SECOND DIVISION MARCH 31, 2011

1-08-2637 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appeal from the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppel le e, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) No. 07 MC6 000278 ) KA REN H AN D, ) Ho no r ab le ) Thomas

J. O’Hara, Def endan t-App el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g. PRESIDING JUS TI CE CUN NI NGH AM de livered t he j udg men t of t he co ur t , w ith o pinion. Jus t ices Kar nezis and Co nnor s co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON In Au gu st 20 08 a ju ry in

t he circ uit co ur t of Co ok Co unt y found the defe ndan t, Karen Hand, gui l ty of: (1) the off

ense of resi stin g or o bstructing a

peace off ic er (720 ILCS 5/31-1 (a) (W

est 200 6)) f orwhich she re ceived a se nt ence of o ne year of c ond itio nal discha rge; an d (2) the of f en se of ag gr av at ed as sa ult of a peace of fi cer (720 ILCS 5/12-2(a)(6) (West 2006)) for which she recei ved
a concurrent sentence of

one y ear of supervi

si on. The def

endan t file d a tim el y appe al
. Ill . S. Ct . R. 606 (e ff. Mar . 2 0, 200 9) . O n app eal, she r aises t he fo llowing issu es: (1 ) w het her t he tria l courterred in deny in g her m ot ion to quash arrest and s uppress evi

dence; and (2) whether she was legally jus tif ie d in her use of

force agai

nst the poli

ce off ic er who was attemptin

g to enter her hom

e. For t he f ollowi ng reasons, we affi

rm the defen

dant’s convictions an

d sentences.1-08-2637

2 BACK GROUND The evidenc e at t rial re veals t he fo ll owing s equence of even ts that t ook place starting at ap pr o ximat ely

six o’ cloc k in t he eve ning

of December 5, 2006. Frank Hand ( Frank), the de fendant’s husb and, le ft the apartmen t he shared wi

th the defen

dant in Ri verdal e, Illinois, a nd ca lled t he police. Fra nk report ed that he had conce rns ab out hi s wi fe an

d hi s two chi

ldren who wer e in the apa rt ment wi th hi s wi fe. Of

fi cer Mark Kozel

uh of th e R i v erdal e p oli ce

de pa rtm en t re sp on de d to t he ca ll and spoke with F

rank outside the apartm

ent bui ldi ng. Kozel uh testifi ed that Frank had b een dri

nki ng, but “a bs o lu t ely” was coherent. Frank asked for assistance i n retrievi ng some personal i

tems f rom th e ap ar tmen t. Kozel uh, d re ssed in full

po lice unifor m, we nt by him self to t he de fendant ’s ap ar t ment door an d k n ock ed . A f em al e i n qui re d w h o wa s k n ock i n g a n d K oze l uh re sp on de d th

at i t w as t he Riv erdale police. No thing h

appened, and Kozeluh knocked two more times. Kozel uh t hen ver ifi

ed w ith Fr ank and a neighbo r t hat Fra nk lived in t he ap ar t ment wit h t he defend ant and the

chi l dren
. Fra nk ga ve Ko zeluh t he ke ys to t he apa rt ment. Koz eluh r et ur ned t o t he door of the apartmen

t, knocked again

and an nounce d hi s nam

e an d of f i ce. Af ter wai tin g f or a response and he ari

ng n one, K ozel uh u sed the k ey to open the

dead bol t lock
. A c ha i r h ad been propped agains

t the door so that it only

opened ap pr o xima t ely s ix t o eig ht inc he s. Ko ze lu h ma de eye contact wi

th th e defe n dant and a gain t old her who he wa s. T he de fendant t old Koz eluh t hat if he cl osedthe do or, she would remove the chai r. After t he door was c l ose d, h ow ever , t he de fendant locked t he door . Kozeluh

used the key agai n but f el t resistance as i f s omeone was h oldi ng the l ock f rom th e oth er si de of th e door. He

wa s a b l e to un lo ck t he do o rbu t ag ain co uld o nly o pe n it six to eight inc he s. Ko ze luh st uc k p ar t o f his head an d shoulder in

to the door openi

ng an d could see i

nsi de1-08-2637

3

t he ap ar t men t . Ko ze luh ag ain tol d the defe ndan t t o open the doo r, but she picked up a bas ebal l b at t hat was near by

an d s wu ng i t towa rd h i s h ead. K oze l uh duc ke d a nd the ba t hi t the door an d door f ram e. Kozel uh testifi ed that at t hat point, he depl oyed a Taser gun

at the defen

dant whi ch deliv ered
a high vo ltag e st un t hro ugh t wo dar t s. T he de fendant dr op ped t he bat and ran away f rom th e door,
scream in g. Kozeluh testif

