{
  "id": 2853901,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Michael Birnbaum, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Birnbaum",
  "decision_date": "1968-11-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 41324",
  "first_page": "426",
  "last_page": "428",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "41 Ill. 2d 426"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 279,
    "char_count": 3985,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.763,
    "sha256": "0896a451214c2c80564ffee8b1821b0b91c174fa93a4bef447c21ba52e6d982b",
    "simhash": "1:da004e8f280ac478",
    "word_count": 664
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:11.612060+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Michael Birnbaum, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice House\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Michael Birnbaum, was arrested while parading with a placard and passing out pamphlets in front of the Criminal Court Building in Chicago. A complaint was filed charging that the defendant unlawfully resisted the arrest. After a bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County, the defendant was found guilty and fined $100. He now appeals, alleging that the arresting officer acted without authority, that the arrest was therefore unlawful and that his constitutional right to resist an unlawful arrest was violated by the trial court\u2019s finding.\nOn October 24, 1967, Robert Craer, the Chief Deputy Sheriff of the Criminal Court Division, was stationed at the Criminal Court Building in Chicago. About 12 o\u2019clock noon he saw the defendant distributing pamphlets in front of the building. Craer told the defendant that he should move away from the building and not stand in one place. About 1:3o P.M. Craer again saw him on the main sidewalk, stopping people. Craer again told him that he would have to leave. Later that same day, about 2:15 P.M., the defendant was standing in the entrance of the building. Craer called his attention to the rules regarding loitering that were posted inside the building. Subsequently, about 3 :3o P.M., Craer asked the defendant whether he had read the rules. The defendant said he had but that they had no meaning for him. Craer then told the defendant that he was being arrested for violating circuit court rule \u201cseven\u201d relating to public loitering and interfering. The defendant resisted the arrest, but he was subdued by Craer and another police officer.\nThe defendant argues that the trial court\u2019s construction of section 31 \u2014 1 of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, chap. 38, par. 31 \u2014 1) was unconstitutional. It reads: \u201cA person who knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer of any authorized act within his official capacity shall be fined not to exceed $500 or imprisoned in a penal institutional other than the penitentiary not to exceed one year, or both.\u201d The trial court stated in substance that a person cannot knowingly and forcefully resist an arrest by a police officer even if the arrest is unlawful. This statement is supported by section 7 \u2014 7 of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, chap. 38, par. 7 \u2014 7) which provides: \u201cA person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.\u201d\nWhen Officer Craer sought to make the arrest on the steps of the Criminal Court Building, he was acting under the authority of a valid rule of the circuit court. The defendant was told the basis for the arrest and then knowingly resisted. The defendant clearly violated section 31 \u2014 1.\nAlthough the trial judge stated that even an unauthorized arrest could not be resisted forcefully, this observation is not relevant to the facts of this case or to the decision rendered. The record contains undisputed evidence that the defendant knowingly resisted a lawful arrest, the performance of an authorized act, which makes it unnecessary to decide the constitutionality of section 7 \u2014 7.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is, accordingly, affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice House"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. Raymond Marks, Jr. and Harry Golter, both of Chicago, (Overton, Marks & Schwartz, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and John J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach, Assistant Attorney General, and Elmer C. Kissane and Robert B. Rosen, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 41324.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Michael Birnbaum, Appellant.\nOpinion filed Nov. 22, 1968.\nRehearing denied Jan. 28, 1969.\nF. Raymond Marks, Jr. and Harry Golter, both of Chicago, (Overton, Marks & Schwartz, of counsel,) for appellant.\nWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and John J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach, Assistant Attorney General, and Elmer C. Kissane and Robert B. Rosen, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0426-01",
  "first_page_order": 436,
  "last_page_order": 438
}