10 minute read
“To Listen Courteously ... ” The Honorable Michael G. Nerheim
BY JUDGE MARGARET J. MULLEN (RET.)
Judge Michael G. Nerheim was recently appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court to fill the vacancy of the beloved Circuit Judge Valerie Boettle Ceckowski, who retired after 24 years on the bench. In a recent conversation with The Docket, Judge Nerheim made his judicial values clear. He will strive to treat all who come before the bench equally, with patience and courtesy.
Judge Nerheim, 47, grew up in Lake County’s largest city, Waukegan, the youngest of four children. As Judge Nerheim sees it, Waukegan was a great place to grow up because of its rich diversity. The town was a melting pot, where different cultures and points of view found a home. His parents, brother, and sisters all still live nearby.
His family ran (and still runs) a tire store. He started working there at age 10 and continued until he graduated from law school. His first jobs were sweeping floors and cleaning up. He later graduated to loading and unloading semi-trailers filled with tires. Eventually, he learned to do tire installations and oil changes. Seeing his dad work seven days a week—even now at the age of 85—showed him the importance of working hard.
He never aspired to do sales; but he watched his father, Jerry, work the counter and he learned the value of the human touch. It didn’t matter if they bought a complete set of top-of-the-line tires or if their car limped in with one flat they couldn’t afford to replace, Jerry Nerheim treated every customer with the same courtesy and respect. The Nerheims didn’t know many Bio: Judge Margaret Mullen (Ret.) served lawyers but, at age 16, young Mike met a busy practitioner who became a mentor to him. The relationship as an Asso- with Judge Charles Smith continues ciate Judge to this day. When Mike declared a with the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit starting double major in Criminal Justice and Psychology at Winona State University (B.S. 1996), he called Mr. Smith to in 1992 and ask his opinion about a summer job. was selected He was told that a summer internship as a Circuit Judge in 1997, which was a position she filled until her retirement from the bench in 2017. at the Lake County State’s Attorney’s Office would be perfect for a young man interested in law and justice.
Starting in the Investigations Divisions as a college junior, he worked as a summer intern at the State’s Attorney’s Office for five years in a row. When he graduated from the UIC/John Marshall Law School (J.D. 1999, Cum Laude), it was a given that Mr. Nerheim would become an Assistant State’s Attorney. There he served seven years, working in almost every job at the office that he would later lead from 2012 to 2020 as the Lake County State’s Attorney, with private practice at Fox, Lunardi, Zeit & Nerheim in Waukegan in between.
As State’s Attorney, Nerheim kept the booking photo of civil rights icon, Rosa Parks, on the wall of his office to remind him of justice and courage. He took up issues like drug treatment [A Way Out], mental health [Mental Health Treatment Court], and naloxone availability [Naloxone Program]. He was lauded by state-wide groups as the “State’s Attorney of the Year” in 2014 and 2017.
His judicial icons are among the greats of the Lake County bench. Mike’s early courtroom experiences were with Judge Thomas R. Smoker (b.1949-d.2004). He recalls that Tom had a way of treating young lawyers well, which impresses Nerheim to this day. Sometimes, he would step in and coach, saying helpfully, “Counsel, don’t you want to ask the witness if their recollection is exhausted on that point and if anything would refresh their recollection?” Mike thought he had impressed Judge Smoker by his courtroom performance one day when the clerk called and said, “come down here. The judge has a question.” After he rushed down to chambers, Smoker said, “I need some new tires. What brand should I buy?”
He had a formative relationship with Judge John T. Phillips (b.1947-d.2018), who was an associate judge when Mike was a new assistant. They shared several assignments like domestic violence, bond court, and then later a felony call. “Judge Phillips had such patience and compassion. He was respected by all who appeared before him. I appeared before him for fifteen years and I never saw him lose his temper. And he treated everyone with the same courtesy and respect. No matter who they were; no matter who represented them.”
As a new judge assigned to the Family Division, he is very aware of the magnitude of his responsibility. Probably intending to instill confidence, his long-time friend, Judge Chuck Smith, told him: “If you make a mistake dealing with an estate issue, the appellate court will correct it. But if you make a mistake in the life of a child, there’s no correcting that.” With characteristic humility, Judge Nerheim looks forward to the challenge and credits his wife, Andraea, with sparking his interest in children’s issues. He met the Mundelein native at Winona State, where she studied early childhood development. They married in 1999 and have three children. At her insistence, they read to each of their children every night since they were brought home from the hospital. With no experience at child care, Mike went along, but Andi’s influence and
The Nerheims didn’t focus on Zero to Three made him a believer in the imporknow many lawyers but, tance of early childhood education. As State’s Attorney, he chaired Illinois’ chapter at age 16, young Mike met of Fight Crime: Invest In Kids, a national group that a busy practitioner who advocates funding for early childhood programs. Judge became a mentor to him. Nerheim even participated in a fellowship on early childhood policy advocacy at the Erikson Institute in Chicago. Socrates said that a judge is required to listen courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially.1 It is clear that Judge Nerheim will bring to the bench the breadth of his experiences as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney, as the administrator of a large government office and as a small firm lawyer. And it is equally sure that he will strive to listen to each person in his courtroom and treat each of them with the same courtesy and respect. 1 Md. Manjur Hossain Patoari, Mohammad Hasan Murad & Md. Salahuddin Mahmud, The Desired Qualities of a Good Judge, 3 Acad. J. of Interdisc. Stud. 97, 97 (2014), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311987229_The_Desired_Qualities_of_a_ Good_Judge. Contact the LCBA office for pricing. 847-244-3143
BY EUGENE BOLOTNIKOV
On February 22, 2021, Governor Pritzker signed HB 3653 into law as Public Act 1010652, otherwise known as the Criminal Justice Reform Omnibus Bill. This voluminous new law contains noteworthy provisions impacting law enforcement activities, rights of persons, and other subjects, including use of force, mental health training, body worn camera mandates, and community relations and the elimination of cash bail.
