madam clerk if you are caught in this case please he to get to your point we just simply ask you not to repeat yourself ok justices counsel made please the court this case is about whether the illinois legislature intended to limit deep point of it is that these are adjoining this apology is within a county and our interpretation of the plain meaning and ordinary meaning of that language is that these are counties that must merely be joined or connected together circumscr within the borders of a county this is a superior interpretation because it dances the legislative intent of fostering greater cooperation in the purpose of establishing more cohesion in law enforcement now this position is supported by the existing case law and the pinnacle case in this regard is people versus careful lattice which was decided by the second district in one nine hundred ninety s in two thousand rather now this case is instructive because at least twice on page five twenty seven it indicates that police officers can act beyond their jurisdiction to arrest a defendant it as long as it isn't any need to supply the within the county this does not see that court there was very specific in saying our decision would be different if there were some affirmative evidence to indicate that the defendant were arrested in du page county so it has to be within the borders of the county and has been understood by courts not only in carroll ladis but also in lynchburg says young the northern district two thousand and eight case in which that that's actually a scenario in the range that mirrors what occurred in this case insofar as the counties that were involved were not ruling but within the same county and for the purposes of nine hundred eighty three civil liability the quote very clearly stated that in illinois police officers can go into another jurisdiction as long as the municipalities are really in the same borders it's an explicit understanding of what this language means and it's with respect to the legislative intent because ultimately in a matter of statutory interpretation our objective is to give the fact of the legislative intent and this case in this court involved guess was very explicit about what the legislative intent was behind section seven thirty eight it couldn't be any more clear when when they stated that it's to the public policy is to promote cooperation in order to facilitate greater cohesion in law enforcement where they cooperated insofar as the chicago police officers who received a reliable tip then went to their central command got approval and then went to maywood and say look and said look we have a plan of investigate i think this particular libel took that we have well for the purposes of the criminal code of procedure we argue that it was functionally requests but with respect to the municipal code i'm sorry where we are in the evidence is it showed it made would request it well our position is that there's no functional difference between whether or not a law enforcement agency asks for help or agrees to be helped because in either scenario you have the purpose of the legislative  under the criminal code a procedure which clearly states that a police officer can go in any jurisdiction in illinois provided any one of those for or numerated provisions are met and under the third provision which is that they are within their jurisdiction and in fact in this case by the fact that they did not object is essentially a green light for chicago police to go ahead and continue on with their surveillance over this was a mutually beneficial arrangement for both maywo as well as for chicago in the citizens of cook county and the reason being is that neighborhood was able to was able to take care of a crime that was occurring within their municipal borders without having to expend a single dime or use a single hour of manpower in this case and in a in a good in a situation where municipal bonds hits are are really depleted it's important that they be able to leverage the resources of other municipalities to provide for greater cohesion throughout you know the borders of cook county moreover the defense position would actually undermine the cohesion within cook county for the simple reason that beat the municipalities better at people orders edge that don't surveillance what occurred to me would and that the defendant was somebody that was in may when the crime was occurring in may what and so at that point it would be overstretched to say that they didn't want this to happen certainly they did at which point they acquiesced and functionally undermining of the legislative intent it couldn't have been more clear and in fact vargas is very sure to point out that it would be imprudent for a police force such as chicago police officers in this case to just stop their efforts especially when there is an apparent agreement between to dispel divisions now we could argue aspires to big collaborate where the officers from they were involved but the point of it is that the legislature only required cooperation and if we can appreciate the fact that cooperation can range from tacit cooperation to active cooperation to the point where it could be characterized as collaboration then we understand that the breadth of cooperation is the spectrum is quite wide and the legislature did not collaboration they just require some level of cooperation and that at least minimal standard is met in this case and in fact that's a position that supported by the public policy as well as the fact that if fact well should you know under the defendant's position it would have been better for chicago police officers to not be proactive in this case they should have functionally just told me would that look you've got a crime occurring within your borders and then sat back and waited for me were to say hey could you help us in fact which you had in this case rather the chicago police officers say you have a crime of being within your boundaries and we have a plan to investigate that at that point may would be yes and that that is the type of cooperation that is the type of fluid cooperation and cohesion that was the intent of the legislature otherwise it would undermine di dia of being proactive