Respondent-Minor appealed an adjudication of delinquency for possession of controlled substances. Specifically, Respondent appealed the trial court's denial of Respondent's Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence. The appellate court found the trial court erred in denying Respondent's motion.
The State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship for possession of a controlled substance. At the hearing for Respondent's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, the police officer testified that he observed the Respondent with 4 - 6 other individuals at the mouth of an alley at 10:00 a.m. in a "high narcotics location." The officer saw the Respondent walk briskly away from the group and towards the open sidewalk. The officer pulled the squad car over to the Respondent, got out, and ordered the Respondent to stop, which the Respondent did. The officer then ordered the Respondent to take his hands out of his pockets. The Respondent raised his hands, causing his shirt to rise above his waistband. The officer observed a plastic bag taped to Respondent's waistband. The officer then searched the Respondent and found bags containing what appeared to be controlled substances. The trial court denied the Respondent's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence.
The Appellate Court applied a de novo standard of review because at issue was the trial court's legal conclusions only. The appellate court began its analysis by referencing the IV Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 6, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. The court then referenced "3 tiers of police-citizen encounters" identified by the U.S. Supreme Court: 1. arrests based on probable cause; 2. brief stops, or Terry stops, based on an officer's reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity; and 3. consensual encounters. In this case the appellate court found that the encounter between the officer and the Respondent was a Terry stop.
The appellate court then referred to U.S. v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) which identified 4 circumstances in which a non-consensual stop can occur: 1. the threatening presence of police officers; 2. the officer's weapon in plain sight; 3. the officer touching the person, or 4. the officer's tone indicating the person must follow the officer's orders. These 4 factors are determined by an objective standard; that is, whether a reasonable innocent person believed he was not free to decline the officer's request.
In this case, the appellate court found the evidence in support of a Terry stop was 1. the squad car pulling alongside the Respondent; 2. the officer immediately getting out of the car and focusing on the Respondent; and 3. the officer giving the Respondent the two orders.
The appellate court next looked at whether the officer had a "reasonable articulable suspicion that Respondent was involved in criminal activity or was armed and dangerous" to justify a Terry stop. (Para. 25) The appellate court distinguished this case from Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 719 (2000), which justified a Terry stop when the defendant ran away from police and into an alley. In this case, the appellate court found that the evidence established the Respondent was walking, not running, away from the group of individuals, not from the police. The Respondent, who was standing at the mouth of the alley, walked away from the alley towards the open sidewalk. The appellate court found that the evidence established that the Respondent was not attempting to evade the police. Moreover, the officer testified that he did not observe the Respondent engaging in any criminal activity prior to stopping the minor. Thus, the appellate court held that the trial court erred when denying the Respondent's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. The appellate court reversed the finding of delinquency.
No comments:
Post a Comment