Ill. S. Ct. R. 572

History

Adopted December 7, 2011, effective immediately; amended Oct. 27, 2022, eff. Sept. 18, 2023; amended June 3, 2025, eff. immediately. Committee Comment (December 7, 2011) Many prosecuting entities have created hybrid complaints that serve both as notice to appear and the charging document itself, similar to a traffic citation. Since an ordinance violation prosecution incorporates aspects of both criminal and civil procedur es, the more general term “charging document” phrase is used. (a) Rule 572 is intended to provide flexibility in the initiation of an ordinance violation prosecution. The Municipal Code states that “the first process shall be a summons or a warrant.” 65 ILCS 5/1-2-9. Many prosecuting entities, however, begin with a “Notice to Appear” which is provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 725 ILCS 5/1 07-12: (a) Whenever a peace officer is authorized to arrest a person without a warrant he may instead issue to such a person a notice to appear *** (c) Upon failure of the person to appear a summons or warrant of arrest may issue.” A notice to appear “is a means by which a person may be brought before the court without the inconvenience of immediate arrest ***. Such a notice may be issued whenever a peace officer has probable cause to make a warrantless arrest.” People v. Warren, 173 Ill. 2d 348, 357 (1996). The purpose of this rule is to continue to allow prosecuting entities to utilize the most efficient means of initiating ordinance violation proceedings. “Notices to Appear” are an appropriate and reasonable means of informing defendants of charges against them and are similar to citations issued in traffic cases. This does not prohibit a prosecuting entity from obtaining an arrest warrant based upon probable cause, as authorized in section 1-2-9 of the Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/1-2-9). This rule also makes it clear that an attorney need not sign the charging document in every case. This is especially important where the process is initiated by a nonattorney such as a police officer or code enforcement officer. (b) This section provides for issuance of default judgments or warrants upon a failure to appear. (c) This is intended to minimize paperwork and codify the decision in Village of Oak Park v. Flanagan, 35 Ill. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975). The Village of Oak Park case involved prosecution for multiple parking tickets in which the court held that a computer printout was sufficient to comply with the requirements of pleading for ordinance violations. Note, however, this rule is not meant to contravene the one act, one crime rule identified in Village of Sugar Grove v. James Rich, 347 Ill. App. 3d 689 (1st Dist. 2004). (d) Section 2-604 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a “specific” prayer for relief. 735 ILCS 5/2-604. This paragraph is intended to make it clear that a prayer for a penalty within the penalty range authorized by the ordinance is sufficiently specific to advise the defendant of the maximum penalty to which they are exposed. (e) Section 2-616(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically permits amendments to civil pleadings at various times. 735 ILCS 5/2-616(a). The purpose is to avoid minor errors in the charging document being a cause of a finding of not guilty when a vio lation has been proved by the requisite proof. The last sentence enforces the requirement of Rule 572(b) that if the prosecuting entity will seek a default judgment, it must state the specific amount in the charging document or combination of documents served upon the defendant.