competition in jersey county seeking the involuntary admission of her brother mark from pursuant to section seven zero four of the illinois mental health code mark pro had an extensive history of mental illness violence and threatened violence  involuntary admission directed a peace officer to take him into custody and the alternative transport him to a facility springfield memorial hospital for examination the court also issued a separate writ by the clerk of the court specifically micros vehicle the spotted at the firehouse located in kane illinois kane is located in green county just outside jersey counties jurisdiction during the police department they contacted the green county sheriff's department and requested assistance in the execution of their involuntary committal orders their instructions for pretty clear we believe marcus and green county we have a court order and we need you to pick him up deputy car paige simply and so many choice words according to this fact according said no it was not going to comply with the jury's carry orders less than twenty four hours after this request part pro was not detained and eventually would murder his own father in jersey county illinois now i understand that law enforcement are granted significant and explicit statutory and common law immunities for example they are immune from negligent place they simply wouldn't be able to do what they do however the reason i am for this court this morning is because of one distinguishing factor that makes this case different in factually distinguishable from nearly every immunity statutory or com common law relied upon by the trial court as well as the defendants and that distinguishing fact is that may eighteenth two thousand and nine involuntary admission order entered private jersey county circuit court deputy page was not ask mental health code deputy page was asked to take mark carreau a mentally ill individual but then found by the stories to be a threat to himself or others to take him to a facility so mental health examination can be con and as a result of this distinguishing fact i believe it does defendants in this matter have a non discretionary duty to comply with the terms of this court order therefore if this is a non discretionary forcible on july nineteenth two thousand and nine first and foremost this finding isn't consequential it fails to relieve the defendants of their duty to comply with the court order defendants have no standing to raise defects in the orders themselves or the underlying mental process as a defense to their own action contrary to the trial court's findings there is no expiration listed on the order there is no such time limitation on these orders in the mental health code and those cited authority for this proposition that the orders were valid for simply one day and medically even this court has commented in numerous opinions of the poor matter in which the middle process has been carried out in our lower courts now during preliminary discovery it was even revealed that there is no factual record or even the petition available upon which this involuntary committal order w validly had mark well challenged his involuntary commitment he would have been successful but that's precisely my point the person who has the position of protecting his liberty interest is not the problem self not the defendant sheriff's deputy from his duty to enforce them the courts are charged with ensuring marco's liberty interests are protected under the mental health not deputy carry page to suggest that on sunday duty to the plaintiff because she did not meet any of the exceptions under the special duty doctrine the plaintiff in that case similarly to the plaintiff's argument here asked the court to not apply the whereas the exercise of ministerial tasks entails a duty of reasonable care to those whose injury as a result of the negligent performance of that duty i of seven that explicitly give law enforcement immunity for failing to make an arrest and this case i ask the court to draw the distinction based not just upon the existence of court but based upon the existence of the order for still present in this case in other words was the death of dennis proud at the hands of the crowd the subject of the involuntary admission order reasonably foreseeable the very definition of one subject to involuntary admission is one in so many words to respond to be a danger to himself or others is such a threat did not exist the order would be  a second aspect of the first the ability arguments relied upon by the trial court involves the i mean common law immunity providing law enforcement has no duty to protect individuals of society from the criminal foley this role is simply applicable because there is no miscarries third party the third party the third party who committed the crime is the party who is the subject of the order and greene county was asked to enforce and comply with the one from the court sought to protect the public from mark pro is the one who ultimately caused the harm in this case to his father the second element of our cause of action that would be a went up there and he wasn't there oh yeah that's very good point and i would suggest at that point then it would be factual issue whether or not if he's got to do for why whether or not it would have done any good and i think that's a factual issue that could be determined by a jury at that point who is in a better position the point being he was asked and refuse immunity protection simply would not apply immunity protects discretionary certain things comply with certain court orders green county is a proper party based albeit on persuasive authority as a result of our supreme court's answer of the certified question that greene county is the necessary party to the action they're the one who's going to be ultimately financially responsible for any judgment or settlement and entered in the clause in the supreme court even seems to suggest that i county ultimately going to be responsible for september were just to maintain an interest in the underlying suit to protect this interest and finally there's