Court Opinion

ID: 9520992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:54:54.352055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:29.098650
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, specially concurring: The majority declares the Joliet ordinance unconstitutional on the grounds that the ordinance fails to (1) provide adequate notice of the prohibited conduct, and (2) establish adequate enforcement guidelines for police officers. I disagree with these conclusions and believe the ordinance is constitutional. Nevertheless, since the police officers lacked probable cause when they arrested James Lee (the event that produced the drug evidence at issue), I agree with the majority’s ultimate conclusion that his conviction should be reversed. 1. Constitutionality of Ordinance Municipal ordinances are construed according to the general rules of statutory construction. City of Chicago v. Morales, 177 Ill. 2d 440 (1997). It is axiomatic that a court must construe a challenged statute as constitutional if the statute is reasonably susceptible to such construction. Morales, 177 Ill. 2d 440. It is also axiomatic that a court’s paramount objective is to ascertain and effectuate the legislature’s intent. People v. Boykin, 94 Ill. 2d 138 (1983). In pursuing this objective, the court must apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute. People v. Hicks, 164 Ill. 2d 218 (1995). The Joliet ordinance prohibits loitering in a manner and under circumstances manifesting the purpose to engage in drug-related activity. Joliet Municipal Code § 21 — 10.1 (1990). The plain meaning of this language contravenes the majority’s conclusion. The word manifest means “to make evident or certain by showing or displaying.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 707 (10th ed. 1997). The word purpose means “something set up as an object or end to be attained”; hence the phrase on purpose means “by intent.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 949 (10th ed. 1997). These words establish a mens rea element (intent) and require, as a prerequisite to an arrest, that a suspect exhibit some show or display (overt conduct) signaling an intention to engage in drug-related activity. Thus the majority is wrong in supposing that “a person standing outside his place of business could be arrested under the ordinance if that place of business is located in an area known for unlawful drug use and someone in a vehicle pulls up and asks for directions.” 345 Ill. App. 3d at 787. Such facts would not support an arrest because, according to the plain meaning of the words used in the ordinance, the businessperson would also have to perform some act making it evident or certain that he intended to commit a drug crime. The ordinance is sufficiently clear to provide adequate notice of the prohibited conduct. Citizens are placed on notice that they cannot, while loitering, commit acts signaling an intention to violate drug laws. I am confident that if the above-mentioned businessperson read the ordinance he would not feel a need to avoid standing outside his building for fear that a motorist might pull up and request directions. Since he ostensibly harbors no intent to commit drug crimes, he can rest assured that he will not violate the ordinance so long as he conforms his conduct to his intent. On the other hand, persons who do intend to commit drug crimes are placed on notice that if they engage in overt acts signaling their intent, they are subject to arrest under the ordinance. An overt act is required to give the word manifesting its plain and ordinary meaning. This requirement, combined with the mens rea element of intent, alleviates the majority’s concern about adequate notice. The ordinance is also sufficiently clear to guide police officers in properly enforcing its provisions. Although some of the nine criteria provided in the ordinance do not specify an overt act, this omission does not render the ordinance unconstitutional because the city council did not give such criteria conclusive effect. Rather, the council explained that the criteria merely describe circumstances “which may be considered” in the overall determination of whether the ordinance has been violated. Such consideration is guided by the plain meaning of the word manifesting. Thus, if police officers see a person who is a known drug user (criterion No. 1), they may become suspicious and conduct further surveillance, but they cannot arrest the person because he has not committed an overt act signaling a current intention to violate drug laws. If during further surveillance the officers see the person engage in overt drug-related acts,1 then they can arrest him under the ordinance. These guidelines are clear from the plain language of the ordinance, and I believe they satisfy the demands of due process. As the majority notes, three appellate courts from other states have addressed the constitutionality of similar ordinances. See State v. Muschkat, 706 So. 2d 429 (La. 1998) (declaring the ordinance unconstitutional); City of Akron v. Rowland, 67 Ohio St. 3d 374, 618 N.E.2d 138 (1993) (declaring the ordinance unconstitutional); City of Tacoma v. Luvene, 118 Wash. 2d 826, 827 P.2d 1374 (1992) (upholding the ordinance as constitutional). Of these three courts, only the Supreme Court of Washington honored the axiomatic principles of statutory construction in its analysis. See Luvene, 118 Wash. 2d 826, 827 P.2d 1374. Accordingly, I believe that court’s analysis is more reliable than the analyses in the Louisiana and Ohio cases. 2. Probable Cause Although I believe Joliet’s drug-loitering ordinance is constitutional, I would still reverse Lee’s conviction because the instant facts do not show probable cause for his arrest. At most the arresting officers observed him standing on a curb and speaking to someone in an illegally parked van. When combined with the surrounding circumstances, such observation was certainly enough to heighten the officers’ suspicion and warrant further surveillance. However, they should have waited and watched for some overt act signaling that Lee intended to engage in drug-related activity. As discussed above, such an approach was mandated by the statutory requirement that Lee engage in conduct manifesting the requisite criminal intent.  Examples of such acts include acting as a “lookout” for a drug transaction (criterion No. 3), furtively transferring small objects or packages for currency (criterion No. 5), and taking flight upon seeing a police officer (criterion No. 6).