Court Opinion

ID: 9525534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:04:40.181047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:22.951281
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, dissenting: I dissent from today’s resolution of this case because, under the principles set forth in People v. Lindner, 127 Ill. 2d 174 (1989), the circuit court correctly ruled section 6 — 206(a)(43) of the Vehicle Code to be unconstitutional. Justice Carman’s assessment of Justice Kilbride’s opinion is well-taken, and I agree with her that his analysis renders Lindner meaningless. 238 Ill. 2d at 22-24 (Garman, J., specially concurring, joined by Thomas, J.). Justice Garman also accurately identifies our options in this case: either we overrule Lindner’s view of the purpose of section 6 — 205 or we apply the case and affirm the trial court’s ruling. 238 111. 2d at 22 (Garman, J., specially concurring, joined by Thomas, J.). Rather than ask that Lindner be overruled, the State believes it can be distinguished from this case. Lindner cannot be distinguished in any meaningful way, Justice Kilbride’s suggestion notwithstanding, as Justice Gar-man correctly recognizes. I might also note that in the 21 years since Lindner was announced, there has been no indication from this court that Lindner was either wrongly decided or too narrowly defined the purpose of section 6 — 205. Stare decisis means, of course, that prior decisions, Lindner included, should be overturned only on a showing of good cause. People v. Colon, 225 111. 2d 125, 146 (2007). Because no one is asking for Lindner to be overruled, the court does not have the benefit of any developed argument as to good cause. I therefore express no opinion on whether Lindner should be overruled. JUSTICE BURKE joins in this dissent.