio statutes require the turn to be made to leave the intersection to the right of the centerline of the roadway the montana and ohio courts have interpreted that comparable vision to require a motorist to complete the left turn into the leftmost lane possible walker provided one reading of the statute and that reading is incorrect the officer's understanding of the law governing left turns is consistent with multiple decisions interpreting comparable language different interpretations of the statute establish that reasonable minds can read the statute differently the officers reasonable and supported a belief that a traffic violation occurred lastly even if this court was to conclude that the officer acted on a mistaken belief that the traffic stop was justify this case warrants the application of  to the exclusionary rule the exclusionary rule is designed to deter flagrant police misconduct and exclusion of evidence obtained by officers acting in good faith is a last resort the officers acts here are to require deterrence nor sufficiently culpable to justify suppression of the evidence recovered in the traffic stop there is not culpable police conduct to address here simply because there is actually no basis to find that a reasonably well trained officer would have known at the time of this traffic stop that the stop was not valid it must be noted that the trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress soley based on walker which was issued after the date of the stop in this case because no appellate decision on this point had been issued at the time it cannot be argued that the officers basis for the stop was contrary to any element president much less any binding precedent or that the officers understanding of the law was erroneous the officers understanding of the law to support this traffic stop bears all the kings of good faith the officer stated purpose for the traffic stop was consistent with the language of the statute and not contrary to any ellen like court decision it concludes and this court has jorgensen you may proceed if you have questions like question is where do you read in the statute that upon exiting the intersection any lane is directed traffic lies have to be written generally they have to be pretty broadly enough to encompass any possible situation there is not a left turn statute for a state for a situation where defendant has two lanes to turn and or three lanes to turn in it's n you know that they have the standard to be able to be used when a person is turning in their neighborhood or that whether they're turning in a suburban setting such as in this case or whether they're turning on an interstate where there are multiple lanes the i understand about traffic laws the question is where does the statute require the driver to enter into a specific lane that are turning left at the same time and those cars technically could go into any lane they wouldn't have to stay in their lanes those cars could change lanes while they were turning that would lead to and safety and this is  court should also consider the last sentence of the statute which says whenever practicable the left turn shall be made in the portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection and the only only reasonable interpretation of that is is that that must happen into the left most lane otherwise the turn would be happening and encroaching on the other traffic now but doesn't that also say whenever practicable shelby made inept portion of the intersection as opposed to the roadway then than the desired road upon which the driver is making the left turn yes your honor but in order to complete the turn the if the if the statute of spread to allow that kind of a why did turn enter and parking turn it's necessary it would necessarily occur that the  driver in making that that turn to the outer lane would be violating the nd sense of the statute and the statute needs to be read as a whole in this case to the police officer or indicate that the driver had not conformed  in his driving through the intersection the officer in this case said that the that the stop was based on the fact that the defendant justice hudson do you have any questions i do miss cohen the argument that you're making now that the officer involved had an objective legal reasonable basis to believe that a traffic violation have been committed t well your honor we do but we do think it was before the trial court here you know here this is kind of an unusual situation you know we're dealing with a situation here where at the time of the stop  walker had not been decided there was no reason for this officer to know any contrary holding we would ask that you consider this issue in order to correctly develop the law on this case and you acknowledged obviously does not favor your positions contrary to your position it was from another district and technically it is not binding on us we recognize that but i think you also sort of made the argument that it shouldn't even be considered as persuasive what is that based on why cite the directions of the elena secretary of state to drivers in illinois are consistent with the people reading of the statute and with the officers signing that a vehicle code violation occurred here that is how the drivers in illinois are taught they are taught to turn into he did make a mistake of law you know that the officer had effectively reasonable good faith belief that that that a traffic violation occurred even if it was even if this court found it was you know requested to supplement with additional authority and you've just responded to that you've just mentioned that and primarily it was information from illinois i was on the road two thousand and twenty and a picture that relates to that is that correct your honor i i attached to documents one and one has a page ten at the bottom and one is the page thirty one ok they're both they're both from they both recollect the l and i rose of the road and one is from the actual rules of the road and one is from a course workbook that is that i believe is used to educate drivers about what the appropriate traffic laws are ok i will ask counsel when we get x you know it what his position is on the supplement but let me ask this are the rules of the road the law that we have to follow or is it is is it a nanny will determined or you know prepared to assist drivers in learning what the rules and the laws are well i think it i think it's i think it's both that if i remember if i understand your question correctly you know the rules of the road traffic laws as i said before have to be written broadly you know police officers will well execute  traffic stops based on their understanding of the law here and as we note you know before locker to my knowledge there was no appellate case or no real discussion of what this and how to interpret this statute the court should not raise those issues themselves it could be because maybe this is the st time or walker was the st time it was actually raised you have not found any other eleanore a law that says walker is wrong or any law that preceded walker that decides it differently have you i have not found any case prior to walker i'm not aware of any your honor i would like to just point out to you that you know one of the walker on the step occurred in walker obviously you know you know the court watcher didn't didn't address or didn't didn't point out any authority that existed at that time either and so the timing of the stop occurred in walker the walker officer was relying on his understanding just