ied that because the defendant was a bl e to m ove , th e Ta ser gu

n h ad not depl oyed effe ct ively. If it had bee n effe ct ive, it wo uld hav e r es ult ed in t he d efe ndant’s imm obilizat ion. Koze luh t hen kick ed t he do or op en and pur sue d t he de fendant . H e t old t he def endan t she wasund er arre st an

d tha t she ne eded to get down on

the f l oor. Kozel uh testifi ed that t he defend ant did no t co op er at e. She be gan yelling, k icking at him and swinging her arm

s as he attem pted to pl ace

her under ar

rest. The defendant str uck Ko zeluh’schest and kicked his leg sev

eral tim es. The two st ruggled f

or appro xi

ma tely a m in ute or two unt il

Kozel uh forced her to t he f

loor. At this poi

nt, the defen

dant reached

into her right re ar po cke t and Kozel uh
co uld see a met al objec t in her p oc ket . Ko zeluh t est ifi ed t hat he us ed his Taser gun “ at least twice” t o ap ply a dry s tun to the defe

ndan t’s back. Once Koz eluh wa s able t o ha ndcu ff the d efenda nt , he recovered a kni f e i n a l eather sh eath f rom h er rea r pocket. A

ddi tion al pol i ce of f i cers ar rived and o ne spoke with the ch

il dren whi le Kozel uh too k custody of the b asebal l b at and the kni

fe. The defend ant testifi

ed at tr ia l that three tim

es duri ng the two weeks prior to December 5, 2006, sev eral men that sh e di d not kn ow cam e to her a partm en t door. The men bange d o n t he door, t he windo w in t he kit chen a nd t he windo w in t he childr en’s r oo m and t old t he defend ant t o o pen t he door. The d

ef endan t testi f i ed th at she f

el t af raid f or hers elf and he r ch i l dren
.1-08-2637

4

On the ni ght in question, Fran

k had b een h

ome a sh ort tim e and h e and the def

endan t argued
over mone y. Frank had been

dri nk i ng an d the d ef en da nt tol d h i m to l ea ve be ca us e h e w asnot co nt ribut ingfina nc ially

t o t he childr en’s ne eds . Ap pr oximat ely 15 o r 2 0 minut es a fte r Fr ank left, t he defend ant he ard a k

nock on the door. A per so n who i den ti f i ed h i m se l f as a p oli ce of f i cer tol d h er to opent he do o r . T he de fen da nt , ho we ve r , did not believe t hat it w as a po lice officer at her do or . T he per so n went awa y, but t hen r et ur ned a bou t 10 t o 1 5 minut es lat er and k noc ked aga in. The defend ant beca me app re hensive of t he st r an ge rat t he do o r . Sh e h ad be en ke ep ing a c ha ir propped agains

t the door k nob be ca us e the door di

d n ot lock pr op er ly and she w as a fraid s omeo ne wo uld br eak in. The defend ant had a knife wit h her and a bas eball bat near by that Frank had gi

ven her f or protecti on ag ai

nst in truders
. The porch area was dark, which pr event ed he r fro m seeing t he pe r so n w ho wa s k no ck ing an d s he did not have a wo rk ing pho ne in the apa rt ment. The defend ant could see that the door was being opened by someone us in

g her hus ban d’s key s. She testif

ie d that she felt like she w as be ing invaded and t hat she ha d t o p ro t ect her childre n. Af ter the perso n opened the do or abo ut six i nches, t he defend ant pus hed t he bat t hro ugh t he spacet o pu sh h im bac k. Sh e d id n o t be lie ve sh e had h it hi m. The in truder t ried to push h

is way t hro ugh t he door , backed up, and the def

endan t saw that he had a gun . Af ter t he i ntruder shot her in her left sh

oulder, she e

xperienced ex

crucia ting pai n. She sa w that there were wiresco ming f rom wh ereshe ha d bee n sho t , a nd she knew t hat she ha d not been hit by a bullet . S he t est ifi ed t hat “I fi guredno one would h

ave a gun like t hat ot her t han a p oliceman. ” Sc re aming in pain, t he de fendant wal ked towa rd th e b ac k of the ap artm en t i n or de r to di rect the i ntr ude r away f rom he r children’s
r o o m.1-08-2637

