An analysis of how a private individual may swear a complaint in Illinois

By Mark McCoy – mark@markmccoy.com

What do you do when you when you wish to have someone charged with an offense
but are reluctant to call the police, or have called the police and they refuse to act?
Often times, the police will begin an inquiry or investigation into the person bringing
the complaint as well. The more charges they can bring the better. So, in order to
protect your privacy from the police you instead choose to bring charges on your
own.

In Illinois, it is possible for a private individual to bring criminal charges against

someone, and even then, against a the police. I was subject to criminal act
committed by police and when I tried to press charges I was met with obfuscation,
confusion, uncertainty, and reluctance from various agencies in pursuing a
complaint. I contacted the Illinois State Police who referred me to the FBI. I called
the FBI who only wanted to pursue civil rights violations, rights of which I do not
claim. I then went to the State's Attorney who told me by way of a receptionist
screening visitors that the State's Attorney works for the police and I would have to
go talk to the police. Really? The State's Attorney is elected by the electors and
does not work for the police. I contacted the St. Clair County Sheriff's department
who referred me back to the State Police. I tired quickly of the runaround. I even
approached the St. Clair County

Circuit Clerk about filing the charges and they told me they had to file it along with
my criminal charges which I was fighting at that time. During a court appearance in
front of an associate judge I was told that any citizen can bring charges against
someone else if they swear to a crime being alleged. How to exactly effect this was
not clear, but I was told to file the complaints with the Circuit Clerk’s office. When
going to the Circuit Clerk’s office the clerks did everything possible to avoid the
issue and eventually brought the actual Circuit Clerk out to greet me. He eventually
took possession of my complaints and promised to file the complaints, but first
needed to speak to the chief judge. It appears no one knew how to prosecute
police.

I turned to the Illinois Compiled Statutes for guidance. I drafted the criminal
complaints based upon the requirements identified in the statutes and had them
notarized. The statute I refer to is Chapter 725 and is cited as 725 ILCS 5/107-9
(Criminal Procedure - Apprehension and Investigation - Arrest- Issuance of arrest
warrant upon complaint).

I will reference the salient parts from the Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated and
then comment on supporting case law. I want to stress the importance of paying
particular attention to words such as "shall" and "may". The language of the law is
intended to be very precise and where ambiguity is found then legislative intent is
consulted.
725 ILCS § 107-9. Issuance of arrest warrant upon complaint. (a) When a complaint
is presented to a court charging that an offense has been committed it shall
examine upon oath or affirmation the complainant or any witnesses.

Notice the statute does not limit who may make the complaint. It is not reserved for
State's Attorneys or police. A complaint is also presented to a court. That means a
judge who has authority to issue a warrant. Most municipal judges are not even
attorneys. This statute is referring to an associate judge or higher.

725 ILCS § 107-9(b)(3),(4) State the time and place of the offense as definitely as
can be done by the complainant; and Be subscribed and sworn to by the
complainant.

The complainant is the person who was injured by the accused. It is not a cop and it
is not the People of the State of Illinois. It is a flesh-and-blood individual who was
subject to the alleged criminal act. The complainant must be examined by the court
and under oath. This is important because not everyone can administer oaths. A
ticket signed by a cop where it says under penalty of perjury is not a legally binding
oath or affirmation because it is not made before someone lawfully empowered to
administer oaths. In Illinois, the authority to administer oaths is found at 5 ILCS 255
(Oaths and Affirmations Act).

So you go into court before a judge and have in your possession a written complaint
which states the name of the accused and/or any way of identifying the accused
and the offense with which the accused is charged, as well as the time and place of
the offense. The complaint must be subscribed and sworn to by the complainant,
which means before a notary or other persons indentified in the Oaths and
Affirmations Act. The court "shall" examine the complaint, the complainant, and any
witnesses. If, after reviewing the foregoing, the court determines that an offense
has in-fact been committed it a warrant "shall be issued" for the arrest of the person
complained against. This means no discretion. It "shall" issue a warrant, shall being
equated with "must".

