No. 3–09–0043 Opin ion f il ed Apri l 5, 2011

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS THIRD DI STRICT A.D., 2011
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ILL INOIS, ) of the 12th Judi cial Ci rcui t, ) Wi

ll County, Illi

nois, Pl ai ntif f -Ap pel l ee, )

) v. ) No. 08–CM–1080 ) ) KEVIN GORDON, ) Ho no r ab le ) James E . E gan, Def endan t-App el l an t. ) Judg e Pres i di ng.

______________________________________________________________________________ JUS TI CE WRIG HT deliver ed t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Jus t ice Sc hmidt sp ecially conc ur re d, wit h op inion. Jus t ice McD ade dissent ed, wit h op inion.

______________________________________________________________________________ OPINI ON On February

28, 2008 , po li

ce offi cers is sued def

endan t a citation f

or failure to wear a seat bel t as a passenge

r, arrested anot her passe

nger f or po ssessi

on of m arijuana, an

d is sued vari

ous t ra ffi c cit at ions to the driv

er of the veh

ic le . Af ter receivi ng hi s seat bel t t ic ket, defendan

t began2

yelli ng at and t hre at ening t he po lice officer s. P olice o ffi cer s re pea t edly or der ed d efenda nt t o lea ve t he sc ene a nd ar re st ed him for obs t ru ct ing a pe ace officer when he failed t o c omp ly with t he of f i cers ’ d i recti ve s. The cou rt f oun d de f en da nt g ui l ty of the Cl as s A m i sdem ea nor ch arg e of obstruc tin g a pe ace off i cer a nd d ef endan t appea l s the court’s rul i ng. We af f i rm . BACK GROUND On Febr uar y 28, 200 8, defend ant oc cup ied t he fro nt pas seng er sea t in a vehicle st op ped by Jol i et p oli ce of f i cersf or i m proper lan

e u sa ge an d f ai l ur e to s i gn

al . Th e of f i cersi ss ue d c i tati on s to t he dr iver and also issued a cit at ion t o d efenda nt for failure t o w ear his seat belt. Addit ionally, t he off ic ers arrested a passenge

r in the rear seat for unlawful possession of cann

abis. Eventual

ly , after def endan t and another occupan

t of the ve hi cle ref use d to le av e the

sce ne af ter the of f i cers rep ea tedl y orde red the m to do s o, th e p ol i cealso a rre ste d de f

en da nt a nd the othe r i nd i vi dua l f or obstruc tin g a pe ace off i cer, a Class A m i sdemean or. In a n amende d co mplaint, t he St at e allege d t hat , o n Febr uar y 28, 200 8, “defend ant knowin gly obstructed t he perf

ormance of Jef frey German of an authori

zed act withi

n hi s off ic ia l capaci ty, bei ng the i nve stigati on of [def

endan t], knowing Jef

frey German to be a peace

off ic er enga ged in the e xecu t ion o f his official dut ies, in t hat he r efuse d t o e xit t he vehicle a fte r be ing ordered to do so and f

ail ed to di sperse f

rom th e sc ene af ter be i ng ordered to do so.”

The court appoi nted the publ i c def ender to repre sen

t def endan t. Af ter def endan t wai ve d hi s ri ght to a j ury tria l , the c ourt hel

d a b ench tria l on Novem

ber 21, 20 08. The St at e’s first wit ness, Officer J effrey Ge rman, t est ifi ed t hat he wa s emplo yed by the Joli et polic e departmen

t o n Feb ruary 28, 2008, and was

on duty that date. Off

ic er German

stated that he and o ther o ff

icers conducted a t raff

ic stop o n the vehi

cle i n whi ch defen dant was a3

passen ger on that date. Off

ic er German

and the other off

ic ers were dressed i

n “ pla in cl ot hes” at t hat t ime, but t hey wer e we ar ing t heir “black t act ical vest s” w ith p olice w rit ing o n t he fro nt and back, as wel

l as weari ng thei r duty bel ts beari ng thei r badges. According to Off ic er German, they al so iden tif ie d thems el

