2017 IL App (3d) 150879

Opinion filed February 22, 2017 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

2017 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

ILLINOIS, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

THOMAS J. WILLIAMS, ) 

 ) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of the 12th Judicial Circuit, 

Will County, Illinois, 

Appeal No. 3-15-0879 

Circuit Nos. 15-DT-186, 15-TR-9913 

Honorable 

Kenneth L. Zelazo, 

Judge, Presiding. 

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

 Presiding Justice Holdridge and Justice Schmidt concurred in the judgment and opinion. 

_____________________________________________________________________________

OPINION

¶ 1 The State appeals from an order granting defendant’s motion to quash his arrest for 

driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) by a Lockport police officer, acting within his 

jurisdiction, after an off-duty Palos Hills police officer placed defendant in custody for improper 

lane usage. During the hearing on the motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, the off-duty 

Palos Hills police officer testified that he witnessed defendant driving erratically outside the 

officer’s jurisdiction and stopped defendant for improper lane usage. However, since the off-duty 

Palos Hills police officer initially measured defendant’s speed with a radar gun before witnessing 

the improper lane violation, the court quashed defendant’s arrest for DUI as a product of the 
2 

invalid citizen’s arrest by the off-duty Palos Hills police officer. We reverse and remand for 

further proceedings. 

¶ 2 FACTS

¶ 3 On February 7, 2015, an on-duty Lockport police officer conducted an independent 

investigation of a complaint concerning defendant’s erratic driving and improper lane usage in 

that jurisdiction. Defendant, Thomas Williams, received citations from the Lockport police 

officer for two counts of DUI (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a) (West 2014)) in case No. 15-DT-186 and

one count of speeding (625 ILCS 5/11-601(b) (West 2014)) in case No. 15-TR-9913.1

¶ 4 On April 14, 2015, defendant filed a motion to quash his arrest in case No. 15-DT-186. In 

his motion, defendant argued that the off-duty Palos Hills police officer, who initially stopped 

him, did not have the jurisdictional authority to place him in custody while waiting for the 

Lockport police officer to arrive. 

¶ 5 On August 12, 2015, the court held a hearing on defendant’s motion to quash. The offduty Palos Hills police officer testified that he was driving southbound on MacGregor Road 

coming from 151st Street in Lockport, Illinois, at approximately 3:00 a.m. on February 7, 2015.

The off-duty Palos Hills police officer advised the court that he had ten years experience as an 

officer. 

¶ 6 According to the off-duty Palos Hills police officer, he was heading to his home in 

Lockport, Illinois, that morning after his shift ended with the Palo Hills police department. The 

officer was driving an unmarked police car that contained a radar gun and Mars lights. He was 

wearing a full police uniform and was armed with a firearm.

 1

Defendant did not file a motion to quash his arrest in case No. 15-TR-9913. However, the State 

concedes it must dismiss defendant’s speeding ticket because the officer who observed defendant 

speeding used powers of his office that are unavailable to ordinary citizens to obtain this evidence. 
3 

¶ 7 While driving southbound on MacGregor Road, a two-way residential street, the off-duty 

Palos Hills police officer encountered an oncoming vehicle that he could see was speeding above 

the posted 25 miles per hour speed limit. According to the off-duty Palos Hills police officer, the 

vehicle, later determined to be driven by defendant, was rapidly closing the distance between 

defendant’s vehicle and the unmarked squad car. 

¶ 8 The off-duty Palos Hills police officer testified that after visually determining defendant

was speeding, he glanced at his dash-mounted radar system that he had not turned off at the end 

of his shift. According to the officer, the radar system measured defendant’s speed at 60 miles 

per hour in the posted 25 miles per hour zone. 

¶ 9 As the two vehicles approached and then passed each other traveling in opposite 

directions, defendant’s vehicle veered into the oncoming lane of traffic. The off-duty Palos Hills 

police officer swerved off the road to avoid colliding with defendant’s vehicle. After this evasive 

maneuver, the off-duty Palos Hills police officer called 911 on his personal cellular phone to 

report the reckless driver. 

¶ 10 After reporting the incident, the off-duty Palos Hills police officer made a U-turn and 

maintained sight of defendant’s vehicle. The off-duty Palos Hills police officer relayed this 

information about the direction of travel of defendant’s vehicle to the dispatcher by using his 

personal cellular phone as he followed defendant’s vehicle. 

¶ 11 Shortly thereafter, defendant parked his vehicle in a driveway on Reef Road. Again, the 

off-duty Palos Hills police officer provided the dispatcher with updated information about where 

defendant stopped. 