Key points to bear in mind:

Examination of complainants and witnesses

Although an arrest warrant may be issued only upon a showing of probable cause, it
does not necessarily follow that a demonstration of probable cause must be made
in complaint upon which arrest warrant is issued; in issuing arrest warrant, judge is
not bound by four corners of complaint, but may base a determination of probable
cause upon his required examination of complainant or witnesses. People v. Collins,
App. 1 Dist.1979, 26 Ill.Dec. 165, 70 Ill.App.3d 413, 387 N.E.2d 995. Criminal Law
217
 • What is being said here is that probable cause does not rest solely with
the complaint. It is required that the judge examine the complainant or
witness, and upon that testimony he may find probable cause. This is
because not everyone may possess the faculties required to pen a proper
complaint and what may be lacking in the complaint is supplemented by
the testimony of the complainant.

In compliance with this paragraph, judge issuing arrest warrants properly examined
complainant to determine probable cause prior to issuing warrants over his
signature. People v. Collins, App. 1 Dist.1979, 26 Ill.Dec. 165, 70 Ill.App.3d 413, 387
N.E.2d 995. Criminal Law 217

Where complaint was signed by complainant and was acknowledged before notary
public, who was not an associate circuit judge or magistrate, and after complaint
was signed and sworn to, it was presented to associate circuit judge, who heard no
testimony, and solely on basis of examination of complaint, ordered warrant of
arrest to issue, warrant was properly quashed because of failure of associate circuit
judge to examine complainant or other witnesses as required by this paragraph.
People v. Krumery, App.1966, 74 Ill.App.2d 298, 220 N.E.2d 241. Criminal Law 217

• What is being said here is what illustrates the necessity for the judge to
examine the complainant or witness. It is important to keep this in mind
when making your complaint because if the judge does not examine the
complainant or witness it will prove fatal to your case. I can envision a
situation where a judge will sabotage a case by failing to examine the
complainant or witness, as in what took place in the above case. I would
recommend being adamant about the judge examining you or the witness
to ensure no defect in the warrant ensues which would result in a
dismissal.

Complaint--In general

Citizen who has knowledge that crime has been committed should go before a
magistrate and make a complaint stating that particular crime has been committed
and, on information and belief, that the person named is the offender, and
magistrate should thereupon issue his warrant for arrest of person named. Lindquist
v. Friedman's, Inc., 1937, 8 N.E.2d 625, 366 Ill. 232. Arrest 64

• The court doesn’t make it any clearer than this.

Arrest by warrant is unlawful until complaint charging crime has been filed. Housh
v. People, 1874, 75 Ill. 487.

Verification of complaint
Defective verification of complaint may be waived. People v. Smith, App.1967, 90
Ill.App.2d 388, 234 N.E.2d 161. Indictment And Information 196(4)

• A person waives a defective verification or complaint when they appear

in court and plea to charges without demanding a verified complaint. This
includes traffic and misdemeanor tickets signed by the police. The
policeman’s signature is not a verification since it is not signed and sworn
to in front of someone empowered to administer oaths by way of the
Oaths and Affirmations Act. Does this mean some possible inconvenience?
Yes, but I would posit that a majority of cases would not proceed if the
State had to actually follow the law as-written. Remember, if you plea to a
ticket you waive any defect in the complaint, which is certain if it had not
been sworn to.

Where defendant had not moved to quash complaint until after state had rested its
case in prosecution for theft and at time of motion complainant had already sworn
in open court to all facts alleged therein, defects, if any, existing in verification of
complaint had been waived. People v. Smith, App.1967, 90 Ill.App.2d 388, 234
N.E.2d 161. Indictment And Information 196(4)

• Basically, in this case, it was too late to challenge any defects in the
complaint. The individual in this case waited until after the State had
rested in prosecution. It is best to challenge the complaint at the outset.

Complaint subscribed by complainant and sworn to before notary public is sufficient

to meet requirement of this paragraph. People v. Krumery, App.1966, 74 Ill.App.2d
298, 220 N.E.2d 241. Criminal Law 211(2)

• Basically, a complaint subscribed and sworn to before a notary public

satisfies the requirements for having the complaint sworn to.

Paragraph 111-3 of former chapter 38 providing that complaint shall be sworn to

and signed by complainant does not limit or qualify person or officer before whom
complaint is to be sworn and signed and allows verification before any officer
empowered to administer oaths. Village of Willowbrook v. Miller, App.1966, 72
Ill.App.2d 30, 217 N.E.2d 809. Criminal Law 211(2)

• What is being said here is that a complaint shall (must) be sworn to and
signed by complainant. It also does not attempt to limit who the
complainant may swear and sign before as long as they are empowered
to administer oaths, which refers to the Oaths and Affirmations Act.