ves as police off

ic ers at the tim

e of the traff

ic stop. The off ic er stated t hat, when they stopped t he dri

ver of v ehi cl e for i mproper lane usage and f ai lure to sign

al a turn, they observ

ed defe ndan t was not wearing h

is seat bel t as the front seat pas sen ger. Of f i cer G erm an ask ed de f endan t to state hi s nam

e, but def endan t rem ai ne d si l en t. A f ter s evera l req ue sts f or de f en da nt’ s n am e a nd i denti f i ca ti on, to no a

va i l , th e of f i cers aske d al l

of t he o ccu pant s t o e xit t he vehicle. At t hat po int, Officer G er man te st ifi ed t hat t hey arr est ed t he
rea r s ea t pa ss en ger f or un l aw f ul pos se ss i on of

ca nn ab i s. W hi l e w ai ti ng f or th e a rri va l of a tow truck, the of

f i cers ordered the re mai ni ng i ndi vi dual s, i nc l udi ng d ef endan t, to reenter thei

r ve hi cle. Offic er Ge rman sa id t ha t o ffice r s in t wo mar ke d s qu ad s a lso ca me t o t he sc en e t o as sis t t he pla in clothes of f i cers . Offic er Ge rman t es t ified t ha t t he o ffice r s d ec ide d t ha t t he o t he ro cc up an t s o f t he ve hic le should le ave the sc ene rather than wai t for the to w truck. After the off ic ers told the other
occ up an ts to disp er se , O f

f i cer G er man sa i d def en da n t di d n ot l ea v e th e a re a. A cc ordi

n g to Off ic er German

, between h

im self an d three ot her off

ic ers, they ordered def

endan t and the other
oc cup ant s t o lea ve t he ar ea “1 0, 15 t imes *** at which t ime they we re being ver y irat e, yelli ng prof an i ti esat u s, [ an

d] th rea ten i ng us .” O f f i cer Ge rm an tes ti f i ed tha t de f en da nt s ai d, “ If you wer en’t a bad ge, we w ou ld beat your ass. ” De fendant t hen wa lked t o a not her vehicle, dr iven by t he mot her of o ne o f the oc cup ant s o f the st op ped vehicle, who came t o t he sc ene t o g ive the occupa nts a ri de h ome .4

Def endan t and another pa sse

nge r reap proach ed the stoppe d ve

hi cle wh i l e the off i cers werese arch

i n g th e v eh i cl e, an d b oth yel l ed at a n d s ai d p rof an i ti es to th e of f i cers , te l l i n g th em to “F*** off. ” Officer Ger man and t he o t her po lice officer s re pea t edly or der ed d efenda nt and t he ot her pas seng er t o lea ve t he ar ea a nd t hey bot h re fused and c ont inued yelling pr ofa nities a t t he offi cers. On cr os sexa minatio n, O ffi cer Ger man said d efenda nt initially did no t get ou t of t he st o pp ed ca rwh en he wa s o r de r ed t o ex it t he ve hic le, no rdid de fen da nt init ially t ell t he o ffice r s his
nam e upon request, but he even tuall y c ompl ie d with bot h di

rectives from the off ic er. Off ic er Ge rman pa t t ed de fen da nt do wn fo rwe ap o ns a nd iss ue d d efe nd an t a c it at io n fo rfailu r e t o we ar his
sea t belt. Afte r t he o ffi

cer s ar re st ed t he r ear sea t pas seng er and r equ est ed a t ow t ru ck fo r t he veh ic le , the offi

cers had the rem

ai ni ng occupants wai

t in the v ehi cl e. Accordin

g to Off ic er Ger man, a s t hey wer e ge t t ing re ady t o t ow t he st op ped vehicle, t he mot her of o ne o f the
occ up an ts, Mr . W h i te, ca me to th e s cen e to tr

ansp ort th

e oc cu pa n ts h om e, an d th ey weretold to l ea v e th e s cen e. Of

f i cer G er man sta ted th at, b etw een

th e oth er of f i cersan d h i m , the oc cu

pa n ts
were repea tedl y told 5 to 10 tim

es to leav e the area . Of f i cer A rth ur A rel l an o ne xt te sti f i ed tha t he work ed f or J ol i et p ol i cedepa

