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.