Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County. Nos. 95--TR--72838, 95--TR--73022. Honorable Emilio B. Santi, Judge, Presiding. This Opinion Substituted for Withdrawn Opinion of April 28, 1997, Previously
Released for Publication September 12, 1997.
The Honorable Justice McLAREN delivered the opinion of the court. Bowman and Colwell, JJ., concur.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mclaren
The Honorable Justice McLAREN delivered the opinion of the court:
Defendant, James Lee, was arrested and charged with driving with a blood-alcohol concentration above 0.10 (Highland Park Municipal Code § 71.105A1 (19 )), driving under the influence of alcohol (Highland Park Municipal Code § 71.105A2 (19 )), and driving with a revoked license (625 ILCS 5/6--303(a) (West 1994)). The trial court granted defendant's motion to quash the arrest and suppress the evidence and his petition to rescind the summary suspension of his license. The City of Highland Park (City) now appeals. We affirm.
We initially must address this court's jurisdiction to hear the City's appeal of the court's order to quash and suppress. The City brings the appeal under Supreme Court Rule 604(a), which provides:
"(a) Appeals by the State.
(1) When State May Appeal. In criminal cases the State may appeal only from an order or judgment the substantive effect of which results in dismissing a charge for any of the grounds enumerated in section 114--1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963; arresting judgment because of a defective indictment, information or complaint; quashing an arrest or search warrant; or suppressing evidence.
(2) Leave to Appeal by State. The State may petition for leave to appeal under Rule 315(a).
(3) Release of Defendant Pending Appeal. A defendant shall not be held in jail or to bail during the pendency of an appeal by the State, or of a petition or appeal by the State under Rule 315(a), unless there are compelling reasons for his continued detention or being held to bail.
(4) Time Appeal Pending Not Counted. The time during which an appeal by the State is pending is not counted for the purpose of determining whether an accused is entitled to discharge under section 103--5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963." 145 Ill. 2d R. 604(a).
While this rule gives the State the right to pursue interlocutory appeals in criminal cases, it has long been held that this right does not extend to municipalities prosecuting village ordinance violations. See, e.g., Village of Cary v. Pavis, 171 Ill. App. 3d 1072, 122 Ill. Dec. 264, 526 N.E.2d 523 (1988). Therefore, in most instances, a municipality cannot take an interlocutory appeal from an order quashing arrest and suppressing evidence.
However, section 16--102 of the Illinois Vehicle Code provides, in part:
"The State's Attorney of the county in which the violation occurs shall prosecute all violations except when the violation occurs within the corporate limits of a municipality, the municipal attorney may prosecute if written permission to do so is ...