Where want of verification was appropriately raised, unverified complaint charging

reckless and careless driving on residential street in violation of village ordinance
could not sustain guilty judgment and judgment must be reversed. Village of
Willowbrook v. Miller, App.1966, 72 Ill.App.2d 30, 217 N.E.2d 809. Automobiles
351.1; Criminal Law 1167(1)

• What happened in this case is the defendant raised the issue of

demanding a verified complaint, but the State refused to comply and
proceeded on with a trial. Upon finding the defendant guilty, the judgment
was reversed because he was never provided with the verified complaint.
Once the issue is raised, and not complied with, everything after that
point is a nullity and must be reversed.

Complaint verified before notary public satisfies requirement of ¶111-3 of former

chapter 38 that complaint shall be sworn to and signed by complainant and is
sufficient to sustain criminal prosecution. Village of Willowbrook v. Miller, App.1966,
72 Ill.App.2d 30, 217 N.E.2d 809. Criminal Law 211(2)

• This confirms and clarifies the requirement that a complaint must be

sworn to and signed by the complainant in order to sustain a criminal
prosecution. As mentioned above, a complaint not sworn to by a person
empowered to administer oaths will not sustain a finding of guilt and must
be reversed.

A sworn information or complaint, or an indictment, is a prerequisite to issuance of

an arrest warrant. People v. Harding, 1966, 34 Ill.2d 475, 216 N.E.2d 147. Criminal
Law 211(2)

• This does not mean an individual can’t be arrested without an arrest

warrant, but it means that in order for there to be an arrest warrant a
complaint, or information or indictment, must be sworn to. Again, by
appearing in court upon receiving a ticket signed by the policeman waives
your right to a verified complaint. If there is no sworn complaint before a
person empowered to administer oaths then the warrant is not lawful.

Constitutional provisions relating to searches and seizures should not be extended

to require a sworn complaint as a jurisdictional prerequisite to prosecution of a
criminal offense. People v. Harding, 1966, 34 Ill.2d 475, 216 N.E.2d 147. Criminal
Law 211(2)

An information cannot be verified on information and belief, but the affidavit in

support thereof must be sworn to positively so that a charge of perjury would lie in
the event of its falsity. People v. Siex, App.1942, 39 N.E.2d 84, 312 Ill.App. 657.
Indictment And Information 52(4)

• An information is different from a complaint. An information is signed by

the State’s Attorney and a complaint is signed by the complainant. What
the court said in this case is that for the State to bring a charge by way of
information, it must be supported by affidavit which is sworn to the same
 as with a complaint so that if false, a charge or perjury could be brought
against the person if not true.

Form and contents of complaint

Fact that complaint itself may not have stated facts supporting probable cause did
not make arrest warrant invalid, where trial court examined complainant under oath
and determined that probable cause existed. People v. Hayes, 1990, 151 Ill.Dec.
348, 139 Ill.2d 89, 564 N.E.2d 803, certiorari denied 111 S.Ct. 1601, 449 U.S. 967,
113 L.Ed.2d 664. Criminal Law 211(1); Criminal Law 212

• The court is saying that even if the complaint itself does not contain
information to support probable cause, by the court examining the
complainant under oath, it determined that probable cause was sufficient
for the issuance of an arrest warrant. This illustrates the importance of the
court examining the complainant or witness. It is not the written
complaint which is important, but that there is a flesh-and-blood individual
before the court swearing under oath and penalty of perjury that there
has been a crime committed, and the complaint serves as the written
instrument for the record which the court will refer to in prosecuting the
crime.

Officer seeking arrest warrant is not required to present issuing judge any and all
circumstances which may affect finding of probable cause. People v. Hothersall,
App. 2 Dist.1981, 58 Ill.Dec. 891, 103 Ill.App.3d 183, 430 N.E.2d 1142. Criminal Law
211(3)

Complaints for arrest warrants, which complaints contained names of accused,

offense charged, time and place of offense, and signature and oath of complainant,
were sufficient under this paragraph. People v. Collins, App. 1 Dist.1979, 26 Ill.Dec.
165, 70 Ill.App.3d 413, 387 N.E.2d 995. Criminal Law 211(1)

Probable cause necessary for issuance of arrest warrant cannot be made out by
mere conclusory statements in affidavit in support of warrant that probable cause
exists. People v. Davis, App. 1 Dist.1974, 20 Ill.App.3d 948, 314 N.E.2d 723.
Criminal Law 211(1)

