People v. Brown

• Decision Date: 02 April 2020
• Docket Number: Docket No. 124100
• Citation: 444 Ill.Dec. 612,2020 IL 124100,164 N.E.3d 1187
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Vivian Claudine BROWN, Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

2020 IL 124100

164 N.E.3d 1187

444 Ill.Dec. 612

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant,

v.Vivian Claudine BROWN, Appellee.

Docket No. 124100

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Opinion filed April 2, 2020

CHIEF JUSTICE ANNE M. BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant, Vivian Brown, was charged by information with possessing a firearm without a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card in violation of section 2(a)(1) of the Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOID Card Act) ( 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1) (West 2016)). The circuit court of White County dismissed the charge, finding that, as applied to the facts of this case, section 2(a)(1) was unconstitutional under the second amendment to the United States Constitution ( U.S. Const., amend. II ), and article I, section 22, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 22 ). Direct appeal was taken to this court. Ill. S. Ct. R. 603 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013). For the reasons that follow, we determine that the circuit court unnecessarily reached defendant's constitutional challenge. We therefore remand this cause with directions.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On May 5, 2017, a criminal information was filed in the circuit court of White County charging defendant with knowingly possessing a firearm "without having in her possession a Firearm Owner's identification card," in violation of section 2(a)(1) of the FOID Card Act. This provision states:

"No person may acquire or possess any firearm, stun gun, or taser within this State without having in his or her possession a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police under the provisions of this Act." 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1) (West 2016).

¶ 4 To acquire a FOID card, an applicant must submit a form to the Illinois State Police attesting that he or she is not subject to certain disqualifying conditions, such as being under the age of 21, a felon or a person who has been adjudicated with a mental disability. Id. § 4(a)(2). The applicant must also submit a personal photograph (id. § 4(a-20)); pay $10 (id. § 5); and sign a release allowing the State Police to perform a background check to verify the information contained in the application (id. § 4(a)(3)). An initial violation of section 2(a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor when the person does not currently possess a valid FOID card but is otherwise eligible for one. Id. § 14(b).

¶ 5 On September 26, 2017, defendant filed a "Motion to Find Statute Unconstitutional," in which she alleged the following facts regarding the incident that led to her arrest and prosecution. At approximately 1:47 p.m., on March 18, 2017, defendant's estranged husband phoned the White County Sheriff's Department and reported that defendant was shooting a gun inside her rural home near Carmi, Illinois. Officers from the sheriff's department went to defendant's home to investigate and, while there, discovered a Remington-brand, .22-caliber, single-shot, bolt-action rifle in defendant's bedroom. However, the officers found no evidence that this rifle, or any other gun, had been fired in the home. Defendant denied firing the rifle, and other occupants of the residence denied hearing any shots being fired.

¶ 6 According to defendant's motion, after the sheriff's officers completed their investigation, they prepared an incident report and forwarded it to the White County State's Attorney's office. Thereafter, the State's Attorney filed a criminal information against defendant, charging her with violating section 2(a)(1) of the FOID Card Act (id. § 2(a)(1)). A warrant was issued, and defendant was arrested on May 20, 2017.

¶ 7 Defendant did not indicate in her motion who owned the rifle that was found in her home or when or how it was acquired. She did acknowledge, however, that she was in possession of the rifle when the sheriff's officers observed it. She also asserted that she kept the rifle in her home for self-defense; that she was over 21; and that, although she did not possess a FOID card, she was a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record, history of mental illness, or other disqualifying condition and, thus, would have been eligible to obtain a FOID card had she applied for one.

¶ 8 Based on the foregoing alleged facts, defendant argued in her motion that section 2(a)(1) of the FOID Card Act was unconstitutional as applied to her. Citing District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago , 561 U.S. 742, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010), defendant noted the second amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and that this right is at its "most acute" in the home. Defendant maintained she was a law-abiding person charged with possessing an otherwise lawful firearm without a FOID card solely within the confines of her home and that requiring her to go through the FOID card process unconstitutionally infringed upon her fundamental right of self-defense in this "most private of areas."