5

Kozel uh pus he d the doorop en and sho t her in the ba ck w ith t he T ase r g un. The defend ant testifi ed tha t the re was“ [a] good

five mi nut es o f shoc king” w hile she was standi ng, and that Kozel

uh
sa id to her , “G et do wn o n t he ground, bitch .” She testif ie d that she tried to get t o t he f loor but was in pai n. She n ever reach

ed fo rt he kn ife in her back pocket . Kozeluh shot t he defen dant o n her chest wi th the Taser gun af

ter she was on the f

loor. Kozeluh

told h er to turn over and sh

ot her i n the b ack wi th the Taser g un. These sh

ots weren ot don

e wi th the wi res comi ng f rom the gun, b

ut with the gun pressed to her body . The def

endan t stat ed that Kozeluh

tried to brea k her w ri st a nd even tua l l y got her i nto handcuf

fs . As sh e was be in

g han dcuff ed, ot her po lice officer s ar rived . T he ent ire incident from when Kozel uh en tered her apartment to when sh e was han dcuff ed l asted approxim

ately 15 to 20 mi nutes. The defen dant testif ie d that wh en she as ke d a fema le p o lice o ffice rin t he ap ar t men t t o he lp her, t he fem

al e poli ce off ic er stated t hat they

were hel pin g her. The def

endan t’s knife was rem

oved fro m her p oc ket by the p olice. The defen dant stated t hat she n

ever i nte nti ona l l y stru ck Koze l uh or trie d to resi st hi

m . At the tim e sh e pi cked up the ba seb al l ba t, she though t he w as a hom e i nv ader. Pri ort o t r ial, the

de f en da nt f i l ed a m oti on to qua sh arres t an d suppres s evi

de nc e b as ed

upon a vi ol ati on of he r fo ur t h amendment right s. At t he heari ng on the m

ot ion, K ozeluh ’s testim

ony was si mi la rto hi s tri al tes ti mony , wi th th e addi ti on of Fra nk’s s t at ement s t o him when he ar rived on t he
sce ne . Koze l

uh sta ted tha t Fran k w ascon cerned tha t, b as ed on pas t exp eriences , his ch

i l dren were not eating proper ly

or being cared for pro perly by the defendant. Frank was also concerned t hat t he defend ant had

me ntal a nd em ot iona l i ssues b ecause sh

e had st at ed t hat she t alked wit h t he de ad a nd she was involved w ith sorcery an d witch craft. Frank was

not a witness

at tr ia l, an d the hearsay1-08-2637

1 Th e d ef en da nt wasi ni ti al l y ch arg ed wi th two cou

nts of en da ng eri ng the l i f e or h eal th of t he t wo ch ildr en by en ga gin g in an ag gr es sive ac t o f vio len ce ag ain st a p o lice o ffice rin t he ir pr es en ce an d b y wi th h ol di n g f rom th em pr ope r a cc es s to n

utri ti on an d h ea l th ca re . Th es e c oun ts wer e lat er dr op ped . T he de fendant was also char ged wit h bat t er y of Ko zeluh. 6 sta tem en ts wer e n ot al l owe d i n to ev i den ce b y th e tr i al cou rt. 1 Th e tri al cou rt de ni ed the de f en da nt’ s m ot io nt o q uas h ar re st and s upp re ss evide nce, and deni ed her sub seq

uent mot ion to reconsider the ruli ng. The trial

court found that Kozel

uh was engaged i n a com m un i ty ca reta ki ng f un cti on and that exigent circumstances j ustifi ed hi s warrantless
en try in to the apartmen

t. Thus, t he trial

co ur t co nclude d t hat t he po lice officer act ed r eas ona bly and there was no violation of the defendan t’s fourt h am

endm ent rights. Af ter deliber at ions, t he jur y found t he def endan t not guil ty of the b attery

of Koze l uh ; gui l ty of aggravated assaul

t o f K ozeluh ; an

d gui lt y of r esi stin

g or o bstructing a

peace off

ic er. The trial courtdeni ed the defendant’s m ot ion f or a ne w tri al an d s en ten ce d her to a

one -y ea r ter m of conditional

disch arge o n the resistin

g arrest con

vi cti on, con cu rrent w i th on e y ea r of su pe rvi si on on the a ggrav ated as sau

l t conv i cti on. The def

endan t fi l ed a ti mel y noti ce of appe al
. AN AL YSIS Th e f i rs t i ss uetha t the de f en da nt r ai se s on app eal is whet her t he t rial co ur t er re d in denying her m oti on to q ua sh arres t an d suppres s evi

de nc e b ec au se

the re wasno jus ti f

i ca ti on f or th e p ol ic e officer’s warra

ntless en try into her apa rt ment. The Unit ed S t at es a nd Ill in ois Constitutions guarantee t he r igh t o f an ind ividua l t o be fr ee fr o m un r ea so na ble sea rches a nd s ei zures . U.S. Const., am

end. IV; Il l . Cons

t. 1970, a rt. I, §6. It has been

long h el d that evi dence obtai

ned as a resul t o f an unl awful
en try and arre st can

not be adm i tted i nto ev i den ce i n c ourt. Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471,1-08-2637