Where arrest warrant was issued on basis of a complaint which merely stated that
police officer had just and reasonable grounds to believe that defendant had sold a
narcotic drug, warrant was defective under Const. 1870, Art. 2, § 6 (see, now, Const.
Art. 1, § 6), and evidence obtained as a result of defendant's arrest was
inadmissible. People v. Waitts, 1967, 36 Ill.2d 467, 224 N.E.2d 257. Criminal Law
211(3); Criminal Law 394.4(9)

Complaint which charged offense of disorderly conduct and which was verified
before notary public and presented to court by complainant, who was thereupon
examined under oath by court, was sufficient as basis for issuance of warrant of
arrest. Village of Willowbrook v. Miller, App.1966, 72 Ill.App.2d 30, 217 N.E.2d 809.
Criminal Law 211(1)

A complaint in writing subscribed and sworn to, containing a concise statement of

the offense charged, the name of the person accused, and averring that the
complainant has just and reasonable grounds to believe that the accused
committed the offense, is sufficient. People v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.,
1925, 238 Ill.App. 112.

Illinois courts may issue an arrest warrant only if complaint shows that probable
cause exists to believe proposed arrestee has committed crime in question. Keefer
v. Leach, 1979, 597 P.2d 203, 198 Colo. 101. Criminal Law 217

Information, complaint as

Signature of assistant state's attorney on complaint for arrest warrant did not
automatically convert that instrument into an information. People v. Johnson, App. 5
Dist.1989, 135 Ill.Dec. 678, 188 Ill.App.3d 147, 544 N.E.2d 35. Criminal Law 211(2)

Same instrument which was used as complaint for arrest warrant was properly used
the following day as information charging defendant with offenses. People v.
Johnson, App. 5 Dist.1989, 135 Ill.Dec. 678, 188 Ill.App.3d 147, 544 N.E.2d 35.
Indictment And Information 47

Warrant--In general

Issuance of an arrest warrant does not, of itself, formally charge individual with a
crime. People v. Dockery, App.1966, 72 Ill.App.2d 345, 219 N.E.2d 687. Criminal
Law 216 for arrest should not issue except upon information supported by affidavit.
Myers v. People, 1873, 67 Ill. 503

Grounds for insurance, warrant

Trial court had authority to issue warrant for defendant's arrest when he failed to
appear personally on hearing date for traffic offenses. People v. Kaeding, App. 2
Dist.1988, 116 Ill.Dec. 237, 165 Ill.App.3d 188, 518 N.E.2d 1058. Automobiles
349(13)

Probable cause, warrant

This paragraph did not require that complaint or warrant articulate probable cause
for arrest but rather that court, in making determination of probable cause for
issuance of arrest warrant, examine complainant or any witness under oath. People
v. Hooper, 1989, 142 Ill.Dec. 93, 133 Ill.2d 469, 552 N.E.2d 684, certiorari denied
111 S.Ct. 284, 498 U.S. 911, 112 L.Ed.2d 239. Criminal Law 211(1); Criminal Law
212
Motion to quash, warrant

With respect to one statement used by police to procure arrest warrant, affiant's
deliberate omission of material fact can be reckless disregard for the truth such as
to justify attack on veracity of affiant's statement. People v. Hothersall, App. 2
Dist.1981, 58 Ill.Dec. 891, 103 Ill.App.3d 183, 430 N.E.2d 1142. Criminal Law
211(3)

Where motion to quash an arrest warrant is filed, judge hearing that motion must
have before him the same knowledge the judge who issued that arrest warrant had,
in order to make a proper and intelligent judgment as to whether probable cause
existed, and trial judge must look at the same things the judge who issued the
arrest warrant looked at, i.e., both the complaint and the oral testimony heard
under oath at that time. People v. Helton, App. 1 Dist.1974, 18 Ill.App.3d 1077, 311
N.E.2d 183. Criminal Law 219

On motion to quash arrest warrant, trial judge erred in ruling that he could not go
beyond four corners of the warrant and in refusing to consider what officer who had
signed warrant had testified to under oath before the issuing judge; thus motion
should not have been granted on basis that warrant did not state how the officer
acquired his knowledge. People v. Helton, App. 1 Dist.1974, 18 Ill.App.3d 1077, 311
N.E.2d 183. Criminal Law 219