¶ 12 After parking his squad car on the street, the off-duty Palos Hills police officer began 

walking towards the driveway. The officer testified that he saw defendant leave defendant’s 
4 

vehicle and begin walking towards the home at that address. The off-duty Palos Hills police 

officer initiated a conversation with defendant by telling defendant he almost struck the officer’s 

vehicle on MacGregor Road. 

¶ 13 The officer asked defendant if he lived at that address. Defendant said it was a friend’s 

house and he did not live there. At some point during the conversation, the officer told defendant 

he was an off-duty police officer and was on his way home. The off-duty Palos Hills police 

officer asked defendant if he had a driver’s license and told defendant not to go anywhere until 

the Lockport police officer arrived. 

¶ 14 According to the off-duty Palos Hills police officer, defendant was very cooperative. 

When asked if defendant had been drinking, defendant replied he had been consuming alcohol at 

Paradise Bay. The off-duty Palos Hills police officer and defendant waited together at the base of 

the driveway until the Lockport police officer arrived. The off-duty Palos Hills police officer did 

not perform any type of sobriety test on defendant. 

¶ 15 The Lockport police officer arrived about ten minutes after the first 911 call. The off-duty 

Palos Hills police officer spoke to the Lockport police officer and described his observations of 

defendant’s erratic driving. Subsequently, the Lockport police officer performed sobriety tests on 

defendant, placed defendant under arrest for DUI, and issued defendant three traffic citations. 

The Lockport police officer completed a sworn report providing the grounds for defendant’s DUI 

arrest, which stated: “Report of erratic driving, improper lane usage, slurred speech, bloodshot 

eyes, failure to complete one leg stand test, [and] failure to complete walk and turn test.” 

¶ 16 The off-duty Palos Hills police officer testified that the locations where he observed 

defendant commit the traffic offenses and where he stopped defendant were both outside of his 
5 

jurisdiction. Palos Hills is located in Cook County, whereas Lockport is located in Will County, 

Illinois. 

¶ 17 After the conclusion of the parties’ arguments, the court continued the matter to 

September 21, 2015, for the purpose of allowing the parties to submit case law in support of their 

positions. On September 21, 2015, the court announced its findings. 

¶ 18 The court noted it was undisputed that the Palos Hills police officer was off duty and 

outside of his jurisdiction when the officer first observed defendant’s vehicle traveling towards 

him on the roadway. The court expressed doubts about “the truthfulness and accuracy of the 

officer’s testimony as it relates to the series and sequence of [the officer’s] observations.” The 

court’s findings implied that the court believed the off-duty Palos Hills police officer first used 

the radar gun to measure defendant’s speed before observing defendant commit the other 

offenses. The trial judge stated that when making an extraterritorial arrest, an off-duty police 

officer may not use powers of his office that are unavailable to a private citizen to obtain 

evidence. Accordingly, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to quash the DUI arrest and 

suppressed all evidence obtained as a result of the first unlawful stop. 

¶ 19 On December 3, 2015, the court held a hearing on the State’s motion to reconsider. At the 

hearing, the trial court emphasized that it believed the evidence obtained from the radar gun was 

the true reason for the stop, not the improper lane usage described by the off-duty police officer. 

The trial judge was concerned that the Lockport police officer did not charge defendant with an 

improper lane usage violation. For these reasons, the trial court judge questioned the off-duty 

police officer’s “conclusion that the stop was predicated on the lane violation” independent from 

information gathered by the use of the radar gun. Therefore, the judge denied the State’s motion 

to reconsider. 
6 

¶ 20 ANALYSIS

¶ 21 The State contends the trial court erroneously granted defendant’s motion to quash and 

suppress evidence. The State argues the off-duty Palos Hills police officer properly performed a 

citizen’s arrest after observing defendant commit the offenses of improper lane usage and erratic 

driving. Therefore, the State submits defendant was lawfully under citizen’s arrest for improper 

lane usage before the Lockport police officer took over the investigation in his jurisdiction. 

¶ 22 When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash and suppress evidence, the 

trial judge’s factual findings are entitled to deference and will be reversed only if such findings 

are against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. McDonough, 239 Ill. 2d 260, 266 

(2010). On the other hand, the trial judge’s ultimate ruling on whether suppression is warranted 

involves a legal question subject to de novo review. Id. Thus, for purposes of our analysis, we 

defer to the trial court’s factual findings regarding the sequence of the officer’s observations. 