rtm en t on February 28, 2008, and he was

present at the traffi

c stop inv olvi ng def endan t. Defendan

t and two ot her i ndi vi dual s were si

tt in g out side of the car when h e arriv ed at the scene an

d ot her poli

ce off ic ers were search

in g the veh ic le in whi ch def endan t had been

ridi ng. Af ter t he off ic ers fi ni shed
sea rc hing t he vehicle, t he o ffi cer s t old defend ant and t he o t her oc cup ant s t o g et back into t he veh ic le . Af ter bein g to ld to exi

t t he vehi cl e agai n, def endan t and the others remai

ned i n the street
near t he st op . O ffi

cer Arellano t est ifi

ed t hat defend ant was t old t o g et ou t of t he st re et and lea ve5

the scene several tim es and di d not comply

with that order. Arell

ano said defen

dant was agi

tated
an d ye lling w he n t he y t o ld h im t o dis pe r se o rlea ve t he ar ea . Sp ec ifica lly, t he o ffice rsa id defend ant st oo d in t he st re et and yelled p ro fanities a t t he po lice officer s. O ffi cer Arellano said he personally

to ld de fen

dant to leave the sc ene “ at least ten tim es.” Accordi

ng to t he off

ic er, he was act ing in his official capac ity as a po lice officer when he t old defend ant t o d isper se. Arellano tes ti f i ed tha t de f en da nt d i d n ot com pl y wi th th e of f i cers ’ orders to l ea

ve , so th ey arres ted hi m f or obstruc tin g a pe ace off i cer. Ryan Mo nt ello, ano t her Jo liet p olice o ffi cer wo rk ing o n Febr uar y 28, 200 8, was t he next wit ness t o t est ify. O ffi

cer Mo nt ello sa id he r epo rt ed t o t he sc ene o f the t ra ffi c st op involving defen dant. He testifi

ed that he did not have an exact num

ber, but he personal

ly heard the poli

ce o ffice r s t ell d efe nd an t t o lea ve t he sc en e t ha t ev en ing “mo r e t ha n five t imes
. ” O ffice rMo nt ello said t hat he did no t see and he ar ever ything t hat evening be cau se he “was ba sically baby-sitt ing the other subj ect that was arrested t hat was tryi ng to escape from

the squad car at that t im

e.” Off ic er Montell

o stat ed that both he and Of fi cer Germa

n told def endan t t o disperse s everal

tim es and def endan t did not compl

y. As a resul

t, Offi cer Montell

o t estif ie d that defenda

nt was arrested. Defe ndan t t estif ie d that he was a pass enger i n the vehi cl e that was stopped by the polic e o ffice r s o n Fe br ua ry 28 , 20 08
. He sa id, wh en Offic er Ge rman ap pr o ac he d, he r o lled do wn his win dow. Defendan

t stat ed that he told the off ic er hi s nam

e when it was requested. Af

ter a few mi nutes, defe

ndan t said the of

fi cers told them

to step out of the car. Off ic er German

patted def endan t down w hen h e got out of the

car a nd tol d def endan t to step to the ba

ck of the c ar. Defe ndan t t estif ie d that, whil

e he was bei ng patted down, o ther offi cers arrested the rear pas seng er of t he vehicle. Defend ant said t he r ear pas seng er “was g iven [ sic ] the offi cers a bad6

tim e, rough tim e, so the y wasreal l y pretty m uch watch i ng h i m the w hole ti me.” Defe ndan t expla in ed, as the poli

ce searched the veh

ic le , he stood in the street. The police then told hi

m to move to the si dewal k, and def endan t said h e compl ie d. Defen

dant testif ie d that one of the other passenge rs “gav e the poli ce a hard ti

me .” Accordin

g to defen

dant, the driver t hen also st ar t ed g iving the po lice a har d t ime, ask ing t he o ffi cer s why he w as p ulled o ver and ot her que st ions. Defend ant said he st oo d o n t he side walk a nd “minded his o wn bus iness” a nd “did not say a wo rd. ” Defendant st ate d t hat t he driver of t he sto pped vehicle, Mr. White’s
m other, an d an other pa sse

nge r of th e v ehi cle al

l had ve rba l conf rontations w

i th the pol i ce of f i cers . Defe ndan t said the polic e then arrested Mr. Wh ite f or “obstructing.” Subseque ntly , an off ic er app ro ache d de fendant and a ske d him to leave. Defend ant t est ifi ed t hat he t old t he o ffi

