Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LEOSA Dismissal Order[1]

LEOSA Dismissal Order[1]

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,580|Likes:
Published by crimefile
Order dismissing gun charge against Drew Peterson
Order dismissing gun charge against Drew Peterson

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: crimefile on Oct 01, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

10/01/2010

pdf

text

original

 
STATE OF ILLINOIS
) SS.
COUNTY OF WILL
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
WILL COUNTY, ILLINOISCase No. 08 CF 1169PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,Plaintiff,
-vs-
DREW PETERSON,Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
This cause comes before this Court for decision following hearing of the
Defendant's renewed motion to dismiss the charge against the Defendant for the chargeof Unlawful Use of a Weapon. This Court has reviewed and considered the pleadings,
testimony, exhibits admitted, arguments of counsel and case law.
On July 30, 2008, this Court entered an order finding that "LEOSA" is applicable
to this matter and that the Defendant was a qualified law enforcement officer as defined
by "LEOSA". By their renewed motion to dismiss, the defense has requested that this
Court, on a pretrial basis, decide the factual and legal issues regarding whether this
Defendant can be charged with this criminal offense. The State has not objected to this
matter being heard by the Court on a pre-trial basis.
The defense argues simply that "LEOSA" applies to any firearm not specificallyexcluded whether or not that firearm is illegal by State law. The State's position is that
"LEOSA" only applies to legal firearms, including those as determined by State law. The
State argues that factors including conceal carry; possession; privately owned v.
 
department issued; and illegal firearms are not covered by
"LEOSA";
are important
considerations in their favor.Taking those factors singly, this Court finds as follows:
Conceal Carry
An intent of
LEOSA is
to allow qualified law enforcement officers to carry
concealed firearms, so that if the need arises, such an officer may unconceal; show; and
ultimately use his weapon.
LEOSA
does not provide definitions as to the issue of carry
or concealment, including whether it is permissible to have the weapon in a case, holster,
waistband, and so forth. Similarly,
LEOSA
does not indicate that the size of the weapon
is a factor in determining whether it can be concealed and carried. In fact, machine guns
are typically larger than handguns and the machine gun is the only true firearm excepted
from
LEOSA.
The State has presented no evidence sufficient to show this court that insome way the Defendant acted outside of his authority at any time relevant hereto while
carrying or concealing the subject weapon.
Possession
Under
LEOSA,
there is no distinction found by this Court that would treat a
qualified law enforcement officer differently whether he possessed a firearm while on
duty or off duty.
As
a qualified officer, he is allowed to carry a concealed firearm either
way, except as otherwise provided by 18 USCS §926B(b). The case law presented is
certainly consistent with this finding.
Privately Owned vs. Department Issued
This Court can find no evidence to support the State's contention that under
LEOSA,
it should draw a distinction between the same weapon possessed and used by a

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->