As one allegedly aggrieved by a claimed unlawful seizure of his person, defendant,

by motion to quash arrest, had right to show that arrest, although with a warrant,
was illegal because warrant was insufficient on its face, was issued without probable
cause or was illegally executed. People v. McDonald, App. 1 Dist.1973, 15 Ill.App.3d
620, 305 N.E.2d 69. Arrest 70(1)

On motion to quash arrest, burden was on defendant to prove that warrant was
invalid. People v. McDonald, App. 1 Dist.1973, 15 Ill.App.3d 620, 305 N.E.2d 69.
Arrest 70(1)

Absent evidence that arrest warrant was illegally obtained or unlawfully executed,
trial court did not err in refusing to grant defendant's motion to quash his arrest.
People v. McDonald, App. 1 Dist.1973, 15 Ill.App.3d 620, 305 N.E.2d 69. Arrest
70(1)

Search and seizure

The right of search without a warrant, as an incident to a lawful arrest, may, in

proper cases, extend beyond the person to an area in immediate physical relation
to him, although extent is limited by the reasons for its existence, namely, to
protect the arresting officer and deprive the prisoner of potential means of escape.
People v. Heidman, 1957, 11 Ill.2d 501, 144 N.E.2d 580, certiorari denied 78 S.Ct.
412, 355 U.S. 931, 2 L.Ed.2d 414. Arrest 71.1(4.1)
An officer has the right, as an incident of arrest, to search a prisoner without a
search warrant, and evidence taken from the person as a result of that search is
admissible against him. People v. Heidman, 1957, 11 Ill.2d 501, 144 N.E.2d 580,
certiorari denied 78 S.Ct. 412, 355 U.S. 931, 2 L.Ed.2d 414. Arrest 71.1(1); Criminal
Law 394.4(9)

Abuse of process

The holding of accused incommunicado by officers of the state before complying

with warrant for accused's arrest which required accused to be taken before
magistrate constituted “abuse of process.” People v. Crabb, 1939, 24 N.E.2d 46,
372 Ill. 347. Arrest 70(2)

Review

In passing on validity of warrant, reviewing court may consider only information

brought to attention of judicial officer issuing warrant. People v. Lindner, App. 2
Dist.1980, 36 Ill.Dec. 512, 81 Ill.App.3d 15, 400 N.E.2d 1092. Criminal Law 1134.4

Reviewing courts must interfere with discretional determinations of magistrates

with regard to issuing warrants when no basis for probable cause appears on the
face of the complaint. People v. Waitts, 1967, 36 Ill.2d 467, 224 N.E.2d 257.
Criminal Law 1148

Where no motions to quash or in arrest of judgment were filed or ruled upon prior to
the filing of the notices of appeal, the question of the sufficiency of the complaints
could not be raised on appeal. People v. DeMarino, App.1966, 72 Ill.App.2d 38, 219
N.E.2d 132. Criminal Law 1044.1(2)

Interesting

Police officers did not make lawful arrest based on probable cause, accompanied by
lawful search incident to such arrest, where defendant was not informed that he
was under arrest until after second search was conducted and he was handcuffed,
approximately 15 minutes after initial pat-down which produced switchblade knife,
and where, throughout this period of time, nothing was said to defendant who
remained standing 10 to 15 feet away from squad cars, unrestrained in any way.
People v. Vollrath, App. 3 Dist.1981, 51 Ill.Dec. 346, 95 Ill.App.3d 866, 420 N.E.2d
760. Arrest 68(3)

Where defendant, who was stopped by police for driving with a bent license plate,
was asked to step out of the car and was subsequently arrested for driving under a
suspended driver's license, search of bag in the back seat of his car was
unreasonable as a search incident to arrest, as the bag was not within the
immediate control of the defendant once he stepped from the car, and there was no
showing that the officer had reason to believe that the incident was anything more
than a traffic matter, nor that the search was necessary to insure the safety of the
police officer or to prevent the defendant from escaping. People v. Salter, App. 1
Dist.1980, 47 Ill.Dec. 136, 91 Ill.App.3d 831, 414 N.E.2d 1252. Arrest 71.1(5)

Arrest for minor traffic violation does not justify search of violator. People v. Holze,
App. 2 Dist.1977, 13 Ill.Dec. 144, 55 Ill.App.3d 155, 370 N.E.2d 1171. Automobiles
349.5(1)

