grounds that the q wanted a city officer was without authority to arrest the defendant in an unincorporated area for an offense that happened outside who want he said he limits for the following two reasons both of which are two parters first court had no personal knowledge of the offense the court and the court wrongly concluded that the officer could investigate a misdemeanor offense both because the witness has personal knowledge does not equate to the officers personal knowledge and because there was no reasonable basis to believe that the section the court cited section four o two of the traffic code had been violated the facts of this case are fairly brief and fairly straightforward i will focus a little bit more than usual on the procedure involving the trial court's hearing of the motion to dismiss and its rulings there of just outside the city limits of q wanny a truck crashed into a guardrail to nearby residents drove from their homes toward the sound of the crash the first one there saw a man standing next to the driver's side door she did not see the man in the car the man left lieutenant rivard was the first officer on the scene he found the car talk to witnesses and broadcast information on public radio i'm sorry i'm police radio officer well dad who testified that the accident occurred outside city limits was dispatched to the accident he headed then in the same direction that the truck was pointed which was out of town and into the country driving about a half mile into the country officer while dad spotted the defendant and stopped and questioned him the defendant refuse medical treatment and tried to leave at we had twenty two officers arrested him on him they found contraband he was arrested for dui as well at the close of evidence the defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the court said the police can arrest anybody in the state of illinois purportedly relying upon section seven for seven of the municipalities the court did direct out to the allegation of failure to report an accident the court found specifically that the accident occurred outside city limits but found that the statute required that the defendant report to the sheriff or to the state police and that there had been no evidence as to a failure of this to happen the defendant was then found guilty of dui possession of paraphernalia and possession of marijuana failure or a seatbelt introduces feed the defense counsel then filed a written motion to dismiss it incorporated as part of the post trial motions and allege specifically that the arrest was improper by the police because it was outside of their jurisdiction the defendant argued that section seven four seven which allows arrests throughout the s under certain circumstances does not include unincorporated areas it within the definition of police districts which require that the municipalities be a drilling it's in the country it's not as if  geneva or connections that the defendant also argued that a citizen's arrest was not appropriate because the trappings of the police office were used and that the officer again had no personal knowledge of the accident in henry county and the map purportedly indicated that the accident occurred within municipal bonds i will say that the map and agony agreement were from thirty years prior and showed only the city limits of the municipality did not show the location of the car the judge claimed that the witness statements gave the officers personal knowledge of the events and thus gave them probable cause to investigate the specific acts that are the specific allegation of four o two which is failure to report an accident involving another car the court specifically stated that it was not considering the state's arguments because it was unnecessary to either the map or the letter recurring regarding deputize age given these facts given the procedure followed by the co ordinates rulings the defendant now has serves that these circuit court erred because the officer first of all was not personally aware of the accident he did not see the defendant in the truck and more specifically the witnesses who relayed what they knew to the officer had not seen the defendant in the truck even if they had the case was clear and contrary specifically that the witnesses knowledge would not suffice as personal knowledge but they themselves did not possess it secondly the defendant notes that this section related to damage to another car was not violated by the defendant and there was no evidence involving another car it was simply property of another and for that reason did not qualify as an offense that might have justified the search by the officers an officer may conduct a terry stop outside his jurisdiction again if there are adjoining minnes a pal of these or under five i'm sorry for certain circumstances that are set forth both within the statute and applicable to this and either investigate or as in this case conducted terry stop if one of the four following circumstances are presented first if the officer isn't gauged in the investigation of criminal activity that occurred in the officers primary jurisdiction and the temporary questioning or arrest relates to arises from or is conducted pursuant to that investigation again the evidence here that was presented in the trial court accepted by the trial court clearly indicates that this accident did not happen within the co one the city limits within the officer's primary jurisdiction as such the officer was without authority to go outside of the jurisdiction to investigate second if the officer while on duty as peace officer becomes personally aware of the immediate commission of a felony or misdemeanor violation of the laws of this state then the officer may venture into the next jurisdiction the trial court was plainly wrong when it stated that told the arresting officer that they had seen something that clearly suggested a buy of illegal drugs the court found that it wasn't sufficient that the officer was relying on the reporting officers and therefore the officer did not have authority to arrest the defendant in contrast nor did the court have or nor did the officers have authority here secondly is regard to the specific subsection of one of seven dash or  three the witness is again did not have personal knowledge that the defendant drove the truck and again there was no probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense that the op that the court said would justify a stop under the circumstances the third subsection with then one o seven dash for a three is as follows if the officer while on duty as a peace officer is requested by an appropriate state or local law enforcement official to render aid or assistance to the requesting a law enforcement agency that is outside the officer's primary jurisdiction again that request wasn't made in the instant case there was no request of the officer to participate in the investigation by the adjoining county and therefore that does not apply the fourth section doesn't apply either or very simply stated it relates to a pilot program regarding cyber gangs and has no bearing on this case the