¶ 23 The court found the off-duty Palos Hills police officer first used his radar unit before 

making a decision to follow and eventually stop defendant. The court found the citizen’s arrest 

by the off-duty officer for improper lane usage was invalid because the officer first gathered 

information concerning defendant’s speed by using the powers of his office, a radar gun. 

¶ 24 At common law, a police officer cannot lawfully arrest a suspect outside of the 

jurisdiction that appointed the officer unless acting in “fresh pursuit” of a suspected felon fleeing 

from that jurisdiction. People v. Lahr, 147 Ill. 2d 379, 382 (1992). An exception to the commonlaw rule arose from section 107-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (the Code), which 

allows a private person to arrest another person when “he has reasonable grounds to believe that 

an offense other than an ordinance violation is being committed.” 725 ILCS 5/107-3 (West 
7 

2014). Under section 107-3, a police officer acting outside of his jurisdiction retains all of the 

rights of an ordinary citizen to effectuate a citizen’s arrest. Lahr, 147 Ill. 2d at 382. 

¶ 25 However, an extraterritorial arrest by an officer acting in the capacity of a private citizen 

will not be upheld by a court pursuant to section 107-3 where the officer, acting as a citizen, 

relies on information gathered by using powers of his office to create reasonable grounds for the 

arrest. Powers of office have been construed to include the use of a radar gun because this device 

is generally unavailable to private citizens. Id. at 383. 

¶ 26 The record reveals defendant voluntarily stopped his vehicle once he arrived at the 

driveway of a friend’s house. The off-duty Palos Hills police officer did not activate his lights to

effectuate a traffic stop at any point in this process. Instead, defendant voluntarily parked and 

exited his vehicle without any directive from the off-duty officer. Defendant was on foot when 

the off-duty Palos Hills police officer approached defendant and struck up a conversation. Again, 

we conclude, defendant voluntarily stopped walking in order to speak to the off-duty Palos Hills 

police officer.

¶ 27 During this conversation, the off-duty Palos Hills police officer asked if defendant had 

been drinking, asked for defendant’s driver’s license, and instructed defendant to wait with the 

officer in the driveway until the Lockport police department could reach that location. Shortly 

thereafter, the Lockport police officer arrived and spoke to both men. 

¶ 28 The off-duty Palos Hills police officer spoke to the Lockport police officer about the

erratic driving and improper lane use he witnessed on the night of the incident. This 

circumstance is included in the Lockport police officer’s sworn report concerning defendant’s 

arrest for DUI. 
8 

¶ 29 Here, an off-duty police officer, acting outside his jurisdiction, stopped defendant for 

improper lane usage. Improper lane use is an “offense other than an ordinance violation” for the 

purposes of creating the authority to effectuate a citizen’s arrest under section 107-3 of the Code. 

See People v. Kleutgen, 359 Ill. App. 3d 275, 279 (2005). However, the Lockport police officer 

conducted his own investigation of the DUI offense after arriving on scene. It was the Lockport 

police officer that elected to arrest defendant for DUI and speeding, but did not issue a citation 

for improper lane usage. 

¶ 30 The case law provides that the Lockport police officer was not required to charge 

defendant with all minor violations witnessed by the off-duty Palos Hills police officer because 

after the stop, the Lockport police officer became aware of a more serious violation. See People 

v. Goestenkors, 278 Ill. App. 3d 144, 149 (1996). We conclude that the Lockport police officer’s 

decision not to charge defendant with improper lane usage is not outcome determinative. 

¶ 31 In spite of these unusual events, we conclude the trial court’s ruling misapplies existing

case law. In People v. Gutt, 267 Ill. App. 3d 95, 99 (1994), the court upheld an extraterritorial 

arrest, similar to the case at bar. In that case, the off-duty officer first used a radar gun to obtain 

evidence but later observed the defendant fail to use his turn signal. The same circumstances 

exist here and support the lawfulness of defendant’s arrest for improper lane usage before the 

Lockport police officer made it to the scene. We hold that an off-duty police officer’s use of a 

radar gun outside of his jurisdiction, before personally witnessing a driver commit other traffic 

offenses unrelated to excessive speed, will not taint subsequently developed probable cause to 

conduct an arrest by the officer acting in his civilian capacity.

¶ 32 We reverse and remand for further proceedings. 
9 

¶ 33 CONCLUSION

¶ 34 The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is reversed and remanded for further 

proceedings. 

¶ 35 Reversed and remanded.