State Police officer's uncontradicted testimony that State Police department had
standard policy of checking passenger compartment and trunk for valuables and of
listing any valuables on tow inventory sheet established that State Police
department's standard policy for conducting an inventory search before towing the
vehicle of a motorist arrested for driving on a revoked license included a policy of
opening closed containers in which valuables might be found. People v. Gipson,
2003, 272 Ill.Dec. 1, 203 Ill.2d 298, 786 N.E.2d 540, certiorari denied 124 S.Ct. 116,
540 U.S. 844, 157 L.Ed.2d 80. Automobiles 349.5(12)

Roadblock to check for valid driver's license, insurance and registration was
unreasonable “seizure” under Fourth Amendment, even though checkpoint served
valid public safety purpose, where police sergeant, rather than policy-making level
official, made decision to institute roadblock, no written guidelines governed
operation of roadblock, and there was no evidence that roadblock was publicized or
that it was effective in advancing public interest. People v. Fullwiley, App. 2
Dist.1999, 237 Ill.Dec. 861, 304 Ill.App.3d 44, 710 N.E.2d 491, appeal denied 242
Ill.Dec. 143, 185 Ill.2d 642, 720 N.E.2d 1098. Automobiles 349(9)

In measuring the level of subjective intrusion produced by a roadblock, courts

consider whether (1) the decision to institute the roadblock and to select the site is
made by supervisory personnel; (2) the method employed to stop the vehicles is
preestablished and systematic; (3) the roadblock is operated in accordance with
preexisting guidelines; (4) the official nature of the operation is sufficiently
apparent, and it is obvious that the roadblock does not in fact pose a safety risk;
and (5) the police's intent to establish the roadblock is publicized in advance.
People v. Fullwiley, App. 2 Dist.1999, 237 Ill.Dec. 861, 304 Ill.App.3d 44, 710 N.E.2d
491, appeal denied 242 Ill.Dec. 143, 185 Ill.2d 642, 720 N.E.2d 1098. Arrest 63.5(9)

Cases cited herein:

• Housh v. People, 1874, 75 Ill. 487

Keefer v. Leach, 1979, 597 P.2d 203, 198 Colo. 101

• Lindquist v. Friedman's, Inc., 1937, 8 N.E.2d 625, 366 Ill. 232

• Myers v. People, 1873, 67 Ill. 503

• People v. Crabb, 1939, 24 N.E.2d 46, 372 Ill. 347

• People v. Collins, App. 1 Dist.1979, 26 Ill.Dec. 165, 70 Ill.App.3d 413, 387
N.E.2d 995

• People v. Davis, App. 1 Dist.1974, 20 Ill.App.3d 948, 314 N.E.2d 723

• People v. DeMarino, App.1966, 72 Ill.App.2d 38, 219 N.E.2d 132

• People v. Dockery, App.1966, 72 Ill.App.2d 345, 219 N.E.2d 687

• People v. Fullwiley, App. 2 Dist.1999, 237 Ill.Dec. 861, 304 Ill.App.3d 44, 710
N.E.2d 491, appeal denied 242 Ill.Dec. 143, 185 Ill.2d 642, 720 N.E.2d 1098

• People v. Gipson, 2003, 272 Ill.Dec. 1, 203 Ill.2d 298, 786 N.E.2d 540,
certiorari denied 124 S.Ct. 116, 540 U.S. 844, 157 L.Ed.2d 80

• People v. Harding, 1966, 34 Ill.2d 475, 216 N.E.2d 147

• People v. Hayes, 1990, 151 Ill.Dec. 348, 139 Ill.2d 89, 564 N.E.2d 803,
certiorari denied 111 S.Ct. 1601, 449 U.S. 967, 113 L.Ed.2d 664

• People v. Heidman, 1957, 11 Ill.2d 501, 144 N.E.2d 580, certiorari denied 78
S.Ct. 412, 355 U.S. 931, 2 L.Ed.2d 414

• People v. Helton, App. 1 Dist.1974, 18 Ill.App.3d 1077, 311 N.E.2d 183

• People v. Holze, App. 2 Dist.1977, 13 Ill.Dec. 144, 55 Ill.App.3d 155, 370

N.E.2d 1171

• People v. Hooper, 1989, 142 Ill.Dec. 93, 133 Ill.2d 469, 552 N.E.2d 684,
certiorari denied 111 S.Ct. 284, 498 U.S. 911, 112 L.Ed.2d 239