7

485 (1963). A court reviewi ng a m ot ion to suppress ev

ide nce, al though usi

ng a de novo standard, will giv e great defer ence t o t he trial court ’s factual f in din g and wil l n ot reverse tho se fi

ndi ngs unl ess they areaga inst t he manifest weight of t he evi den ce. People v. Luedemann , 222 Ill . 2d 530, 542, 857 N.E.2d 1 87, 195 (2006 ). The trial court agreed wi

th the defen

dant that Kozeluh

had n ot been giv en consen t t o enter t he defend ant ’s ap ar t ment ba sed on F ra nk ’s acqui es cenc e. A nonp re sent co t enant canno t give
co nsent to a third party

to enter prem

ise s on beh

al f of the co-t enan

t who is presen

t and obje cting. Georgi a v. Randolph , 547 U.S. 103, 114 (200 6). A war r an t les s s ea r ch o ren t ry is imp er miss ible unl ess it fit s wit hin a

sp ec i f i ca l l y estab l i sh ed an d w el l -d el i n ea ted ex ce pti on to th e w ar ra n t re qui re men t. Minceyv. Arizona , 437 U .S. 3 85 , 3 90 ( 197 8) . A w ell-re co gnized exce pt ion t o t he wa rr ant re quir ement i s th

e c om m un i ty ca re tak i n g or pu b l i c s af ety exce pt ion. Cady v. Dombrow ski , 413 U.S. 433, 440-41 (1973) (where the search o f a ca r towe d a f

ter a n a cc i de nt wasf

oun d to b e j us ti f

i ed f or the protecti on of

the publ i c b eca use i t was b el i ev ed th at i

t contai ne d a gu n). Dur ingth e h earin

g on the defe

ndan t’s motion to reconside

r the trial court ’s den

ia l of her
m oti on to suppress ev

ide nce and qua sh

arrest, def

en se c ouns el

argue d tha

t Kozel uh’ s en try wa s n ot jus tif ie d base d up on

the c omm

uni ty c aretak i ng e xc eption to the f

ourth am endm en t. The defend ant also ar gue d du ring t he hea ring a nd in her op ening br ief tha t t her e we re no e xigent ci rcumstances that j ustif i ed th e en try. An ex ige nt cir cu mst an ce s a na lysis wh i ch the de f en da nt prom oteson a ppe al i s n ot appr opri ate under the f acts of thi s ca se. U

nde r that the ory , t he a ct io ns o f po lice are examined t o d et er mine whether there is a cl ear showi

ng of probab le

cause to arrest a defendan t. After it has

been determi ned1-08-2637

8

that a poli ce off ic er has appropria

te pro bab le

cause f or an arrest, further factors are required i n order to justify a warr antless entr y i

nto the de fendant’s hom

e. People v. Morgan , 388 Ill . App. 3d 252, 270, 901 N.E.2d 1049, 1064- 65 (2 00 9) . H ere, Koze l uh wa s n ot att em pti n g a wa rra n tl es s e n try i n to t he de f en da n t’s h om e to a rre st a cri me s us pe ct, but i nstead wa s se eki

ng to i nqu i re as to the

wel f are of the ch i l dren i n the def endan t’s h ome . The trial court ruled that the entry

by the police offi

cer was justif

ied b ecause of

th e c om m un i ty car et aking exception to warrantless entries and searches. The tri al cou rt noted Fran k’ s c onc ern

f or his chi ldren and h is request that Kozeluh

acc omp any him i

nt o t he ap ar t ment t o r et rieve some personal items
. The t rial co ur t st at ed in it s ru ling on t he mot ion t o r eco ns i der i ts d en i al of th e m oti on to suppress ev

ide nce: “Who i s to k

now whether or

not t hat ch i l d hasnot b een f

ed f or three hours, thre e days, t hree week s, t hree mont hs? An d t o say that ’s not an em

ergency and the off

ic er shoul d have - - should h ave don e ot her thin gs and f oll owed o t her pat hs in

or der t o ga in en

tr y, I do n’t thi nk i s rea sona bl e. I thi nk th e of f i cer acted re ason

ab l y . Also, t hat t he wife was pr act icing wit chcr aft . T her e wa s no t est imony ab out wha

t the of f i cer b el i ev ed th at mean

t. So I hav

e to in fer f rom som e of m y com mon ex perien ce s a s to wh

at q uote -u n qu ote ‘w i tch craf t’ is. And t he r e c er t ain ly

ar e s inist er if

not violent po rt ions of witch craft that certainl

y c ould gi

ve an off ic er some addit iona l
reas on as to hi s em ergen cy si tuati on f or enter i ng th e proper ty.”1-08-2637