¶ 9 A hearing was held on defendant's motion the same day it was filed, and the matter was then taken under advisement by the circuit court.¹ On February 14, 2018, the court entered a written order granting defendant's motion and finding section 2(a)(1) unconstitutional "as applied to the defendant," under both the Illinois and United States Constitutions. Stating that the facts of the case were "undisputed," the circuit court held that requiring defendant to "fill out a form, provide a picture ID and pay a $10 fee to obtain a FOID card before she can exercise her constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm" in her home violated the second amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment ( U.S. Const., amends. II, XIV ), as well as article I, section 22, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 22 ). The court further stated that its finding of unconstitutionality had been entered in conformity with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 18 (eff. Sept. 1, 2006). The court's order did not contain language dismissing the information against defendant.

¶ 10 On March 19, 2018, the State filed a motion to "Reconsider and Amend" the circuit court's order declaring section 2(a)(1) unconstitutional.² In this motion, the State maintained that, even within the confines of the home, the FOID card requirement is a reasonable regulation on the right to keep and bear arms and, therefore, is permitted under the second amendment. Alternatively, the State argued that, if the circuit court declined to reconsider its decision, its order should nevertheless be amended to comply fully with Rule 18. In particular, the State asserted the court's order should set forth the factual findings the court believed rendered the statute unconstitutional. This point was then repeated during the hearing held on the motion to reconsider. There, the State conceded "the gun was undisputedly in the home in this case" but maintained there was "not a sufficient factual record" to determine other matters such as whether defendant "fit into the class of citizens who are otherwise eligible to receive a FOID card." The State argued the circuit court should "clarify what factual findings specific to this case" rendered the statute unconstitutional.

¶ 11 On October 2, 2018, the circuit court made a docket entry in which it denied the State's motion to reconsider and, in addition, supplemented the court's prior order of February 14, 2018. The docket entry also instructed counsel for the defendant to prepare a written order that conformed with the entry. That order, which was filed on October 16, 2018, added two new points addressing the difficulties of implementing the FOID card requirement in the home. First, the circuit court noted that possession of a firearm under the FOID Card Act may consist of either actual, physical possession or constructive possession. The court observed that constructive possession of a firearm may be shown where the person has knowledge of the presence of the weapon and exercises immediate and exclusive control over the area where the firearm is found (see, e.g. , People v. McIntyre , 2011 IL App (2d) 100889, 357 Ill.Dec. 207, 962 N.E.2d 1108 ) and, thus, a person may often be in possession of a firearm in one's home even if that firearm is not physically on the person.

¶ 12 Citing People v. Elders , 63 Ill. App. 3d 554, 20 Ill.Dec. 333, 380 N.E.2d 10 (1978), and People v. Cahill , 37 Ill. App. 3d 361, 345 N.E.2d 528 (1976), the circuit court stated that, while possession of a firearm may be constructive, possession of the FOID card itself must be actual and "a person must have a FOID card on their person" whenever in possession of a firearm in order to comply with section 2(a)(1). See Elders , 63 Ill. App. 3d at 559, 20 Ill.Dec. 333, 380 N.E.2d 10 (the possessor of the firearm must "have the card on his person"). From this, the court reasoned "that compliance [with section 2(a)(1)] is impossible when one is in their own home. No person could have their FOID card on their person 24 hours each and every day when firearms or ammunition are in the house."

¶ 13 Second, the circuit court noted that the concept of constructive possession can create problems for those people who share a home with a firearm owner but who do not themselves possess a FOID card. If one person in lawful possession of a firearm in the home leaves the firearm unsecured, other residents might have constructive possession of that firearm (see, e.g. , People v. Schmalz , 194 Ill. 2d 75, 82, 251 Ill.Dec. 489, 740 N.E.2d 775 (2000) (more than one party can have joint constructive possession)). In this situation, according to the circuit court, "every person in the home (family member, friend, spouse, etc.) who has knowledge of the firearms or ammunition and...