cer t hat he
waswai tin g f or Mr. W hi te’smother an

d the off i cer s aid, “ Okay

,” an d then w al

ked a way. Defend ant st at ed he re mained st anding o n t he side walk a nd ano t her officer ask ed him t o lea ve t he scene. Def

endan t said h e told that offi

cer, “Yeah , I am tryi

ng to leave the scen

e now. I am wai ting on M r. Whi te’s m ot her.” Def

endan t said the polic e off

ic er than told def

endan t he was unde r a rr est for obs t ru ct ing t he po lice. D efenda nt st at ed t hat he as ked t he po lice officer s why he
was being ar re st ed s ince he w as just st anding t her e and not do ing anything wr ong . D efenda nt t est ifi ed t hat he wa s o nly asked t o lea ve t wo t imes befor e being a rr est ed. On cr os sexa minatio n, defend ant re iter at ed t hat he wa s t old t o lea ve t he sc ene t wo t imes and he did no t leave t he sc ene be caus e he was

wai tin g f or Mr. W hi te’smother. Both parties rested after def endan t t estif ie d. Af ter closi ng argum ents, the court found that defend ant was not guilt y of o bst ru ct ing t he po lice officer s und er t he first alte rna t ive in the
com plai nt wh i ch al l eged that de f endan t ref use d to exi

t the vehi cle af

ter be i ng d i rected to do so.7

The c our t th en addr es se d th

e oth er al l eg ati on i n th e c om pl ai n t re ga rdi n g def en da n t re f us i n g to l eav e the sce ne . The court stated i

t di d not f i nd d ef endan t to be a cre di

bl e wi tnes s. The court not ed t hat all of t he o ffi

cer s t est ifi

ed t hat defend ant re fused t o c oo per at e and ar gue d wit h t he po lice, a nd t he co ur t fou nd de fendant ’s t est imony incred ible that Mr. White, his mot her , a nd t he oth er pa ss en ger w ere a

l l argui n g wi th th e p oli ce

an d h e s ai d n othi n g a n d tota l l y coop erate d wi

th the of f i cers . The t rial judg e st at ed t hat , e ven by defend ant ’s o wn t est imony, de fendant did no t leave when t he o ffi

cer s dire ct ed him t o d o s o, t elling the o ffi cer s t hat he wo uld leave but he wa s wa iting for Mrs . Whit e. The co ur t t hen fo und t hat defend ant was or der ed t o lea ve t he sc ene a nd he
re f us ed . Th e c our t took t h e c as e u n der a dv i se men t an d g av e th e a ttorn ey s th e op por tun i ty to present case law to the cou rt t o suppo rt t hei r arguments. On Decem

ber 12, 2008, the court ann ounced i ts ruli ng af ter reviewi

ng case l aw subm itted by cou nsel. T he co ur t quo t ed t he langu age in People v. Synnott, 349 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 22 3 (200 4), a
cas e cit ed by t he St at e, and fo und t hat , a ltho ugh t her e wa s no physical act by defenda nt in the
cas e at b ar, def

endan t was orde

red to exi t the ca r an d he did not i m medi atel y exi t the vehi cle. The court found that defen dant was then “

ordered 15 t im

es to disburse

[ sic ]. He did not disb

urse [ sic ].” The court stated:

“I’m fi ndi ng that I thin

k this is enough, eve

n though he

did n ot take a physical act . And I may be inco rr ect , bu t I’m t hinking re fusing t o o bey the officer ’s inst ru ct ions aft er get t ing o ut of t he ca r a nd aft er st aying in the a re a and 15 t imes, it co uld have devel oped in to a m uch worse si

tuation. I’m gonn

a fi nd hi m gui lty of the resi stin

g.” The court sentenced def

endan t, o n Jan uary 9, 2009, to o ne y

ear of condi

tional dis charge,8

44 da ys in ja il, a ndo t he rfine s a nd co st s. De fen da nt filed a t imely a pp ea l. AN AL YSIS On appeal, defen

