YET ANOTHER INCONSISTENT APPELLATE COURT DECISION SUBJECTIVELY DETERMINING
WHEN A POLICE OFFICER WAS ‘EXECUTING OR ENFORCING THE LAW’
Decisions of the Illinois Supreme Court and Appellate Courts
continue a pattern of inconsistent application of tort immunity law.
Police officer, turning his vehicle around at intersection in
order to escort a motorist to a “show up” identification relating to a
suspected traffic altercation, was “executing or enforcing the law,” and thus
was entitled to public employee immunity when his squad car was involved in
collision with another car; officer was directed by another officer to direct
the motorist to participate in the show up identification, there was testimony
that officer's conduct in following motorist was routine police procedure, and
officer's conduct at time of collision was still related to investigation of
the initial traffic altercation. Stehlik v. Village of Orland Park, 2012 IL App
(1st) 091278, 966 N.E.2d 428, Ill.App. 1 Dist.,2012.
Compare the
courts decision in In Aikens, in which our supreme court held that the
transportation of prisoners did not constitute the type of execution or
enforcement of the law that would immunize either the city or its officer from
the plaintiff's claims. Aikens v. Morris, 145 Ill.2d 273,
278, 164 Ill.Dec. 571, 583 N.E.2d 487 (1991). The court noted
the police officer's conduct “was not shaped or affected in any manner by the
nature of duties in either enforcing or executing the law.”
The court’s
reasoning in these case simply defies logic.
As a Chicago injury attorney there is no way to predict the outcome of
tort immunity cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment