2016 IL 119095

IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

(Docket No. 119095) 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER

M. GEILER, Appellee. 

Opinion filed July 8, 2016.

JUSTICE KILBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 

Justices Thomas, Karmeier, and Theis concurred in the judgment and opinion. 

Justice Burke specially concurred, with opinion, joined by Chief Justice 

Garman and Justice Freeman.

OPINION

¶ 1 In this case, the circuit court of Madison County dismissed the defendant’s 

traffic citation based on a violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 552 (eff. Sept. 

30, 2002), requiring the arresting officer to transmit specified portions of the 

citation to the circuit court clerk within 48 hours after the arrest. The appellate court 
- 2 - 

affirmed, holding that when, as here, there is a pattern of a clear and consistent 

violation of Rule 552, the trial court may dismiss a citation without considering 

whether the defendant was prejudiced by the violation. 2015 IL App (5th) 140423. 

For the following reasons, we reverse the judgments of the circuit and appellate 

courts and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings. 

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On May 5, 2014, defendant Christopher M. Geiler received a traffic citation 

from a city of Troy police officer for driving 80 miles per hour in a 

65-mile-per-hour speed zone. The citation was filed with the Madison County 

circuit court clerk’s office on May 9, 2014. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the 

citation, claiming it was not transmitted to the circuit court clerk within 48 hours 

after it was issued, as required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 552 (eff. Sept. 30, 

2002). 

¶ 4 At the motion hearing, the trial court noted that defendant submitted “a stack of 

tickets” issued by the city of Troy. The report of proceedings indicates those tickets 

were marked as defendant’s Exhibit A and admitted into evidence, but the exhibit 

was not included with the record on appeal. The State described the exhibit in its 

subsequent motion to reconsider, stating “of the (50) tickets that Defendant 

submitted into evidence, almost half of them were filed within the 48 hours.” 

¶ 5 The State called city of Troy police detective Todd Hays, who testified that 

after a citation is issued, it is placed in a secure box in the dispatch office. On 

Mondays and Fridays, a supervisor would remove the citations from the box, 

review and record them on bond sheets, and deliver them to the Madison County 

courthouse. Hays estimated there were between 30 and 50 citations filed each 

Monday and Friday. He testified it was not “physically possible” to transport the 

citations to the courthouse every day. 

¶ 6 When asked by defendant if he was familiar with Rule 552, Detective Hays 

responded, “I am now.” He testified the rule “states that the tickets should be up 

within 48 hours.” Detective Hays did not read the rule as “a mandate,” but a 

“decision that if you can get them up in 48 hours, if possible, that’s the way it 
- 3 - 

should be.” Detective Hays testified that citations issued over the weekend were 

delivered to the circuit court clerk on Monday and the ones issued during the week 

were delivered on Friday. He acknowledged that citations issued on Tuesday would 

not be filed with the circuit court clerk until Friday.

¶ 7 The trial court determined that the evidence showed “a clear and consistent 

violation of Rule 552 and not an inadvertent action.” Accordingly, dismissal of the 

traffic citation was warranted based on Rule 552 and People v. Hanna, 185 Ill. App. 

3d 404 (1989). The trial court also denied the State’s motion to reconsider. 

¶ 8 On appeal, the appellate court explained that, under Hanna, dismissal of a 

citation is warranted if there is “a pattern of clear and consistent violation of Rule

552.” 2015 IL App (5th) 140423, ¶ 11. If a clear and consistent pattern is present, 

the court may dismiss a citation without considering whether the violation 

prejudiced the defendant or impaired the circuit court’s management of its docket. 

2015 IL App (5th) 140423, ¶ 13. The appellate court concluded that the trial court 

did not err in dismissing the citation in this case based on a clear and consistent 

violation of Rule 552. 2015 IL App (5th) 140423, ¶ 14. The trial court’s judgment 

was, therefore, affirmed. 2015 IL App (5th) 140423, ¶ 16. 

¶ 9 We allowed the State’s petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. July 1, 

2013). 