dant argues that hi s f

ai lure “ to le ave the sc ene of the

traffi c stop although t he po lice rep eat edly or der ed him t o lea ve” a s cha rg ed d oe s no t co nst itu t e a vio latio n of t he obs t ru ct ing a pe ace officer st at ut e. The St at e co nt ends t hat t he evide nce p re sent ed w as su ffi cient to prove de f

endan t guil ty of obstruc tin g a pe ace off i cer b ey ond a reas onabl e doubt. First , t he pa rt ies disp ut e t he ap plicable st anda rd of r eview. Defend ant sug ges t s t hat t he fact s ar e unc ont est ed a nd t his co ur t must co nst ru e t he meaning o f the st at ut e as it ap plies t o t he und isp ut ed fac t s u nde r t he r at io nale o f People v. Smith , 1 91 I ll. 2d 4 08, 411 (2 000 ). In t he i n sta n t ca se , the rec ord

sh ows th at m an y of th e m ate rial f acts a redispute d b

y th e def en da n t; th eref ore , de f en da n t i s a ctual l y ch al l en gi n g th e s uf f i ci en cy of th e ev i den ce

to f i n d def en da n t gui l ty of the cha rged off ense. Cons equentl

y, the appl

ic abl e standard of rev

ie w is whether an

y rational trier of f act could hav

e found the e ssen

tial el em ents of the cri

me bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt, after vi ewi ng th e ev i den ce i n the l i ght m ost fa vorabl e to the pros ecuti

on. People v. Coll ins, 106 Ill . 2d 237 , 26 1 (1 985 ); People v. McCoy , 378 Il l . Ap p. 3d 95 4, 962 (2008)
. Section 31-1 (a) o f the Crim in al Code of 1961 (Co de) pro vides: “A per so n who kno wingly resist s o r o bst ru ct s t he pe rfo rmance by one k now n t o t he per so n t o be a pe ace officer , fire fighte r, or co rr ect ional inst itu t ion emplo yee o f any authorized act wi

thi n h i s of f i cial capa ci ty* **.” 7 20 IL CS 5/3 1-1(a)(2008 ). In t he inst ant cas e, defend ant do es no t dispu t e t hat t he o ffi cer s we re per for ming authorized acts wi

thin their of fi ci al capaci ties. Theref

ore, t he sole i ssue on revi ew i s whether defen dant’s actions, in

volv in g hi s refus al

to dis perse or leav

e the scen e after bei ng ordered to do9

so, i m pede d the off i cers ’ pe rf orma nc e of thei r off i cial duti es a t the sc ene i

n th i s ca se. Defend ant
re lies heavily on Peo

ple v. Raby, 40 Ill . 2d 392 (1968), and Peo ple v. Stoud

t, 198 Ill . App. 3d 124 (1 990 ), t o s upp or t his po sitio n t hat t he St at e had t o a llege and t hen pr ove physical act s by defen dant agai nst a poli ce off ic er to support a co nvi

ction f or resisti ng or obstruct in

g a peace officer . I t sho uld be no t ed t hat t he St at e has only alleged in its co mplaint t hat defend ant obs t ru ct ed a pea ce o ffi

cer , no t t hat he r esist ed t he o ffi cer s. I n Raby , our supreme court defin ed obstruct as “ ‘to be or co me in the way of.’ ” Raby , 40 Ill . 2d at 399 (quo ting Landry v. Daley , 280 F . Supp. 9 38, 959(N.D. Il l . 1968) ). The def ense re l i es on th e S ec on d D i str

i ct Stoudt case wh ic h, like Raby , did n

ot in volv e a charge of obs

truct in g an off ic er but was predi cated on the all egation that the def

endan t in that
case resisted a pea

ce of f i cer. Stoudt , 1 98 I ll. App. 3d a t 127 -2 8. In Stoudt , t he co ur t held t he ch ar gin g d o cu men t wa s d efic ien t be ca us e t he St at e d id n o t alle ge an ac t o f ph ysic al resistance perf orme d by that de f endan t. Stoudt, 198 Ill. App . 3 d at 128 . H ow ever , in People v. Synnott, 349 Ill. App . 3 d at 227 , t he Se co nd Dist rict dist inguished t he fact s in Stoudt , which were b ased
on a re si sti

