When Can You Have a Police Report Admitted as Evidence Under Rule 803(8)

My question involves court procedures for the state of: Illinois

I understand that 803(8) has a few different interpretations, as I've come across a few different interpretations. However, I'm dealing with CIVIL court and the ILLINOIS rules of evidence rather than the federal rules of evidence in this situation.

Can a police report be used in civil court between two domestic parties?

Let me qualify it, for hearsay sake.


1) Person 1 calls the police to report an alleged crime that Person A is alleged of committing
2) Police officer shows up
3) Person 1 tells the police officer what happened
4) Person 2, another resident of the residence, tells the police officer her take on things from what she has observed of Person A
5) The police officer generates a police report with what Person 1 and Person 2 had to say about Person A
6) It becomes public record

Can this police report be used in civil court as evidence rather than hearsay?

Quote:

---

FRE 803(8) provides that records, reports, statements, or data compilation, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel, or (C) in civil actions and proceedings and against the Government in criminal cases, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.

---

source: http://www.proskauerguide.com/litiga.../:pf_printable

Quote:

---

(5) Structural Change: A hearsay exception in Illinois with respect to both business and public records is recognized in civil cases by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 236, excluding police accident reports, and in criminal cases by section 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (725 ILCS 5/115), excluding medical records and police investigative records. The Illinois Rules of Evidence in Rule 803(6), records of regularly conducted activity (i.e., business records), and in Rule 803(8), public records and reports, while retaining the exclusions described above, removes the difference between civil and criminal business and public records in favor of the traditional and otherwise uniformly accepted division between business records, Rule 803(6), and public records and reports, Rule 803(8), both applicable in civil and criminal cases.

---

source: http://www.state.il.us/court/supreme...e/Evidence.htm

Quote:

---

(8) Public records and reports. Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, police accident reports and in criminal cases medical records and matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.

---

source: http://www.state.il.us/court/supreme...e/Evidence.htm

Why are you conflating Federal Rules of Evidence with Illinois Rules of Evidence? They are 2 separate sets of rules that apply to the courts of jurisdiction of each. Are you suing in state or Federal court? Since it's civil, I'm betting state.

If you're suing in state court, you want how their 803(8) has been interpreted.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

Why are you conflating Federal Rules of Evidence with Illinois Rules of Evidence? They are 2 separate sets of rules that apply to the courts of jurisdiction of each. Are you suing in state or Federal court? Since it's civil, I'm betting state.

If you're suing in state court, you want how their 803(8) has been interpreted.

---

This would be a state court, more definitively, a civil court in the city. However, I believe the Illinois rules of evidence would apply here. I believe the 803(8) for Illinois is saying that police reports can be used in civil actions and proceedings, but I'm having difficulty reading through the legalese and would like an interpretation from someone more familiar with the legalese.

Even if we assume that the court would let the report itself into evidence, the fact is that third party statements within the report would still be objectionable as hearsay.

How about as a FOIA request and response?

Are you sure about that?

I've read a website where it appears there have been arguments about this, and it would seem that 803(8) allows for the police report to be used and admissible. Perhaps I have an improper interpretation.

source: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evi...arsay-fro.html

Now you're bring South Dakota law to the table? The ONLY law you need to be concerned about is that of Illinois, where you are suing.

What another state's courts have to say, or what a professor says about that state's laws, have no bearing on you.

free9man, that is not a clear answer that compares or contrasts Illinois vs. South Dakota, as I have found that many of the state rules of evidence mimic the federal rules of evidence. As such, many of the state rules of evidence mimic each other

South Dakota:

Quote:

---

19-16-12. (Rule 803(8)) Public records and reports admissible. Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth:
(1) The activities of the office or agency; or
(2) Matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel; or
(3) In civil actions and proceedings and against the state in criminal cases, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, are not excluded by § 19-16-4, even though the declarant is available as a witness, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.

---

Illinois:

Quote:

---

(8) Public records and reports. Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, police accident reports and in criminal cases medical records and matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.

---

It DOES NOT matter how one state interprets their rules or whether they mimic the FRE.

The only thing you need to concern yourself with is the law and its interpretation in the jurisdiction you are suing in.

Quote:

---

Quoting untouchedworld

---

Are you sure about that?

I've read a website where it appears there have been arguments about this, and it would seem that 803(8) allows for the police report to be used and admissible. Perhaps I have an improper interpretation.

source: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evi...arsay-fro.html

---

Yes, I'm sure about that. Every layer of hearsay is separately objectionable. The article you link speaks directly to that issue (double hearsay) and speaks of the hearsay exceptions that allow for admission of the second level of hearsay statements. The subsequent discussion of admitting factual conclusions without respect to the availability of a declarant is a separate discussion from introducing the hearsay statements; that portion of the opinion was not adopted by the majority (although that's of peripheral relevance given that it's a S.D. decision and thus even if it had adopted that position it would not be binding in Illinois.)

So, it would appear a police report works in the strange situation, whereby an individual is being charged with a crime or civil action by the government, whereby the report would prove that they have the wrong individual (perhaps the officer died, thus his report is of use).

If I understand what you've said, then, the main way to use a police report is to have the declarants available OR the officer who took the report, thus allowing the report to be discussed. However, a declarant could deny portion of the police report, the officer who made the report would need to be present for the officer to either admit or deny that the declarant had declared such. As such, if the declarants and officer were in the same courtroom during the same hearing, the declarant could be quickly exposed for having made a false police report, be that the officer claims one or more declarants a liar if they lie about something that he heard and reported from a statement one or more declarants made.

It would appear, then, that there is a way to expose someone as a liar, but the officer would need to be present.

If the declarants are available, why not simply have them testify?

You're dancing around your actual question. What is it that you hope to do with a police report, and why are you concerned about simply having the declarants testify?

Because the police report is false, I hope to prove the plaintiff and associated witnesses to be liars.

From what you have posted here, you don't have a clue what you are doing and should retain a lawyer to represent you.

You appear now to be approaching the statements in the police report from the standpoint of impeachment.

I have retained an attorney. All of this is "homework" I have had to do.
Also, I wouldn't say I do not have a clue. Proving someone a liar is the goal with the police reports.
And I've obviously figured out that having the police officer testify about the reports is a good way to avoid the hearsay problem.

I'm curious ... who is in court? Are you defending yourself in a criminal matter and hoping to impeach the complaining parties? Or, are you attempting to sue for defamation based on what was told to the police?

The former might be easier than the latter as proving a knowing and intentional falsehood can be difficult. Perceptions can be incorrect yet not actionable.