9

The trial cou rt w en t on to say that t he polic e off

ic er had reasonab le

grounds to believe that there was i m medi ate need f or hi s as si stan

ce f or the protec tion

of l i f e. It hasbe en

recogn ized th at em ergen cy -ass i stan ce s earche s are

exercises of a po li

ce o ff icer’s
com m un i ty caretaki ng f unc tion
. People

v. Lew is , 363 Ill. Ap p. 3d 516, 526, 845 N.E .2d 39, 49 (2006) (c iting Cady , 413 U.S. at 441-43). In 2006, our suprem e court cl arif i ed th e us e of

the term “com mun ity caretakin g” wh ich ha d b ee n imp r ec ise ly use d in pr eviou s Illinois de cisions t o d esc ribe
a type of pol

ic e encounter. The three tiers of police encounters that court s hav e t r ad it io na lly recogniz ed

are: (1) arrest s, whi

ch mus t be supported by probab le cause; (2) b

rief in vestigative

stops whi ch m us t be j us ti f i ed by a re as ona bl e, a rti cul ab l e suspici

on of cri m i na l acti vi ty;and (3) en

coun ters involvingn o coe

rc i on or d ete ntion an d therefore d o not in

volve f our th amendm

ent rights. Luedemann , 222 Il

l . 2d at 54 4, 857 N .E.2d at 19 6. The term “com

mun ity caretakin g” h ad b een us ed to descri be the thi rd tier of poli

ce-ci tizen encounter s, wh

i ch were c ons ensual , di

d n ot require pro babl

e cause o rr ea so na ble su sp icio n, an d d id not i nv olv e f ourth am endm en t in terests . Id . at 544, 857 N. E.2d at 19 6 . T he co ur t in Luedemann noted th at t he co mmunity car et aking d oc t rine, how ever , is ana lytically distinct fro m cons ens ua l
encoun ters and i s u se d to v

al i da te a se arch or s ei zu reas re as on ab l e u

n der the f our th am en dm en t. Id
. at 548, 85 7 N.E .2d at 198-9 9. Com m uni ty c aretak i ng r ef ers to a c apac i

ty i n w hi ch the p oli ce a re perf ormi ng a cts un related to the i

nv esti gation of a cri me. Id . at 545, 857 N. E.2d at 197. Exp anding on

t he an alys is in

the Luedemann cas e, ou r su pr eme co ur t re cent ly explained why there i s a n ee d f or c our ts to f orm ul ate th e c om m un i ty caret akin g exception to warrantless searches. In t he c as e o f People v. McDonough , the court stated:1-08-2637

10 “Rather t han de scr ibing

a ti er of pol i ce -c i tizen en cou n ter s, com m un i ty car et aking ref

ers to acapaci

ty i n wh ic h the poli ce actwh en

they are per for ming

so me task unrel ated to the in vestigation of cri

me , such as helping chi

ldren fi nd thei r parents, medi

at i ng noise disputes, re spo nding t o cal l s a

bou t m i ss i ng pe rs ons or s i ck ne i gh bor s, or helping i ne bri ates f i nd th ei r way hom e.” People v. McDonough , 239 Il l . 2d 260 , 269, 94 0 N.E.2d 1100, 1 107 (2 010). Two gene ra l crit er ia must be pr ese nt for a va lid c o mm un i ty ca reta ki ng exce ption to a proh i bi ti on ag ain st a w ar r an t le ss s earc h. T he first is tha t t he law e nfor cement officer must be per for ming

some f unction other than i

nve stigati ng a c ri m e. Id . a t 2 72, 940 N. E. 2d a t 110 9. The objec t ivecircu msta nces of t he sit uat ion, not t he su bject ivemot ives o f the po lice officer s, s hou ld be scrutin iz ed wh en rul i ng on the v al i di ty of a se arch
. Id . at 272, 940 N. E.2d at 1109 . T he se co nd
co nsider at ion is t hat t he sc op e o f the sea rc h must be r eas ona ble beca use it w as d one t o p ro t ect t he
saf ety of the pub l i c. Id . at 272, 940 N. E.2d at 11 09 . Ag ain , t he qu es t io n o f r ea so na ble ne ss is
measu re d in o bject iveterm s by l ookin g at the totali ty of the c i rcum stan ces . Id. at 272, 940 N.E .2d at 1109. “