• People v. Hothersall, App. 2 Dist.1981, 58 Ill.Dec. 891, 103 Ill.App.3d 183, 430
N.E.2d 1142

• People v. Johnson, App. 5 Dist.1989, 135 Ill.Dec. 678, 188 Ill.App.3d 147, 544
N.E.2d 35

• People v. Kaeding, App. 2 Dist.1988, 116 Ill.Dec. 237, 165 Ill.App.3d 188, 518
N.E.2d 1058

• People v. Krumery, App.1966, 74 Ill.App.2d 298, 220 N.E.2d 241

• People v. Lindner, App. 2 Dist.1980, 36 Ill.Dec. 512, 81 Ill.App.3d 15, 400

N.E.2d 1092

• People v. McDonald, App. 1 Dist.1973, 15 Ill.App.3d 620, 305 N.E.2d 69

• People v. Salter, App. 1 Dist.1980, 47 Ill.Dec. 136, 91 Ill.App.3d 831, 414

N.E.2d 1252

• People v. Siex, App.1942, 39 N.E.2d 84, 312 Ill.App. 657

• People v. Smith, App.1967, 90 Ill.App.2d 388, 234 N.E.2d 161

 • People v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 1925, 238 Ill.App. 112

• People v. Vollrath, App. 3 Dist.1981, 51 Ill.Dec. 346, 95 Ill.App.3d 866, 420

N.E.2d 760

• People v. Waitts, 1967, 36 Ill.2d 467, 224 N.E.2d 257

• Village of Willowbrook v. Miller, App.1966, 72 Ill.App.2d 30, 217 N.E.2d 809

Table of Authorities:

725 ILCS 5/107-9 (Criminal Procedure - Apprehension and Investigation - Arrest-

Issuance of arrest warrant upon complaint)

SAMPLE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT:

Criminal Complaint and Affidavit in Support Thereof

NOW comes (Name of complaining party), a free and independent

American and an inhabitant of the state of Illinois, and hereby states the
following under oath and in demand to be examined by a sitting Judge of
the County where this complaint is sworn to under penalty of perjury
pursuant to authority found at 725 ILCS 5/107-9:

That on February 17, 2009, I, (Name of complaining party),, was witness to

and possess first-hand knowledge of the following offenses/criminal acts
committed by the following person(s):

Name of the offense: Disorderly Conduct

Statutory provisions violated: 720 ILCS 5/26-1

Nature and elements of the offense (try to use as much of the language
found in the statute and include the particular elements of the offense
you are alleging): Transmitted or caused to be transmitted in any manner to
any peace officer, public officer or public employee a report to the effect that an
offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed, knowing
at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing
that such an offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been
committed by way of a Fairview Heights Police Department Crime/Incident
Report dated 2/17/09, Non-Traffic Complaint 1115419, Illinois Citation and
Complaint(s) 1159155, and 1159154, which transmitted to the Illinois State’s
Attorney, a public officer, that the offenses of Fleeing and Eluding and Resisting
a Peace Officer, and Improper Lane Usage, had been committed while knowing
that there was no reasonable ground for believing that such offense(s) will be
committed, were being committed, or had been committed.

Date and County were offense occurred: This offense occurred on February
17, 2009 in St. Clair County, Illinois.
Name of the Accused (If you know the name and address or place of
business you should use that as well. You need to provide enough
information so the individual may be identified by the arresting
officer): Joshua Alemond, known to Mark McCoy as a policeman for the City of
Fairview Heights, Illinois
 AFFIDAVIT

I, (Your Name), do hereby swear that the information contained in this Criminal
Complaint is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and it is my true
belief that the person(s) named herein are guilty of having committed the
aforementioned offenses/criminal acts.

Subscribed and affirmed, under penalty of perjury, to the aforementioned material

herein, in Madison County, in State of Illinois, on this 24th day of July, 2010.

_____________________________________

Affiant, (Your Name)

(SIGNATURE)

The undersigned, a notary public in and for the above county and state, certifies
that ________________________, known to me to be the same person whose name is
subscribed to the foregoing Criminal Complaint and Affidavit in Support Thereof,
appeared before me in person and acknowledged signing and delivering the
instrument as a free and voluntary act.

Dated: ___________________

(SEAL)

__________________________

Notary Public

My commission expires ______________________________