in coming up with a plan and then just sitting back and waiting until you're formally requested opposition and there's no functional difference if our intent in our objective is truly to advance the legislative intent now we're going back to the municipal code where it's important to look at also is the judicial or the legislative trend in how these statutes have been interpreted especially in the area of jurisdictional law initially the type of extras you jurisdictional types of after state chicago or any type of police officers could make it with regard to fresh pursuit and if there is a civilian there is a private arrest but the legislature understood that crimes are increasingly multi year stiction or they don't just stop at borders adds and in fact it requires police just operate in their jurisdiction but anywhere in the state and so we understand that the legislature has tried to expand the scope of authority as well as as well as the territorial scope within which officers can respond to legitimate crime that m be occurring within within quote in this case compelling now with respect to the now with respect to section one of seven four in the criminal code and whether or not there was a request wasn't the case now even if the spirit world to determine that the chicago police officers lack the statutory offer already to operate in may would be exclusionary rule should not be applied to suppress the defendant's statements and it's simply because the violation of a jurisdictional statute the state jurisdictional statute does not equate to a fourth amendment violation under which the exclusionary rule is traditionally applied in fact in hudson versus michigan the supreme court was pretty explicit in that exclusionary rule is a rule of last resort rather than first impulse to be applied when the deterrent effect a future police misconduct there they didn't particularly but this is this is this because of a really fundamental point insofar as it was the chicago police officers that were privy to the tip in this case it wasn't me would that the criminal activity the foot within their supporters then in that scenario it would make more sense that they would call up chicago in sydney need some help but in a scenario as presented here where they were not privy to this information it was chicago police officers that were privy then at that point this understanding that crimes especially drug trafficking is more take your station when you have me with that since about five minute drive off of the eisenhower freeway into one of the more just drug distribution hogs in america  the other side of the state here it's within a five minute drive depending on the traffic of course this is the point of curiosity because they hear these things called the federal task force has police departments like this in the metropolitan area and they was to facilitate greater cooperation without formal agreements that were in place already police officers have to be able to react in an ad hoc manner as crime scene tips are coming in and at which point the tip was reliable it was in officers to say something especially because going back to the point that you made earlier justice murphy aspies how does this impact chicago well it impacts it directly because we had the confiscation of nearly seven thousand grams of candidates three grams of heroin and worth about thirty thousand dollars and five hundred out thirty thousand five hundred dollars worth street value this was more than likely this is an inference that we're making but more than likely not designated merely within the borders  fact it was very it's a fair inference to say that this was earmarked for territories outside and they were within cook county especially in chicago that's a that's a reasonable inference especially when considering that next to these drugs was found the scale ba other registered related pistol that the defendant himself admitted i got off the streets consume is a fair inference to say that this is drugs were just earmarked from a wooden so certainly chicago police officers had a direct interest in preventing crime this is what the legislature intended is to take a preventive approach to combating crime especially when there is an apparent agreement between the two municipal districts involved here now returning to the gone which was decided by our supreme court in two thousand e and golan chicago police officer still to comply with the magistrate provision of the indiana is a fresh pursuit doctrine or statute and the illinois supreme court refrained from actually applying the exclusion area with determining first that chicago police officers to gun violate the defendant's constitutional rights but moreover excluding this evidence would have been nominal deterrent effect on future priest misconduct that way officers were golan made was that no for two reasons first is that that statute in indiana did not intend or it states that the exclusionary rule should be applied in that city it is violated which is an indication of legislative invoking by curious me the rights of the municipality is not a basis for applying the exclusionary rule and that's precisely what we have in this case a violation of the jurisdictional statute in no way implicates the rights of the privacy or due process rights impinged that the defendant can make there's there's really no argument in that with that especially because the defendant has no constitutional right to be investigated in the rest of by a particular police department his position is frankly i was investigated in arrested by the wrong police department but there's no constitutional right to being you know investigated by the right police department in his mind now that being said for those reasons you  analysis is whether or not there was police misconduct to begin with and the police in this case did not move so we transgress the sovereignty of may with police departments you know or thirty they didn't intentionally try to violate a statute jurisdiction they did it in their best attempt to solve crime to prevent crime in this case and they did so with with good intent and it was essentially involuntary as it was the case  but even if this court wanted to