Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety Ordinance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Morton Grove introduces ordinance to hold vehicle owners accountable in fleeing or eluding cases; first reading only

6442029 · September 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Village Board held a first reading of an ordinance (25-26) to add a local offense for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer to the municipal code. The board took no action; the police department cited a sharp rise in fleeing incidents and said prosecutions are often hampered by difficulty identifying drivers.

The Morton Grove Village Board on Sept. 9 held a first reading of ordinance 25-26, which would add a local code section addressing fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. No vote was taken; the item was presented as a first read for future consideration.

During the presentation staff said the police department documented six incidents of motorists fleeing traffic stops in 2018 and said that number had grown to more than 50 per year by 2024. Officials told the board those cases are difficult to prosecute because criminal charges require identifying the driver of the fleeing vehicle.

The presentation said the village’s existing restrictive pursuit policy authorizes pursuits only when a person poses an imminent danger to human life or has already caused great bodily harm. According to the presenter, the proposed ordinance is intended to give the village authority to impose penalties on the registered owner of a vehicle when the vehicle is used to flee or attempt to elude police. Staff said the police department will pursue proactive community communication and develop policies and procedures to implement penalties if the ordinance is adopted in a future meeting.

Because this was a first read, the board took no formal action on the ordinance during the Sept. 9 meeting.