PEOPLE V. STAPINSKI
(see: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2015/118278.pdf)
While the opinion was dated October 8, 2015, the case has not yet been released for publication, even though the case has been made known to the law enforcement and legal communities of Illinois. What such means is that the ruling could be modified or withdrawn. The case has been brought to the attention of the reader because of the applicability of the old adage, “Forewarned is forearmed”! Note that there was no dissenting opinion in the Stapinski ruling.
Upon reading the case the facts of the case should be well known to the reader. So too, as to the two points of law upon which the High Court of Illinois relied in issuing its Stapinski decision. (1) the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States– such means that it is not subject to legislative modification by the Illinois General Assembly; and (2) In the words of the Stapinski Court, “Courts construe Cooperation Agreements under Contract principles. (citation omitted) Such agreements are construed strictly against the government and courts should not hesitate to scrutinize the government’s conduct to ensure it comports with the highest standard of fairness.”
Note that in reading the case, there was a discrepancy as to what the extent of the cooperation of Stapinski was to consist. Note also that the High Court of Illinois rejected the argument of the State that the State’s Attorney should be involved in the Cooperation Agreement. Consequently, each law enforcement agency (in this writer’s opinion) should decide the following:
(A) Must the Cooperation Agreement be in written or recorded form- to avoid misunderstanding and prolonged litigation. This writer recommends either a writing or a recording clearly specifying what the content of the cooperation shall be, and to what extent must it be attained for the Cooperation Agreement to be effective;
(B) Who in the law enforcement agency must approve the Cooperation Agreement; i.e., the Chief, the Head of Investigations, the individual Officer? Must the approval be in written form, or will a recording be sufficient?
(C) Even though not required by the Stapinski case, should not the Office of the State’s Attorney be involved in the Cooperation Agreement? To not have the involvement of the State’s Attorney could well sour the working relationship between the Office of the State’s Attorney and the law enforcement agency. However, if the Office of the State’s Attorney is to be involved, must the State’s Attorney be personally contacted, or who in the Office of the State’s Attorney can act on behalf of the State’s Attorney. Keep in mind that the Office of the State’s Attorney often has many Assistant State’s Attorneys and one person (other than the State’s Attorney- or indeed the State’s Attorney) may not be readily available or readily accessible.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT!
Law Office of Thomas F. McGuire, Ltd. 