apply the exclusionary rule it should because the good faith exception with certainly applied now at which point the controlling law on this matter constitutes a police district is lattice by lynch versus young by haroon these are all cases that are very explicit in saying that the municipalities merely need to be rooted in the borders of the county not that they have to be bordering so it's in good faith reliance of the existing case law that the police officers operated in maywood in this case and so they should be held that the evidence suppression of the evidence in this case would serve no sort of deterrent effect  especially when considering the substantial society societal costs that are reigning in this in this case you have highly probative and highly reliable evidence that's been suppressed and there is a sense of substantial impairment  despise the prosecution goes more waging peace the very legitimate fact finding attempts to police officers in this case and the court in general and certain ways even the deterrent effect which would be nominal because the police officers did not act in willful disobedience of any type of law oh surely the territorial sovereignty of the me with the police department there would be no purpose to applying the exclusionary rule and so if good no more questions i'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for about a year basically say that deep municipalities must be a joint within the county and so if that county is not one hundred miles wrong you know they certainly could do it but under the criminal code of procedure they could go one hundred miles away if they notified and  in like right along with the police officers and help and moreover the distinction again is that the police officers in chicago were the ones that were privy to the tip and so under defendant interpretation in such a scenario where it's the show where it's the police officers in the subject jurisdiction that don't have the functionally preclude any type of request in that situation it would require in other words for the chicago police officers to just sit back in a family wait for a request of before saying hey we've got a great plan for how to handle this which is truly undermining cooperative sorts of attempts to go to th pride thank you relies on friday this in that case there were two separate police departments involved in a joint meeting concerning undercover operation that the one that municipality wanted to pursue the statute is very clear and joining moon's touching situated next there's no way with you here if the if the intent of the legislature was to allow officers to go anywhere in a county then they would have just said that adjoining would be superfluous the there is no rule of construction that allows the court to read out pub those kind of policy arguments should be made to the legislature the policy that's reflected in the definition of police district is that it the statutes unambiguous in fact the court has said in a case period from two thousand and seven that lack of amendment to the statute is quote meaningless where the language son ambiguous the chicago police have an interest in fighting crime in chicago that's what they're paid to do if they have a chip big can they can passed on to me would there was a phone call here a lot we have very little evidence of what happened in this phone call we don't even know who they spoke to we don't know look the person didn't object we don't know the person was just an operator taking a message for somebody and the fatal flaw to their terry stop now we might go to a meeting with residents and asked someone if we could search their house and now do that and then if it pans out that we think this is the guy we're going to arrest him so  exclusionary rule we have two supreme court cases that say that is the appropriate remedy the crucial cases not go on which didn't involve an extraterritorial arrest that was an authorized because the police were outside of their  i'd like to address three specific points that the opposing counsel is made in this case the first being that the people have yet to advance and not absurd understanding of what it means to be a joining but the reality is is that the specific that the municipalities need only be within the county that  know it's not good the playing rate in the language of residence to be adjoining if we have to give back to the legislative intent is that the municipalities need to be within the county and there's no disagreement interestingly from the defendant that the interpretation of the people is superior in so far as it extending advancing the legislative intent intent the argument is that you need to take this up with the legislature where the legislature has been quite clear in this regard insofar as saying we want cohesive more cooperative law enforcement and it's there's there's not the single argument that the defendant can make about rider interpretation of what it means to be a joining us and how these is going to advance the legislative intent this court has been very clear about what the legislative intent is there's no disagreement in that regard and that's why we should read it adjoining as if the board as municipalities connected or joined together with then within a county now the right where the subject misses how these police district would request but our position is that we fulfill that regardless we asked regardless but under the municipal code there's no requirement to request one operating within the borders of your county  any constitutional rights of the defendants and there's no response to that and at that point there's a new need to apply an exclusionary rule remedy but the second biggest fact that's working against him is that is that there was no  department would understand it to mean within the county at that point requesting the permission to engage in that county was not required by the municipal code but nevertheless the officers went ahead and did that and so they acted in first bounds and their police power and it was not ruefully misconduct and at that point there's no deterrent value to suppressing the evidence it in this case and if there are no further questions we'd ask this court