fifth reason and this isn't part of the statute but part of case law is where he citizens arrest is conducted but again there was no personal knowledge by the officer here and the officer isn't entitle to use the trappings of his office to effectuate a citizen's arrest here there were several of those most specifically the communications and it wasn't contrary as it was current allied is that said that the police radio is sufficiently a trapping officers which is one of the reasons that the state as almost post facto just asian used in this case there's nothing to indicate that a deputy is asian particularly one that if it didn't expire in the past it only existed in the past doesn't provide a basis for for the officer to continue his jurisdiction part of that argument comes from the cases which indicate that where an officer is something in another district if he's working as a peace officer at that time is intitled to if he personally sees something active on here there is nothing to indicate that was an open ended matter that it could apply at any time and in fact there are several policy reasons that would suggest that the municipalities themselves wouldn't necessarily want an officer stepping in simply because of a past asian there is nothing to indicate that this is something that can be open ended i would note that the third subsection of one of the seven dash for a three suggests in answered that someone relates to that type of policy and would have solved the situation in the instant case and that is that the the jurisdiction into which the officer ventured could have requested the assistance of the officer and as a matter of practice what police can do is notify the agency in this case henry county and say something just happened we think it's coming into your county do you want us to assess i'm half a mile away i can go check but that wasn't done here instead the officer acted without authority ventured into an area in which the offense committed not based on any personal knowledge and ignoring the fact that in fact the offens outside of the officers jurisdiction because the officer was without authority and lack personal knowledge if the court has no further questions i would conclude by asking that the defendant's convictions be revers  as counsel pointed out during the motion to dismiss in the state's response they attached to that response a map of the area in accession agreement that stated that the area question was part of the city limits in addition they did attack should be letter from the henry county sheriff's department stating that five months prior detective will get i mean officer well that had been pratt five months prior he had participated in certain swat teams i believe in training and things of that nature for the henry county sheriff's department not necessarily just other than the fact that his status had not been revoked at that point that it was still active no the training was completed i mean i guess i i would say i would i would just again say that it's his that is had been revoked at that point so i mean the the letter stated that there was this training that occurred the training was over so essentially the reason he was deputized i guess was over but his status was still active to their response and you know the defendant found a motion to dismiss based on this they responded by attaching you know arguing that this was not an actual territorial arrest and in support of that they attached this agreement which included a map and find that these things you know meant that there was there was not an ex territorial arrest but it i mean it was part of the record so he also commented that it's not it wasn't the ordinance it was the you know the history of ordinance for him by the county board so that i mean that there was no hearing and all there is is the agreement correct that there's just after the area where this accident occurred so the trial judge does mention as counsel mentioned section one hundred seven four and he mentions that as as something in of the two officers i think we also have a code of criminal procedure seven twenty five aisle c s five national one also four so it's the people's position that that was just an additional thing that he based his decision on it's the judgment of the trial court that this court reviews and not his reasoning just a quick note about the sections that defend or that different violated section eleven d four that deals with when the car when a vehicle gets into an accident with other property which is the case here defendant was cited for that section he did violate that section so the fact  says that the trial judge erred in finding that a misdemeanor had occurred is also not correct because several misdemeanors occurred that being one of them so again this court can affirm on any basis in the record and it's the if there are no more questions that the the deputy is asian was still at issue or something that was going but the statute itself and i refer to one of the seven days for a three seems to suggest that the the time lines are limited to the active investigation there are specific references within that entire section that refer to the immediate offense which implies  required and presented by the officers so to that extent i don't believe that it can be allowed to be something that merely as an open ended matter and the court noted that it did not conduct evidentiary hearing it did not investigate this letter didn't ask the questions that we would like to have answered it was a book to whom it may concern letter from the sheriff related specifically to officers while gap and referred but there it was hearsay it was not part of the evidence in may have been presented and attached by the state but it didn't become part of the case similarly the map from a deputy and then when you become a deputy a train ation frankly is limited to western movies here in this case there is no indication that and the state didn't present anything it really doesn't and there is nothing to indicate that in the state certainly hasn't propounded anything that says that it can be open ended like this i can't imagine that we're actually working in a world where officers who at one time assisted with an arrest or underwent training or participated in the blackhawk task force can now wander freely around henry county outside of their own jurisdiction and it certainly violates the principles and the reason for limiting jurisdiction to the voting jurisdiction that somebody is that the police officers are not going to be accountable to the citizens of henry county the way they are to the city of tijuana and that's just one reason why the officer shouldn't be allowed to range outside of his own jurisdiction which clearly is what occurred here regarding the use of forro for its it's somewhat of a non issue if this court were to find that the accident occurred within the jurisdiction th and wouldn't be able to enforce this violation of forro or as it set forth in one of seven dash or so for all of those reasons if there are no further questions i would conclude by asking that this court reverse the convictions of the defendant