http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/1084947,6_1_NA01_PETERSON_S1.articleThe charge stands
Peterson will face weapons caseAugust 1, 2008Recommend
By STEWART WARREN The Herald News
Drew Peterson's rifle wasn't legal, a judge ruled July 30.
So the unlawful use of a weapon charge filed against him will stand, Will County Judge Richard Schoenstedt said.
This round goes to the state. Chalk up a loss for Peterson.
After the hearing, Joel Brodsky, one of the former Bolingbrook police officer's lawyers, stood outside the courthouse, waiting to speak to the press. As he waited for one reporter to arrive, Brodsky turned away from the cameras and wiped sweat from his face. Despite the ruling, he sounded cheerful. Someone asked him if he won in court.
"The prosecution is continuing, so it's not a total victory," he admitted.Sight too short?Peterson, 54, of Bolingbrook was arrested May 21 and charged with the unlawful use of a weapon. He was accused of owning a Colt Sporter Lightweight .223 Remington rifle with an attached EOTech electronic sight. By law, the gun should be 16 inches long, state prosecutors said. Without the electronic sight, the gun was too short.
Police had seized that gun and 10 others from Peterson's home late last year after the mysterious October disappearance of Stacy Peterson, 23, his third wife. The young mother of two hasn't been seen since, and the case has been dubbed a potential homicide.
It's also become a media circus with reporters dogging Peterson's every move.
After Stacy vanished, police reopened the investigation into the 2004 drowning of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. The 40-year-old was found dead in a dry bathtub at her Bolingbrook home during the final phase of her bitter divorce from Peterson. At first, coroner's jury ruled her death accidental. But after her body was exhumed near the end of 2007, the opinion changed. It's now considered a homicide.
That only increased the media frenzy.
Gun case argumentsEarlier this year, Peterson's lawyers asked the judge to return his weapons. But before they could get an answer, the state revoked his firearm owner's identification card - meaning Peterson now can't legally own guns. As a kind of compromise, Schoenstedt later returned most of the weapons to one of Peterson's sons, an Oak Brook police officer.
On July 14, the judge heard arguments in the gun case. Under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, police officers are allowed to own guns that might be illegal under state statutes, Brodsky argued.
But the state disagreed.
Congress wrote the law to protect armed officers who might be traveling to other states, Will County Assistant State's Attorney John Connor said. It allows them to follow the gun laws of their own state while in other jurisdictions. Some states have laws allowing officers to carry concealed weapons, and others don't, Connor argued, citing an example.
During this week's hearing, Schoenstedt said the 2004 act did apply to Peterson when the gun was seized. At that time, he still was working as a Bolingbrook police officer.
"The final issue is, again, whether Mr. Peterson may be charged with possessing an illegal firearm regardless of the protection (the 2004 act) provides him. This issue was certainly the primary focus of the arguments presented by the attorneys," Schoenstedt said. "For the defense to be successful at this stage, this court would be required to make certain assumptions on behalf of the defense, and against the state ... this court declines to do so."
Peterson now will return to court at 9:30 a.m. Aug. 28 for a pretrial hearing in the case.