ng c ha rge, an d recogn ized th at section 31-1(a ) of th e Code could also i

nc l ude “a f ail ure or omissio n t o t ake act ion” ( 720 ILC S 5 /2 -2 (Wes t 200 2) ) a s co nst itu t ing an “ac t ” und er t he obstructing a peace off

ic er alternati

ve, and that thi s i

nterpretat ion was consi stent with the Raby
cour t’s defin

ition of obstruct mean

in g “to be o r come in

the way of ” the police offi cer’s duties. (Em phasi s om i tted.) (Inter

na l quotati on m

arks omi tted.) Synnott, 349 Ill . App. 3d at 227 (quot in g Raby, 40 Ill . 2d at 399). The Synnott court hel d that ina ction, such

as ref usi ng a polic e officer 's lawful o rd er t o mo ve o ut of t he wa y, ca n co nst itu t e inte rfer ence wit h t he o ffi cer in the di sch arge of his or her duti

es. Synnott, 349 Ill . App. 3d at 227 (citin g City of Chicago v. Meyer,10

44 Ill . 2d 1, 6 (1969)). In the Meyer ca se , our su pre me c ourt h

el d that d ef en da nts were g ui l ty of
o bst ruc t ing a p ea ce o ffice rwh en wa rpr o t es t er s a nd su pp o rt er s r efu se d t o mo ve aft er be ing t o ld to dis pers e by the p oli ce wh en the p oli ce we re un ab l e to ma

i ntai n orde r am ong oppos i

ng f actions. Meyer, 44 Il

l . 2d at 6. It is ul timately f or the t rier o f f

act , o n a case-by-case basis, t o de ter mi ne if a defendant’s
co nduc t obs t ru ct ed a po lice officer unde r t he circ umst ance s o f the individual cas e pr ese nt ed t o t he trie r of f act. McCoy , 378 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 962. It i s n

ot the f unc tion of the rev

i ewi ng c ourt to retry defendan t and it is the responsibi

li ty of the trier o f f

act t o make deter mi

nations of wi

tness
cre di bi l i ty , th e w ei

gh t to be gi ve n th e te sti mony , an d the re as ona

bl e i nf ere nc esto be dra wn f rom the evi den ce. McCoy, 378 I ll . App. 3d at 962. Accor dingl y, we are bo und by the tr ial cou rt ’s fi ndi ng that defen

dant’s testim

ony was not credib le . A reversal is warranted only

if the evi dence i s so i m proba bl e or un sati sf

actory that i t le av es a reas onabl e doubt regard

i ng th e def endan t's g uil t. Collins, 106 Il

l . 2d at 26 1. Here, the record shows that t he off ic ers conducted a traffi

c stop o f the v

ehi cl e i n wh ic h defend ant was an o ccu pant . T he o ffi cer s o rd er ed d efenda nt t o e xit t he vehicle, t hen r eent er t he vehicle whi

le waitin g for a t ow t ruck , and t hen exi t t he vehicle a second t im e when Mr. White’s mother appeared at the scen e i n he r vehi cl e to t ransport t he other occupants, who were not under
arrest, from

the a rea. Wh en W hi te’s m ot her arri ved at that location wi

th transport ation, the off

ic ers requested defen dant to disperse and l

eave the area. A

t t hat point, the off

ic ers were search

in g the stopped veh ic le and wai ting f or a t ow tr uck. Accordin g to the off

ic er’s testim

ony, def endan t and another occupant walked i

n the street between the stopped vehi cl e and W hi te’s m ot her’s v ehi cl e and acted11

ve ry ira t e, yelling pr o fan it ies at t he o ffice r s a nd t hr ea t en ing t he o ffice r s. Ad dit io na lly, w hile def endan t was i n the stree

t betwe en the v ehi cles, the rea

r pas sen ger, wh o was u nde r arres t, was t rying t o es ca pe fr o m Offic er Mo nt ello ’s sq ua d c ar . All o f t he o ffice r s t es t ified t ha t , du r ing t his chaotic ti me period, they

directed def

endan t and the other occupant t o leave the area, 5 to 15 tim es, i n a n a ttempt to dif

