IL · jury_instructions
Ill. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 23.76
Issues In Possession Or Use Of Radar Jamming Devices
To sustain the charge of possession or use of a radar jamming device, the State must
prove the following propositions:
First Proposition: That the defendant [(operated) (was in actual physical control of )] a
commercial motor vehicle; and
Second Proposition: That the commercial motor vehicle was equipped with any
instrument designed to interfere with microwaves at frequencies used by police radar for the
purpose of monitoring vehicular speed.
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions
has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions
has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty.
Provenance
- Source
- illinoiscourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- 2026-08-19
- Content hash
b4f7a7d5df0e6c4a0be3cd93335d3fc0a43f0c6f67972e842bf0d04a42610a57
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.