¶ 10 ANALYSIS

¶ 11 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 552 governs processing of uniform tickets and 

provides, in pertinent part: 

“The arresting officer shall complete the form or ticket and, within 48 hours 

after the arrest, shall transmit the portions entitled ‘Complaint’ and ‘Disposition 

Report’ and, where appropriate, ‘Report of Conviction,’ either in person or by 

mail, to the clerk of the circuit court of the county in which the violation 

occurred.” 

¶ 12 Rule 552 clearly imposes an obligation requiring the arresting officer to 

transmit the specified portions of the ticket to the circuit court clerk “within 48 
- 4 - 

hours after the arrest.” In this case, the record establishes that defendant received 

his speeding ticket on May 5, 2014, and it was not transmitted to the circuit court 

clerk until May 9, 2014. The State acknowledges that the citation was issued on a 

Monday and was not transmitted to the circuit court clerk until four days later on 

the following Friday. Thus, there is no dispute that the 48-hour requirement in Rule 

552 was violated in this case. Rather, the issue is the appropriate consequence for 

the Rule 552 violation. 

¶ 13 The State contends that the timing requirement in Rule 552 is directory and, 

therefore, dismissal of a citation is not warranted unless noncompliance with the 

rule prejudices the defendant. The State maintains the appellate court’s 

holding—that a citation may be dismissed if a Rule 552 violation is “part of a 

pattern of clear and consistent violation of the rule”—is contrary to this court’s 

decisions requiring a showing of prejudice to the defendant to support dismissal. 

The State concludes the trial court erred in dismissing the citation in this case 

because there is no evidence or allegation that defendant was prejudiced by the 

two-day delay in transmitting the citation to the circuit court clerk.

¶ 14 Defendant responds that the trial court did not err in finding a clear and 

consistent violation of Rule 552 and the citation was, therefore, correctly dismissed 

based upon the appellate court’s decision in Hanna. Defendant contends that the 

trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the citation because the Troy 

police department’s clear and consistent violation of Rule 552 caused an injury to 

the public interest.

¶ 15 We note that defendant, appearing pro se, performed well in presenting his 

argument, both in his brief to this court and in his oral argument. Defendant 

reasonably relied upon the appellate court’s decision in Hanna to support his 

argument that the citation should be dismissed based on a clear and consistent 

violation of Rule 552. His argument, nevertheless, must be rejected given this 

court’s established precedent holding that a charge may not be dismissed based on 

the violation of a directory rule absent a showing of prejudice to the defendant from 

the violation. People v. Ziobro, 242 Ill. 2d 34, 44-45 (2011); People v. Delvillar, 

235 Ill. 2d 507, 522 (2009); People v. Robinson, 217 Ill. 2d 43, 57 (2005). 

¶ 16 This court has consistently relied on the mandatory-directory distinction to 

determine the consequences of a failure to fulfill an obligation. Ziobro, 242 Ill. 2d 
- 5 - 

at 43; Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d at 516; Robinson, 217 Ill. 2d at 52. The 

mandatory-directory distinction “ ‘denotes whether the failure to comply with a 

particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating’ ” a 

governmental action. Robinson, 217 Ill. 2d at 51-52 (quoting Morris v. County of 

Marin, 559 P.2d 606, 611 (Cal. 1977) (en banc)).

¶ 17 Whether an obligation is mandatory or directory is a question of construction 

subject to de novo review. Robinson, 217 Ill. 2d at 54. The principles of statutory 

construction also apply to interpreting our supreme court rules. People v. Salem, 

2016 IL 118693, ¶ 11. In construing a statute or rule, our primary objective is to 

ascertain and give effect to the drafters’ intent. In re Q.P., 2015 IL 118569, ¶ 14. 

The drafters’ intent is best indicated by the language of a statute or rule, given its 

plain and ordinary meaning. Salem, 2016 IL 118693, ¶ 11. 

¶ 18 We presume that procedural commands to governmental officials are directory. 

Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d at 517. The presumption is overcome and a provision is 

mandatory only if: (1) negative language in the statute or rule prohibits further 

action in the case of noncompliance or (2) the right the statute or rule is designed to 

protect would generally be injured under a directory reading. Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d 

at 517. 