The court mus t ba

l an cea c i tizen’ s i nte res t i n g oi ng ab out h i s or he r bus i ne ss f ree f rom police int er fer en ce ag ain st t he pu blic’ s int er es t in ha ving po lice o ffice r s p er fo r m se r vic es in addi ti on to strictly la w enf orcemen t.” Id . at 272, 940 N. E.2d at 1109. The defen

dant argues that Kozeluh was m ot iv ated b y the de sir e t o inve st iga t e p o ss ible al l eg ati ons of ch ild a bu se o rne gle ct , wh ich ar e c lo se ly t ied t o law en fo r ce men t , as ev ide nc ed by his t est imony that he fel

t Frank’s statemen

t s t o him “ne ed ed

to be i nv es ti ga ted f urth er. ” A su sp i ci on1-08-2637

11

about t he ch

i l dre n’ s l ac k of prop er c are , th e d ef

en da nt a rgues , doe s n

ot cre ateprob ab l e c au se

f ort he
en t ry. How ev

er , pr ob ab l e c au se

doe s n ot n ee d to ex i st w

h en th e p oli ce

ar e en gagi

n g i n com m un i ty caretakin g. It is clear that Kozeluh was n ot i n v esti ga ti n g a cri me, i n sp i te of his st at ement t hat t he si tua ti on “n eeded to be in

vestigated further.” Vie we d in its prop er c onte

xt, Koze l uh wa s n ot des cr ibing a crimi

nal i nvestigation, but an inquiry i nto the children’s well

-being based on Frank’s expressed concerns. The de f en da n t con tra sts t he fac t s in h er ca se t o t ho se in People v. Mikrut , 371 Ill . App. 3d 114 8, 864 N. E. 2d 9 58 ( 200 7) , w her e t he co ur t fou nd t hat t he po lice officer ’s ent ry into t he defendant’s h om

e wi th out h i s c on se n t wa s j us ti f

i ed un der the c om

m un i ty car et aking funct ion. In t he Mikrut case, a cohab itant asked the pol ic e for assistance i

n retriev in g her belong ings fro m the defendant’s home

because she f eared the de fendant. T he appellate co urt affi rmed the t rial court ’s gr ant of the defendant’s m ot ion to suppr ess e vid en ce , fin ding t hat altho ugh t he ent ry into t he defendant’s home

was j ustif

ie d, the scope of the poli

ce off ic er’s search

wa s unr eas ona bl e. Id . at 1153, 8 64 N.E.2 d at 963
. The defen dant argues that because F rank did not actuall

y a ccompan y K ozeluh when he was at t emp t in g t o g ain ent ry into t he ap ar t ment, Fra nk wa s no t re que st ing pr ot ect ion ag ainst t he defend ant in

order t o r et r iev e h is be lo ng ing s. T he de fen da nt co nt en ds t ha t Fr an k d id n o t fea rfo rhis
sa fe t y, in con tra st to the cohabi

tant seekin

g assi stance i

n the Mikrut

cas e, wh ere the war

ran tle ss e ntry was det er mined t o be just ifi ed. The defend ant argues that the trial cou rt im pro perly reli

ed o n Frank’s reque st to retrie

ve pers onal i tem s i n the apa rtme nt to j ustif

y the w arran

tle ss e ntry . A r ev ie w o f t he r eco rd sho ws t hat t he t rial co ur t ’s r uling t hat t he co mmunity car et aking1-08-2637

12

exce ption applie d in

this case wa s not prim

aril y b ased upon Fran

k’s request to o btain

hi s personal bel ongin gs in the apartmen

t. The tr ia

l c ourt ’s rul

in g wa s founded instead on t he police offi cer’s
r ea so na ble co ncer n for t he we lfare o f the childre n. Fr ank ha d t o ld K o ze luh t ha t he fea r ed t ha t his chi ldren wer e no t being fed. Also, Fra nk wa s c on cer ned a bou t t he childr en’s w ell-being in t he
co nt ext o f t he de fen da nt ’s men t al h ea lt h be ca us e s he ha d t o ld h im she t alked wit h t he de ad a nd
me ntioned wi tchcraf t and sorcer y to hi m . The def endan t’s f ail ure to respond further to Kozeluh after she acknowl edged his knock on the d oor and ann ouncem ent of his off

ic e was not what the poli ce off ic er expected when

performi ng a routine well-be ing chec k. The defend ant wo uld no t op en t he door or t alk t o Ko zeluh. The defend ant re sist ed Ko zeluh’s at t empt t o o pen t he do or even a fte r she agreed t o o pe n it fo rhim. Eva luat ing t he to tali ty of the ci

rcumstances, Kozel

uh was j ustif

ie d under th e c om m un i ty ca re tak i n g e x ce pti on to en ter th e def en da n t’s ap ar tmen t. Dur ing t he heari

ngs i n the trial court and on appeal, the defen dant suggested

less int ru sive
me thods sho uld ha ve be en us ed by t he po lice o ffice rin sp it e o f t he de fen da nt ’s un co o pe r at iv e beha vi or. Fo rex amp le, t he de fen da nt ar gu es t ha t Ko ze luh co uld have requestedt he a ss ist anc e o f a ch ild pr ot ect ion ag en cy or adv i se d Fra n k to g et a cou rt order of