of the bare statute itself there was no you know something there was no appellate process which wasn't so the walker officer and the officer here both initiated the that the officers interpretation of the statute was objective lee reasonable isn't there a specific disclaimer that the rules of the road should not be considered the law of the state of illinois well i don't think the rules of the road you know there's there are not statutes obviously they're not sketches but i think you can consider them when trying when and when the court  is called upon to interpret a statute and i think again i think this goes to the reasonableness of the officers belief that that it that the turn in this case was not what did not comply with the statute all right in terms of your you have cited steen and graham from montana and ohio respectively and isn't the statute the statute in montana and ohio are the same so it makes sense that those two states might follow that language but is the statute are the statutes in montana in ohio the same as in the state of illinois same language same same if you wanted to modify all the sentences could you do it precisely you cut out a little bit there your honor and your question but if i understand it correctly you're asking if if must be made so as to leave the intersection to the right of the center line of the roadway being entered now that is effectively the same direction you know the same stare the same requirement for the same you know language here because if you're saying that a car needs to leave the intersection to the right of the center line of the roadway meaning it must be going in the direction it's turning into it does it how don't specify a lane either it must be a certainly either however the courts and montana and ohio have interpreted that the statute with comparable language to require the motorist to turn into the leftmost lane right the issue in our case really is the whenever practicable sentence i think and it says whenever practicable which is not a mandatory the left lane show be made left turn shall be made in that portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection there could be based upon that sentence there could be circumstances where that would not be practica correct that's correct your honor and in this case don't we have some evidence or testimony that defended recognized a police vehicle behind it whether it had lights and sirens on it or not in chose to move to the right to get out of its way well your honor i believe that there was in the record however you know officer florence here also state of the stipulated facts indicated that that there was nothing that was preventing the defendant from turning background is i assume all place officers are are warranted to conduct traffic stops if they're sworn officers he was not looking to make a specific traffic stop that day was he it wasn't his job that particular day to do drug interdiction based upon a certain location and cars coming and going from that location your honor that officer subjective mindset is really not issue here lives even if the officer acted out of an in any improper to a lot of ation now we would argue that that is not the case here but if this court you know thinks there is based on that fact you know we would argue that that does not make the stop anything less than objective lee reasonable in our analysis well as in walker are we to consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding this particular stop to determine what is subjectively or possibly understanding or the subjective you know basis for the stop again you know that that that the the people strongly assert that that should not be considered here right in terms of your good faith argument looking at behind in case from the supreme court they were consistent both in majority and in concurrence that the issue is objectively reasonable to the officer objective lee reasonable and how was his stop in this case under our statute not montana's and not ohio's but our statute objectively reasonable well your honor because there was because the officers reading of the statues you know is can fully be supported by you know his is topless fully supported by a reasonable reading of the statute it was practicable for this defendant in this case to turn into the left  lane he did not reasonably well trained officer who was aware of all relevant authority including the rules of the road would you know would have thought that this at the time of this traffic stop it was a valid stop you know there's no you know there's nothing to to conclude there's no reason to conclude that this officers action was culpable or deliberate and it was president and finally looking at this particular statute and looking at our responsibility is it to a very hard question of statutory interpretation to is that very hard to do well i think you're asking me if the meaning of the statute is clear you know you know well we've been talking about it now for twenty some minutes you know i think a statute is ambiguous that reasonably well informed minds can differ i think we have all probably thought about this statute more than anybody else you know in illinois at this point in our lives and you know after spending this much time discussing the different interpretation of the statute you know i would ask this court to carefully consider walker's determination that there's only one reasonable reading and we probably co more than either officer florence or i if i have his name wrong i apologize or anybody who was involved in that stop right i have no further questions were there any questions that related to min the stop of the defendant was based on the police officers belief that the defendant's turn violated the code however the turn was not in fact unlawful so the officer could not have reasonably interpreted the statute as prohibiting it the statute here requires that a left turn be made so as to leave an intersection a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in such direction a public roadway being entered by definition a lane provides more than one option or certainly could provide more than one option as the walker court found the plain language of the statute permitted the defendant to leave the intersection by either lane as both lanes were available to traffic moving straight through the intersection state and walker cited both the ohio where montana statutes discussed here but the court correctly denied the state's invitation to quote them depart from the plain language of the statute by reading into the statute exceptions limitations or conditions that the legislature does not express the state says that there was no contrary holding at the time of the defendant stop however it's irrelevant to the stop occurred prior to the walker decision as both the state and walker have stated the statute is not ambiguous furthermore the court did not advance a new rule or statutory interpretation it simply found in a unanimous decision that the statute was  ambiguous and that its plain meaning is not prohibit the turn made by the defendant is a say it also mentions in the rules of the road that they can be used to further interpret the statute as just the three of that document it says it is intended as a tool for drivers and should not be cited as legal authority in court and i think that it's significant here particularly in response to just the such instance question because there may be times where that is the better practice but that's not the question of whether the the turn is prescribed there may