¶ 19 Rule 552 simply provides that the arresting officer shall complete the form or 

ticket and transmit it to the circuit court clerk within 48 hours after the arrest. The 

rule does not specify any consequence for a violation of the timing requirement or 

contain any negative language prohibiting prosecution or further action in the case 

of noncompliance. Accordingly, the “negative language” exception does not apply 

here.

¶ 20 As for the second exception, we must first determine the right Rule 552 is 

designed to protect. Rule 552 is part of article V of the supreme court rules. The 

rules in article V relate to trial court procedures in traffic and conservation cases, 

ordinance violations, petty offenses, and certain misdemeanors. Rule 552 provides 

for uniformity of citation forms and ensures they are processed by the trial court in 

a timely and efficient manner. Our appellate court has held that article V was 

adopted “to ensure judicial efficiency and uniformity as well as ‘to expedite the 

handling of traffic cases.’ ” Hanna, 185 Ill. App. 3d at 408 (quoting People v. 

Roberts, 113 Ill. App. 3d 1046, 1050 (1983)). We agree with our appellate court 
- 6 - 

that Rule 552 is designed to ensure judicial efficiency and uniformity in processing 

citations.

¶ 21 We do not believe judicial efficiency or uniformity in processing tickets will 

generally be injured under a directory reading of the rule. While the Troy police 

department violated Rule 552 in this case and several others, the record shows only 

a two-day delay in transmitting the citations and there is no evidence that those 

violations impaired the trial court’s management of its docket.

¶ 22 Additionally, there is no indication that violation of the rule will ordinarily 

prejudice the rights of a defendant. In Robinson, 217 Ill. 2d at 57, this court 

concluded that a postconviction petitioner’s right to appeal would not ordinarily be 

prejudiced by the violation of a statute requiring service of the order of dismissal 

within 10 days of its entry. We observed that, in many cases, the right to appeal 

would be unaffected by untimely service because a petitioner is allowed 30 days 

after dismissal to complete the simple act of preparing and filing a notice of appeal. 

Accordingly, while a postconviction petitioner’s right to appeal may be injured by 

untimely service in a particular case, there was no reason to believe that would 

generally be the case. Robinson, 217 Ill. 2d at 57. 

¶ 23 Similarly, a defendant may be prejudiced by a Rule 552 violation if there is a 

lengthy delay in transmitting a citation in a given case, but no reason exists to 

believe that would generally be true. Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 504 (eff. 

Jan. 1, 1996), a defendant’s first appearance on a traffic citation must be set 

between 14 and 60 days after the arrest, whenever practicable. Thus, even if a 

citation is not transmitted to the circuit court clerk within 48 hours after the arrest as 

required by Rule 552, the citation may still be filed before the defendant’s first 

court appearance and the defendant would be unaffected by the delay in 

transmitting the citation. We conclude that a violation of Rule 552 will not 

generally impede the trial court in processing citations or prejudice a defendant’s 

rights and, therefore, it does not require an exception to the rule that procedural 

commands to governmental officials are directory. See also Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d at 

518-19 (holding that although an individual defendant’s right to waive a jury trial 

and enter a guilty plea intelligently may be injured by the failure to give a statutory 

admonishment about potential immigration consequences, that right “will not 

necessarily be harmed in the absence of the admonishment”).
- 7 - 

¶ 24 Accordingly, neither of the exceptions to the presumption of a directory reading 

applies to Rule 552. Rule 552 is, therefore, directory and no specific consequence is 

triggered by noncompliance. The Troy police department’s failure to transmit 

defendant’s citation to the circuit court clerk within 48 hours in violation of Rule 

552 does not result in automatic dismissal of the citation. See Ziobro, 242 Ill. 2d at 

43. Although automatic dismissal of a citation is not an appropriate consequence 

for a violation of Rule 552, a defendant may still be entitled to relief if he can 

demonstrate he was prejudiced by the violation. See Ziobro, 242 Ill. 2d at 44-45; 

Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d at 522; Robinson, 217 Ill. 2d at 57. 