f use the s i tuati on wi

thout f urthe r probl ems. Accordin g to the off

ic ers’ testim

ony, def endan t did not compl

y w ith thes e repeated dire ct ives t o d isper se a nd de par t . C ons equ ent ly, defend ant was place d und er ar re st and t he officer ’s eve nt ually gained c ont ro l of t he sit uat ion. Base d o n t his te st imony, t he t rial judg e fo und that d efendan

t’s arrest was warrante d because “i t co uld hav

e developed in

to a much worse si tuation.” Lo ok ing at t he evide nce in t his case , in a light most favo ra ble to t he St at e as re quir ed by t he de cision in Collins , we concl ude that the Stat e presented suf fi ci ent evi dence to the court , as trier of f act, t o pro ve the ess entia

l e le me nts of the off

ense of obstructing a peace of

fi cer bey ond a reasonabl e doubt. See Collins, 106 Ill. 2d a t 2 61; McCoy, 378 Ill . App. 3d at 962. Therefore,
we co nc lud e t he t r ial c o ur t ’s find ing t ha t t he se ac t io ns b y de fen da nt impe de d t he po lice o ffice r s in their duti es to arrest the rear seat passenger an d to search an

d to w the stopped vehicl e was proper. CONCLUSION The j udgm en t of the Wi l l Coun ty c i rcui t court is af f i rmed. JUSTICE SCHMIDT, special ly concurrin

g: I concur but write separately to point out that we do not expect lawyers, judges, doctors, or anyone else to do their jobs12

with someone standing close enough to do them harm while screaming profanities and threats at them. There is no way the police (or anyone else) can conduct their business in the face of such conduct. As judges, we will likely never experience conduct such as that exhibited by defendant in this case because anyone who begins screaming profanities at a judge while the judge is working will likely be arrested before he or she has time to get to the threats stage. We ask the police to investigate crime and keep the peace. Common sense and experience teach that when the police are trying to do their job and one or more people are threatening them, this not only emboldens the ones doing the threatening and screaming, but many times also incites bystanders who may be drawn into the fray. These situations can and often do deteriorate quickly, putting police and the public at greater risk of harm. The more quickly an agitator is removed from the scene, the safer everyone (including the agitator) is. JUSTICE McDADE, di ssen ting: T he St at e c ha r ge d d efe nd an t wit h " Ob st ruc t ing a P ea ce Offic er ( Cla ss A Mis de mea no r ) in that, said def

endan t knowingl

y obs truct ed the perform

ance of Jef frey German of an authori

zed act wi th i n h i s of f i ci al ca paci ty , b ei n g th e i n v esti ga ti on of [d ef en da n t], * ** i n th at h e * ** f ai l ed to dis pe r se fr o m t he sc en e a ft er be ing o r de r ed t o do so ** *. " T he majo r it y has fo un d t ha t "t he so le issue o n re view is whe t her defend ant ’s ac t ions, involving his re fusal t o d isper se o r leave t he sc ene aft er being o rd er ed t o d o s o, impeded t he o ffi cer s’ pe rfo rmance of t heir o ffi cial dut ies at t he sc ene in this case." Sl ip order at 8. I beli

eve the thresh

old an d dis positi ve question is

whether-13-

defend ant ’s ac t ions, acc ept ing t hem as t he major ity has d esc ribed (se e slip o rd er at 10 ( citing People v. McCoy , 378 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 95 4, 962 (2008) , People v. Collins , 106 Ill . 2d 237, 261 (1 98 5) )), are s

uf f i ci en t to s tate th e of f ense ch arge d i n th e a men de d c om pl ai n t. "Wh en a chargi

ng i ns trum en t f ai l s to st at e an o ffen se , t his
co nst itu t es a defec t impli

cat ing du e pr oc ess c onc er ns, a nd t he defec tive charge m

ay be attacke d at an

y tim e. [Ci tation .] * * * If al l th e f acts a l l eg ed may b e tr ue b ut n ev er th el es s f ai l to co n sti tute
an off ense, the charge is i

nsuf fi cien t. " People v. Alvarado , 30 1 I ll. Ap p. 3d 10 17, 102 2-102 3 (199 8). The Stat e cites People v. Weaver , 100 Ill . App. 3d 512 (1981), for the propo si tion that an offi cer has the dut y to mai