simply no authority for the defendants contention that greene county ca may eighteenth two thousand and nine detention order which finds mark cross subject to involuntary admission directs a peace officer and peace officer to take him into custody and take him to a facility for a mental health examination these foreigners were support of one deputy page devore himself physically solve your jersey vocalise department merely requested this compliance with a deputy page is not concerned with marc crosas constitutional due process right is missing even the petition that asked for marc crosas detention is a statement that has no basis in the record at all all we have all parties have this case  getting ready to go on he was that is home and hill on the way which is on the far north western corner of greene county this is not a matter where he's going to be driving from carrollton down came he was conversation with the green county dispatcher as i recall is not transcribed there was some conversation that the dispatcher had with  database and he came up clear or valid something that so there was no record that the green county sheriff's department had about any kind of forceful order at all there was that kind of discussion there was also some discussion that i i understand from the page that he was not going to be able to drive all the way down to kane and  if you will that firehouse played cards and coffee early every morning many mornings every week and he was there apparently he was there with his father not just on that day but on other days so that's really the factual  here but i must say none of that isn't directly what is in the record are these two workers that judge the story assume they don't contain any findings therefore mortars and simply say pick up crow and take him to memorial hospital in springfield on may eighteenth two thousand and nine and the second order is identical but it said take him to jersey go community hospital and that's all we have if we look at the face of those orders which i contend are unambiguous it's very clear that they had expired the intent may have been as judge meyer said and his order dismissing  complaint in this case the intent may have been that mark pro be taken into custody on some other day other than may change on the face of those orders they only said made in and in green county they had no way of knowing if those orders had already been force or if they were valid in any way or or anything because the dispatcher had run this through the system and didn't have any indication undertaking in the john white three case that's pending before the supreme court this isn't anything like john white three it's not at all because there was no voluntary undertaking of could take action therefore he refused the important thing as he certainly did not voluntarily undertake to go do something or to go pick up more row and no one worldwide on a voluntary undertaken by death of the page to go pick this man up we have a duty that we're talking about on the one hand in terms of the section two six fifteen motion and in terms of the section is absolute and it is applicable as a supreme court clearly said specifically said in this mess versus rock island county case it's comprehensive in those cases where the police take no action or where they take an adequate action this is a case that's played it as a no action case absolute immunity under section for one or two before my time runs out i need to touch on a couple other things here i made on arsenic causation is certainly missing in this case it has not been led in any way this is a situation where there is case there and on a separate point if i might get into the cross of people this is a situation where former sheriff graham and under owns does not permit the plane to come back after the statute of women after the period of limitation is hands and i'm in the complaint to name for the first time sheriff then sh has clearly stated here today that their intent is to a certain official capacity not an individual capacity against and so these are all official capacity claims intended to be collected from the county under the carver of vs the self county recent however what what what is the role of former sheriff ryan now case he's out of office he has no official pass he has no ability to settle the case or or to do anything about the case on behalf of the sheriff's department his successor is the public entity known as the sheriff his success actually instead of the point of suing the office of the sheriff or the sheriff's department as has been done in this case like it should have sued the sheriff by name sheriff graham while he was sheriff and then substitute his successor after he left office or at this point sue sheriff mcmillan because he is the public who is the the sheriff constitution under the only constitution i was sick submit to you that it is unnecessary and an appropriate non sensical if you will to keep claim by naming first the office of sheriff and then the sheriff's department i would if i would have done of that would have named the sheriff by name he is the public you know but i think that's a formality in this case so it's very clear under section two six sixteen d of the code of civil procedure that the claim against deputy page cannot stand at all he truly has been attractive that way they specifically include and direct law enforcement involvement as a critical player to help carry out this process the mental health code is an ongoing effort by our  mentally ill individuals to continually fall through the cracks and for the worst case scenario to occur which is exactly what happened in this case this case deals with the section of our community to which the mental health code attempts to strike a balance between critical role in affecting that balance in protecting those interests and therefore the duty to comply with the commands of these court orders execution executed in courts with mental health code to be non discretionary shinjuku the original complaint named the office of the green county the part green county sheriff's department and as i said before