Court Opinion

ID: 9519565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:18:49.912994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:29.840997
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE JONES, dissenting: The majority has held that Village of Park Forest v. Fagan applies only to the first sentence of Rule 504 a view I deem unduly restrictive of the court’s opinion in that case and I accordingly respectfully dissent. I think it apparent that Rule 504 does not mandate a trial on the assigned date. The statement of policy of the supreme court in that rule should not be elevated to the level of an absolute command. Were the absolute intended it would have been a simple matter to phrase the rule in terms that would express it. In my view the statement of policy is to be interpreted only as an expression of a strong preference that the procedure of Rule 504 be followed. Such interpretation is manifest in the language of the court in the Fagan case when they state, after holding the time limitations to be directory: “To comply with the rule, an arresting officer should schedule early appearance dates ‘whenever practicable,’ notwithstanding the directory construction we hereby give to the rule.” 64 Ill. 2d 264, 268. The reasons for strict compliance with the rule in its entirety are many and readily apparent. Contrawise, the supreme court has, in its choice of phraseology of Rule 504, recognized that reasons may arise that will render a strict compliance with the appearance date provision of the rule impracticable or impossible. In such instances an automatic dismissal would prejudice law enforcement. Any of a number of situations might require the initial appearance trial date to be set ■ over, such as the availability of courtrooms, judges, court reporters and witnesses. Illness of essential participants might intervene, as well as any other of a myriad of unfortuitous circumstances that in the interests of justice would require that a continuance be granted. In short, by its choice of words in Rule 504 the supreme court has expressed its strong preference that trials on traffic citations be held on the appearance date, but they have at the same time left ultimate control of their dockets, settings and trials to the trial courts. The majority opinion strips such control from the trial courts and compels a result that will in many instances work an injustice to law enforcement. Although section 16 — 106 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, eh. 95)2, par. 16 — 106) was in effect at the time of the offense in question, it too must be construed as directory and not mandatory. Nowhere in the statute is a penalty or sanction imposed for its violation. Worth mentioning is the fact that the-Uniform Citation and Complaint is not the only method of prosecuting a traffic violation. Although little used, such prosecutions could be commenced by indictment, information or complaint pursuant to section 111 — 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. Ill — 1), and in the case of a violation of a municipal ordinance, by civil complaint to recover the penalty. In cases of prosecution of traffic offenses by these modes, the ususal procedure would pertain and Rules 504 and 505 would be inapplicable. It was so held in People v. Claeys, 44 Ill. App. 3d 83, 357 N.E.2d 886. At the time the ticket in question was issued Rule 505 was directed only to Illinois State Police, not to police officers of municipalities. Accordingly, the directive of the rule regarding the procedure to be followed by an accused to “avoid multiple court appearances” was inapplicable. This is all the more important since Rule 552 expressly provides that the Uniform Citation and Complaint 0 * shall be adapted for use by municipalities.” Moreover, the final sentence of Rule 505 indicates that the supreme court does not consider the requirements of the rule to be an absolute since it provides that any State agency or any unit of local government may apply to the Conference of Chief Judges for exemption from Rule 505. For the reasons discussed herein, the result in this case should be the same even if Rule 505 was applicable. I would affirm.