Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

98 Ill. App. 3d 585

People v. Young

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided July 23, 1981

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1981-07-23

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1982

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-07-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. JUSTICE REINHARD,

¶1dissenting in part:

¶2I dissent only from that part of the majority opinion which affirms the trial court’s suppression order as it pertains to the offense of leaving the scene of an accident. I do not consider the defendant’s admissions after being read his Miranda warnings and questioned by the officers to be a “report” which the legislature intended under section 11 — 401(b) to exclude from evidence. Rather, I am of the opinion that the salutary purpose of section 11 — 401(b) is to encourage voluntary reporting, not the product of police investigation and interrogation, in circumstances where a person has initially failed to stop or comply with section 11 — 403. Furthermore, I find nothing in the record that the defendant furnished this information intending to comply with the reporting provisions of this statute.

¶3Under the limited facts presented here, I would find the defendant did not “report” the requisite information as intended under section 11 — 401(b), and would reverse and remand on both offenses.

/98/illapp3d/585 · .json · Public domain