ntain publ ic order wherever he may be, and thus a police off

icer so
ac t ing is a lwa ys e ng ag ed in t he ex ec ut io n o f his o ffic ial d ut ies
. Ho we ve r , t he "o ffic ial d ut y" alleged in the c har ging inst ru ment w as no t maintaining p ublic or der , no r w as it sea rc hing t he
sus pec t vehicle, nor pr event ing t he "d evelo p[ ment] into a much w or se sit uat ion" a s fou nd by t he trial cou rt. Th e of

f i ci al du ty wa s " i n v esti ga ti n g" (lef t un de f i n ed i n th e ch argi

n g i n str um en t) de f en da n t. "A co mplaint fo r a st at ut or y offense mus t eithe r se t ou t t he offense in the lang uag e o f the st at ut e o r sp ecifically set fo rt h t he f acts w h i ch con sti tute th e cri me a n d m ust n oti f y th e accus ed

wi th reasonabl e certain ty of the precise off

ense ch arged. [Citation.] * * * T he St at e must pr ove t he es sent ial elements of t he cha rg ing in strumen t as all eged and without variance ." (Em phasi s ad ded.)-14- People v. Miller , 253 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 10 32, 103 5-103 6 (199 3). It is of n o hel p to argue, but the Stat e does, that defendan t im peded the off

ic ers’ attempt to secure the s cen e of thei r i nv esti gation, b eca

use the of f i cers ordered def endan t to lea ve . The re i s s i m pl y n o wa y de f en da n t cou l d h av e i m pe de d a n i n v esti ga ti on i n to hi s cri m i n al acti v i ty (b ut I not e ag ain the char ging inst ru ment d id no t allege w hat po lice wer e allege dly investiga t ing) by
rem ai ni ng a t the sc ene of

the i nv esti gation. I n this case the S tat e had t o pr ove t hat de fendant’s
ac ti ons i n r ef us i ng to l ea ve the "s cene of the i nv es ti ga ti on" obs tructed the pol i cef rom inve st iga t ing him. T he majo r it y has fo un d t ha t a c r iminal d efe nd an t wh o wa lks in t he st r ee t be t we en a v eh icle po lice have st op ped and a re sea rc hing, " act ing ver y irat e, yelli ng pr ofa nities a t t he o ffi

cer , a nd threa teni ng th e of f i cers " (sl i p order a t 10), i s "d

i rected *** to l eav

e the area " (sl i p order a t 10),
and "doe s n

ot compl y wi th *** repea

ted di recti ve s to di sperse a

nd d epart" (sl i p order a t 11),
so mehow co mes in the way o f (slip o rd er at 9) , a po lice officer at t empt ing t o " invest igat e" t he def endan t (sli p order a t 2) that the

pol i ce a re try i ng to get to lea

ve . I would f in d that all the facts all

eged i n the ch argin g in strumen t and found b

y the trial
co ur t may be tr ue bu t never t heless fail t o c ons t itu t e an offense . I wo uld find t hat t his defec t in the char ging inst ru ment, on w hich defend ant now st ands co nvicte d o f a cr ime, re nder s it vo id; and therefore, that defenda

nt suff ered a clear and un

equi vocal deni al of due process. See People v. Cooper , 182 Ill . App. 3d 243, 252 (1989) (citin g Jacks on v. Vir

ginia , 443 U .S. 307, 3 14 (19 79)); People v. Holmes , 39 7 I ll. A pp . 3d 73 7, 74 1 ( 20 10 ) ( "A * ** co ur t may d ismis s a n ind ict men t if the def endan t estab l i shes that he

ha s suf f ered a prej udicial

den i al of d ue proce ss. [C i

tation .] Ho weve r, t he de fendant must est ablish tha t t he de nial of du e pr oc ess is ‘u nequ ivoca lly clear ’ and-15-

that the prej udice is ‘ actual

and sub stan

tia l .’ [C i tation .]"). I would di sm

i ss th e ch arges agai nst def endan t. People v. Redw

ood , 335 Ill . App. 3d 189, 193 (2002) ("A charge that sets f ort h el em ents that do not am

ount t o an off

ense m ay be dism is sed
un der s ecti on

11 4- 1( a) (8 ) of

th e C ode of Cr i m i n al Pro ce du re ") . Acc ordi

n gl y , I d i ss en t.