¶ 25 In Ziobro, we considered whether a citation may be dismissed based on the 

failure to set a defendant’s first court appearance within the 14- to 60-day time 

period required under Rule 504. In finding Rule 504 is directory, this court 

concluded that “[a] mere violation of Rule 504 is not sufficient grounds, standing 

alone, to dismiss charges, as ‘violation of the rule would [not] ordinarily cause any 

injury to public interest or private rights.’ ” Ziobro, 242 Ill. 2d at 45 (quoting 

Village of Park Forest v. Fagan, 64 Ill. 2d 264, 268 (1976)). Only after concluding 

that Rule 504 is directory did this court hold “[a]s such, we find that it was an abuse 

of the circuit courts’ discretion *** to dismiss the charges without requiring a 

showing of prejudice to the defendant.” Ziobro, 242 Ill. 2d at 45. Accordingly, 

consistent with our prior case law, this court held a defendant must show he was 

prejudiced to be entitled to relief for violation of a directory rule. Ziobro, 242 Ill. 2d 

at 45. 

¶ 26 In this case, there is no evidence that the two-day delay in transmitting the 

citation to the circuit court clerk prejudiced defendant, nor does defendant make 

that contention. The citation was issued on May 5, 2014, and filed four days later on 

May 9, 2014. Defendant’s first court appearance was set for June 11, 2014, over a 

month after the citation was filed by the circuit court clerk. There is no indication 

that defendant was prejudiced in presenting his defense by the two-day delay in 

transmitting the citation. Accordingly, we conclude that defendant was not 

prejudiced by the violation of Rule 552. Defendant does not require a remedy 

because he was not prejudiced by the rule violation. See Robinson, 217 Ill. 2d at 60 

(holding “petitioner requires no remedy because he was not prejudiced by” the 

two-day delay in serving the order dismissing his postconviction petition). 
- 8 - 

¶ 27 As a final matter, we observe that the record in this case indicates the Troy 

police department did not violate Rule 552 deliberately but was simply unaware of 

the rule. When Detective Hays was asked at the motion hearing whether he was 

familiar with Rule 552, he responded “I am now.” Thus, defendant apparently 

alerted the Troy police department to the existence of the rule. At oral argument, 

the State assured this court that the Troy police department is now in strict 

compliance with Rule 552. 

¶ 28 Police departments are expected to be aware of and comply with our rules. We 

have no reason to assume that a police department would deliberately violate Rule 

552. Rather, we believe that in most, if not all, cases police departments would 

react to being informed of Rule 552 in the way the Troy police department 

responded here, by ensuring strict compliance with the rule. 

¶ 29 If we were to confront a case involving deliberate, ongoing violations of Rule 

552, the facts may support amending the rule to provide an appropriate response. 

We do not address the issue here, however, because the facts of this case do not 

involve either deliberate or ongoing violations. 

¶ 30 CONCLUSION

¶ 31 For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the circuit and appellate courts are 

reversed, and this cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. 

¶ 32 Reversed and remanded.

¶ 33 JUSTICE BURKE, specially concurring:

¶ 34 Relying on People v. Hanna, 185 Ill. App. 3d 404 (1989), the appellate court 

below held that defendant’s traffic citation had to be dismissed because the Troy 

police department failed to transmit the citation to the clerk of the circuit court 

within 48 hours as required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 552 (eff. Sept. 20, 
- 9 - 

2002). The majority reverses the judgment of the appellate court but does not 

discuss Hanna in any detail. I write separately to explain why Hanna is 

inapplicable and why People v. Ziobro, 242 Ill. 2d 34 (2011), controls under the 

facts of this case. 

¶ 35 In Ziobro, various traffic citations in three different cases were dismissed 

because the arresting officers violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 504 (eff. Jan. 1, 

1996). Similar to Rule 552, Rule 504 imposes a timing requirement, directing an 

arresting officer or the clerk of the circuit court to set the first appearance in court 

for a traffic offense “not less than 14 days but within 60 days after the date of the 

arrest, whenever practicable.” Id.

¶ 36 After examining Rule 504, this court concluded that the rule’s timing 

requirement is directory rather than mandatory. This meant, in short, that a 

violation of the rule does not automatically result in dismissal of a charge. Instead, 

a defendant is ordinarily required to show prejudice from a violation of the rule to 

justify dismissal. As Ziobro stated: “A mere violation of Rule 504 is not sufficient 

grounds, standing alone, to dismiss charges, as ‘violation of the rule would [not] 

ordinarily cause any injury to public interest or private rights.’ ” Ziobro, 242 Ill. 2d 

at 45 (quoting Village of Park Forest v. Fagan, 64 Ill. 2d 264, 268 (1976)). 