pr otecti on

ag ai n st th e def en da n t. If we w er e t o t ake t he de fendant ’s ar gument t o it s log ical co nc lus ion, a poli ce offi cer who has a
r ea so na ble basis to inquire abou t so meone’s wel fare would be requi red to retreat and seek other
me thods of gaining i n f orm ati on i f th e p er son

f rom wh om h e is s eeki

n g i n f orm ati on si m pl y re f us es to cooperat e. Tha t re sult wo uld su re ly thwar t t he inte nt of th e c om m un i ty ca re tak i n g e x ce pti on to t he f our th am en dm en t. Pol i ce wou l d n ev er b e a b l e to u se re as on ab l e j udgm

en t to enter a dwelli

ng even if the ci rcumstances warranted

the entry. Our courts have recogni zed that t he co mmunity car et aking1-08-2637

13

exce ption is necess ary f

or t he pub li

c’s protection when

a poli ce officer objec t ively and

r ea so na ble ly bel ie ves there is a need to seek i nf ormation ab out an i

ndi vi dual ’s wel

l-b ei ng. We f i nd r eas onab l e the

tria l court’s rul i ng th at there were suf fi ci ent ci rcumstances t o jus t ify t he com m un i ty ca reta ki ng exce ption to th

e p rohi bi ti on ag ain st a wa rr ant less ent ry. U nder t he guide li nesset forth in

the McDonough case, the obj ective ci rcumstances that Kozel

uh f aced jus tif ie d t he ap plicat ion o f the co mmunity car et aking exce pt ion. Fur t her , t he scope of the particul ar search
was reasonable under the facts, once Kozel uh was i nsi de the a partm en t. There f ore, the tri

al court co rr ec t ly ru led t ha t wa s no ne ed t o su pp r es s t he de fen da nt ’s ar r es t o rt he ev ide nc e c o nse qu en t ly obtaine d. The next is sue the def

endan t raises on appe al

is w he t he rhe rco nvic t io ns f o rag gr av at ed as sa ult and resi stin

g a peace off

ic er shoul d be reve

rsed becaus e she was j us ti f i ed i n th e u se of for ce in t he defense of her h ome. A rev

ie win g court wil

l n ot dis tur b the fi

ndings o f a tri er of f

act if , after examining the evidenc e in the li ght most fav

orable to the Stat e, any

rational trier of fac t co uld have fou nd th e def en da n t gui l ty beyond a reas onab l e doubt. People v. Gannon , 213 Ill . App. 3d 560, 565, 57 2 N . E . 2d 11 33 , 11 36 ( 19 91 )
. T ha t sa me stan dard is applic abl e when an appel la te court reviews t he trier of f act’s rej ection of

an af f i rm ati ve def en se. People v. Dunn , 251 Ill . App. 3d 772, 778, 623 N.E.2d 7 64, 769(1993 ). The j ury was gi ven the f oll owin g i nstructions: “Aper so n is just ifi

ed in t he us e o f forc e whe n an d to the ext ent t ha t he r ea so na bly beli ev es th at s uc h con tact i s n ec es sa ry to prev en t anothe r’sunl awf ul en try i nto a dw el

l i ng.1-08-2637

14 A Pea ceOf f i cer nee d n

ot retr eat o r desist

from eff ort s to make
a la wful arrest because of res is

tance or threatened resistan ce to t he
ar re st. He i s j ustif

ie d in the use of an

y f orce whic h he r eas ona bl y bel ie vesto be n

ecessary to eff ect t he ar r es t o rt o de fen d h imse lf f rom b odi l y h ar m wh i l e m ak i n g th e a rre st. A per so n is not aut hor ized t o u se fo rc e t o r esist an arres t wh ich he kn o ws is being made by a peace off

ic er, even i

f h e bel ie ves that t he arrest i s unl

awful and the arrest i

n f act is un la wful .” The def en da n t cl ai m s th at sh e w as

f ri gh ten ed b y K oze l uh ’s i l l eg al i n tru si on an d th at h er atte m pt to resi st hi s en try i nto he r apar tme nt wa s j ustif

i ed an d not ex ces si ve . The St at e po ints o ut t hat t he de fendant did no t objec t t o t he jury in structions gi

ven at t r ial,
nor did she qu es t io n t he jur y inst ruc t io ns in her m ot ion f or a newtrial . The def

endan t counter s that she is not raisi ng the propriet

y of t he jur y instr uct ions. She c laims she is simply not ing t hat t he instr uct ions f