be situations and in the civil situation where two cards collide where you know the negligence of each party may be determined by have been consistent with the decisions in montana and ohio correct based on their statute correct all right and the officers decision at the time would have also been manner well why would it be objectively unreasonable if other states have interpreted the statutes similar to ours in the same manner that he interpreted and the rules the role of illinois would interpret the same manner how do we conclude that his actions were differently as with so all of the fact that he may have been interpret those statutes in order to provide a way to create a traffic stop there's not any way you know reduce the requirement that he has to follow the current statute which allows for a driver to fall into any lane which suggests more than one lane is available or the one lane is legally provide the legal option i understand the argument but isn't there sort of maybe a safety or common sense underpinning to require the driver to go in the inside lane the left lane because we now have the right turns on red doing that and somebody could be turning into the right lane and if the driver then can make a turn and go still apply but the important thing here is if those changes should be made made by the legislature and the legislature has said so far is a reasonable interpretation of this statute as found by thing and the slugger court is that that's that's  authority it's our position that i suppose this court can consider anything but we would point out that for purposes of holding it is legally binding you know it certainly is not in that the document itself i believe  three specifically says that it is not to be used as authority if they if in fact it doesn't have legal weight because as the state you know suggested the secretary of state's interpretation of the very statute that we are attempting to interpret so and as they also suggest it's probably interpreted more broadly that you may be written because it is concerned with things other than you know that's not written as a criminal disposition mr white how bout don't we have testimony sensually from the officer that he stopped defendant car because he made a wide turn in the intersection that that's the st issue correct correct well that's what's in the stipulation cried all right and then the movement to the right lane is is part of the stipulation that that movement was made without y do you have a page that you're looking at that we can reference ok and getting it i'm actually using the state's brief because they all right thank you what do you i mean what it's confusing walker simply says not simply walker says that the real issue in their case is the whenever  practicable language because the st to say the st sentence which is compound is quite clear do we have the same issue here it's that whenever practicable issue that we're discussing or we need to resolve or do we need to resolve i in your mind the entire statutory section here i don't think there's much here to resolve as far as the whatever practicable because of the stipulation that we just don't have a record that support really anything what we what we have is as you mentioned earlier the saw the police car right behind him and was moving constantly in order to get out of the way of the  analysis ok and we don't and i and les i am wrong we don't have any lights or sirens at the time he observed the police car so this would not even come close to a scott law issue correct  does not it is not as i am argued it's not binding or persuasive you know the fact that the defendant here has more than one option or more than one lane that he could have turned into doesn't mean that both of the lanes you know were represent a legal option now you know defendants argument is simply that this court should blindly follow walker and its reading of the statute without even getting any independent analysis out this court considers walker retrospectively  consider this officer to believe that the law was violated the court also has to consider law from other jurisdictions to assess the reasonable ness of the officers belief and defendant has not effectively distinguished montana or ohio reading and you know the issue here is whether at the time of the stop the facts available to this officer would lead a reasonably prudent person in the same circumstances to believe the stop was justified and  you know we've talked about heine you know justice kagan stated in her and hind that if disagreeing with the officers judgment requires hard interpretive work then the officers mistake if it is found to be a mistake if i was reasonable and here it cannot be said with certainty that the officers understanding of the law was erroneous and i would again point to the l a rules of the road which i have knowledge you know you know are not binding they were written for drivers they're written with the audience being drivers who are driving on the roads but they are they they provided a reasonable interpretation of how the law should be read and how the law should be considered and  minimum the materials you know show that the officers interpretation of the law was reasonable if as was being taught to drivers i don't know that it could be argued that that is not a reasonable interpretation of the law  and just finally as to my good faith argument defendant has not presented you know it is brief or in his arguments here any precedent that existed at the time of the stop that interrogation or that he should have been aware of governing the making a left turns and for that for the good faith exception not to be applied here yes to be shown not only that the officers understanding of  you know we just we have to always consider that or what must we have good faith effort or good faith belief or do we still have to consider the issue of what is objectively reasonable well the test your honor and i'm not sure if i understand your question correctly the test is whether the corn has to get a skin you know the objective question of whether reasonably well trained officer would have known the search was illegal or whether the traffic stop in this case was a legal you know given all of the relevant circumstances do we even know from this record if the police officer had read this  should you're asking if we know if the officer had read the statute right well i mean i i don't i don't you know i don't presume that every off i mean i don't read every statute in the in the l a vehicle code i i presume that  officers are or are you know educated and advised of the traffic laws and what is a valid stop and what isn't what is a violation of the vehicle code and what isn't you know you know at the time this officer you know was was was was just before this officer pulled over this defendant i don't think he pulled out the statute and read it and said yeah i can i can pull this guy over but i think you know officers you know have a i should have understanding of the traffic laws so whether he read this particular statute or not and again i would again point to the rules of the road as saying this is a reasonable interpretation of the statute and what officers are are are i think you i have no other questions any other questions from my colleagues based upon mine no all right well thank you counsel for your arguments this morning we will take the motion to supplement under advisement with the case and this oral argument is now concluded and we will stand in recess to prepare for our next hearing thank you very much