AFFIDAVIT FOR COMPLAINT
Effective July 1, 2021, the law eliminates the affidavit requirement previously mandated for a person to file a complaint against a police officer (20 ILCS 2610/14, 50 ILCS 725/3.8), which was originally intended to deter false and frivolous complaints and enable the prosecution of false statements.
ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS
Effective January 1, 2021, the law amends the Police and Community Relations Improvement Act to permit anonymous complaints to the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board (“Board”) regarding “conduct the person believes a law enforcement officer has committed as described in subsection (b) of Section 6.3 of the Illinois Police Training Act.” This conduct includes the commission of certain felonies and misdemeanors, the failure to intervene, tampering with a dash or body-worn camera, perjury, making a false statement or knowingly tampering or fabricating evidence, and engaging in “any unprofessional, unethical, deceptive, or deleterious conduct or practice harmful to the public.” 50 ILCS 705/6.3(b). A governmental agency, including its legal counsel, are Eugene Bolotnikov required to notify the Board within seven days of learning of a violation. works with With certain exceptions, the Board Ancel Glink and the governmental agency must and con- conduct a review of the allegations centrates on advising clients about (50 ILCS 705/6.3(e), (f)), and the governmental body must additioncompliance ally adopt a written policy for these issues asso- investigations. ciated with the Freedom of Information Act. CIVIL SUIT ENFORCEMENT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL
Effective July 1, 2021, the Attorney General Act is amended to prohibit a governmental authority, its agent, or person acting on the authority’s behalf from engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct by officers that deprives any person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by state or federal laws or the constitutions of the United States or State of Illinois. 15 ILCS 205(b). The Attorney General may conduct a preliminary investigation into violations of the preceding provision and file a civil action that seeks equitable and declaratory relief, including civil penalties of $25,000 per violation (or not to exceed $50,000 if the defendant is adjudged to have committed one of the civil rights violations under this Section within five years).
Significantly, these penalties can be imposed upon a police officer, not just the officer’s agency. In fact, “governmental authority” and “officers” is broadly defined, and the “pattern or practice of conduct” language is extremely broad to permit enforcement over a wide variety of conduct.
BODY CAMERAS
Effective July 1, 2021, the law requires law enforcement agencies to implement body cameras (50 ILCS 706/10-15(b)) based on the following requirements and timelines:
Municipalities with populations of 500,000 or more — January 1, 2022;
Municipalities with populations of 100,000 or more but under 500,000 —Jan. 1, 2023;
Municipalities with populations of 50,000 or more but under 100,000 — January 1, 2024;
Municipalities under 50,000 — January 1, 2025.
While the law addresses grant funding, no State funding is required. Additionally, the law prohibits (or at least does not permit) the recording officer from accessing and reviewing recordings prior to completing incident reports, 50 ILCS 706/10-20(a)(6A), 6(B), despite the fact that the law creates a Class 3 felony for Law Enforcement Misconduct, which includes “knowingly and intentionally… (1) misrepresent(ing) or fail(ing) to provide facts describing an incident in any report…” 720 ILCS 5/33-9(a)(1).
LAW ENFORCEMENT MISCONDUCT
Effective July 1, 2021, the law creates a Class 3 felony offense for an officer or a person acting on their behalf, while acting in the line of duty, to knowingly and intentionally: (1) misrepresent or fail to provide facts describing an incident in a report or during an investigation; (2) withhold knowledge of the misrepresentation of another officer; or (3) fail to comply
In addition to the with state law or department policy requiring the prior prohibition of use of officer-worn body cameras. 720 ILCS 5/33-9. chokeholds, “restraining OFFICER
INVESTIGATIONS
above the shoulders with Effective July 1, 2021, the law amends the Unirisk of asphyxiation” is form Peace Officers’ Disciplinary Act to no longer also prohibited unless require informing an officer under investigation about deadly force is justified. the names of complainants prior to interrogation, 50 ILCS 725/3.2, or the name, rank and unit or command for the officer in charge of the investigation. 50 ILCS 725/3.4.
USE OF FORCE
Effective July 1, 2021, an officer’s use of force must be based upon “the totality of the circumstances,” 20 ILCS 5/7-5, which is defined to mean “all facts known to the peace officer at the time, or that would be known to a reasonable officer in the same situation, including the conduct of the officer and the subject leading up to the use of deadly force.” 20 ILCS 5/7-5(h)(3). Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm requires, based upon the totality of the circumstances, that it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to the officer or other person, or a reasonable belief that it is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape, and the officer reasonably believes that the person to be arrested cannot be apprehended at a later date, and the officer reasonably believes that the person to be arrested is likely to cause great bodily harm to another. 20 ILCS 5/7-5(a). Under the new law, the inability to apprehend a person at a later date appears to significantly limit the ability to use such force.
DEADLY FORCE
The new law does not permit using deadly force based upon danger that a person poses to him or herself if a reasonable officer would believe that the person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or another. 20 ILCS 5/7-5(a-10). In turn, an “imminent threat” is “not