or b oth a ggr avate d a ss aul

t an d re sisti ng a p eaceof

f i cer al l owe d f ora c onv i cti on based upon h er swi ngi ng a ba t at the pol

i ce of f i cer even though s

he wasj ustif

i ed i n doi ng s o. The defen dant further argues that

t he St at e inco rr ect ly commente d du ring c losing a rg ument th at, “ Not on l y di d th e def en da n t pr ev en t t he o ffi cer from

determi ni ng whether or not there was
so mething wrong, she then s wung a b at at hi

m, wen t str ai ght back to her bedroom and the n kic ked and fl ai le d in an attempt to defeat the arrest. ” The def en dant claims tha t t hro ugh t his clos ing
ar gument st at ement , t he St at e wa s ask ing t he jury to consider the defen

dant’s resistance to the police off i cer’ s un l awf ul en try f or purpose s of

the cha rge of resi sti ng a peac e of f i cer.1-08-2637

15

The re is not hing in the re co rd t o s upp or t t he ar gument that the jury used t he defendant’s act of swi ngi ng the b asebal

l b at at Kozeluh an

d not her actions duri

ng the arrest as t he basis fo r finding t he defen dant guil ty of resi stin g a peaceofficer . I n light o f the ent ire t est imony given at t rial, a nd t he in structions gi

ven t o t he jur y, it c anno t be co nclude d t hat t his single st at ement by the S t at e du ring closi ng argument in

fl uenced or t ain

ted t he j ury as the defen

dant clai ms. The de fe nd an t ad va nc es t ha t Ko ze lu h w as no t st at ut o r ily p r o t ec t ed fr o m r es ist an ce by he r when h e en gage d i

n th e i l l eg al en tr y in to her apartmen

t, as he would b e prot ected when h e was ef f ec tua ti ng an arres t. The d ef

en da nt c i testhe ca se of People v. Young

f orthe prin

ci ple that when t he pol i ce ar e f oun d to be en gage d i n u na uthori ze d a cti vi ti es , th ey are not s tatutor i l y prote cte d f

rom resi stanceby

a ci tiz en . People

v. Young , 100 Il

l . Ap p. 2d 20 , 24-25 , 241 N .E.2d 587 , 589-9 0 (196 8). In th at c as e, th e p oli ce

atte m pte d to execute a warr ant at a n i ncorrect address. The defend ant , w ho li ved at the in correct address, resi stedand struck the poli ce off ic er. One i ssue on appeal

was whethe

r t he police off

ic er was engage d in

an “ authorized

ac t,” a req ui rem en t of th e of f ense of re sisti n g a rre st. I ll. Rev. Stat. 1965, ch. 38, par. 31-1 (now 720 ILCS 5/31- 1(a) ( West 2008)). The Stat e argued that the act of t he po lice exec ut ing an illegal war ra nt was in the sam e category as the poli

ce m aki ng an i l l eg al ar re st. Th e c ourt d

i d n ot agree and rul

ed that because the polic e off ic er was not authorized to se arch th e def en da n t’s ap ar tmen t, the def en da n t di d n ot v i ol ate the statute by

resi sti ng h i m . Young , 100 Il l . Ap p. 2d a t 25, 241 N .E.2d at 59 0. The theory that the defen

dant is advan ci ng he re is based upon the assum

ption that the police off ic er’s en try was un

la wful, as in

the Young

cas e. Her e, t he t rial co ur t fou nd t he entry was la wful and t he r eco rd sup po rt s t hat co nclusio n. Kozel uh wa s i n f ul l un i f orm wh en h e w as atte m pti n g to1-08-2637

16

enter her apart men

t and he announced hi s offi ce several tim

es t o t he de fend ant . T he de fendant testifi ed at t rial t hat aft er she o bser ved t he t ype o f gun t hat Koz eluh wa s us ing, s he re alized t hat t he in trud er mus t have b een a polic e off ic er. Guided b

y the in structions gi

ven at tr ia l, an d after
scr ut inizing

t he t est imony and

demeanor o f the witnesses, the jury rejecte d t he defendant’s affirmative defense and determi

ned that the def

endan t was guil ty of aggrav

ated assaul

t o f K ozeluh and gui l ty of resi sti ng or ob structi

ng a peac e of f i cer. Af ter a r ev iew o f t he ev ide nc e in t he ligh t mo st fav o r ab le t o t he St at e, we c onc lude t hat any rational t rier of fac t co uld have fou nd t he de f enda n t g ui l ty b ey on d a re as on ab l e doub

t of b oth off en ses . Ac cordi

ngl y , the j ury ’sverdicts an

d the court’s sen tenc es wi l l

not be di sturb ed. We af fir m t he ju dg men t o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y. Af fi rmed.