Accordingly, because the defendants in the case had failed to show prejudice from 

the rule violations, this court reversed the dismissal of the charges. Id.

¶ 37 Ziobro addressed only “ordinary” situations involving a “mere violation” of a 

directory rule. Nothing in Ziobro suggested that the police officers’ violations of 

Rule 504 in that case were deliberate and ongoing, rather than inadvertent. Ziobro

thus said nothing about the consequences that should follow when a directory rule 

is knowingly and continually violated by a litigant. That issue was addressed, 

however, in People v. Hanna, 185 Ill. App. 3d 404 (1989). 

¶ 38 In Hanna, the circuit court dismissed two traffic citations because the citations 

had not been transmitted to the circuit court clerk within the 48 hours required 

under Rule 552. The appellate court reversed the dismissals, finding, as we do here 

today, that Rule 552 is directory and that the defendants had failed to show any 

injury from the rule violations. Id. at 409. 

¶ 39 However, the appellate court then noted the following: 
- 10 - 

“If this court reverses [the dismissals] without directions, it will be condoning a 

violation of a supreme court rule and will be hindering the trial court’s authority 

to control its docket. On the other hand, if this court affirms the dismissal[s], it 

will penalize the State on matters over which it has no control while granting an 

absolute right to dismissal where no such right was intended.” Id.

To resolve this problem, the appellate court concluded that the proper course was to 

remand the matter to the circuit court for a hearing to determine if the violations at 

issue were “part of an ongoing violation of Supreme Court Rule 552.” Id. As the 

appellate court explained, since the circuit court has the “authority to control its 

own docket and enforce supreme court rules,” dismissal would be warranted if 

there were a showing of a “clear and consistent violation of Rule 552.” Id. at 

409-10.

¶ 40 In other words, according to the appellate court, if the circuit court determined 

on remand that the officers were continuing to deliver citations late—even after 

being fully informed of Rule 552’s timing requirement—the circuit court would 

have the discretionary authority to dismiss the citations. Hanna thus recognized 

that a circuit court has the discretionary authority to dismiss a traffic citation for 

violations of a directory rule, even in the absence of prejudice to the defendant, 

where those violations are knowing and repeated. 

¶ 41 This holding is, of course, not only reasonable, but necessary. Our courts must 

be able to say to a litigant who is continually and deliberately violating a rule, “You 

cannot avail yourself of the court system if you refuse to abide by our rules.” 

Otherwise, our rules are not directives that carry the force of law, they are mere 

suggestions. 

¶ 42 Thus, under the principles of Ziobro and Hanna, a complaining party will 

ordinarily be required to show prejudice from the violation of a directory rule, such 

as Rule 552, to obtain relief. However, the circuit court has the discretion to enforce 

the rule, even when there is no prejudice to the complaining party, if the court finds 

that the rule is being deliberately and repeatedly violated. This approach preserves 

the essential directory nature of the rule, allows for any problems caused by an 

individual litigant to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and, most importantly, 

ensures that the rule can be enforced when needed.
- 11 - 

¶ 43 In this case, the record does not establish that the Troy police department was 

knowingly or deliberately violating Rule 552. Although the department’s practice 

was to deliver its traffic citations to the circuit court only twice a week, the record 

shows that this practice occurred only because the department was ignorant of the 

rule’s requirement that citations be transmitted to the circuit court within 48 hours. 

In addition, at oral argument, the State informed this court that the department has 

changed its practice and, thus, is no longer in violation of the rule. It is apparent, 

therefore, that the department was not flouting the authority of the courts. In these 

circumstances, the concerns of Hanna are not implicated. Instead, the ordinary 

principles governing directory rules set forth in Ziobro, which require a showing of 

prejudice to warrant dismissal of a charge, control. Because defendant has not 

established prejudice, his traffic citation should not have been dismissed. 

¶ 44 For the foregoing reasons, I specially concur.

¶ 45 CHIEF JUSTICE GARMAN and JUSTICE FREEMAN join in this special 

concurrence.