Title: People v. Timmsen

State: illinois

Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court

Document:

Illinois Official Reports 
 
Supreme Court 
 
 
People v. Timmsen, 2015 IL 118181 
 
 
 
Caption in Supreme 
Court: 
 
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. JACOB 
D. TIMMSEN, Appellee. 
 
 
 
Docket No. 
 
118181 
 
 
 
Filed 
 
 
March 24, 2016 
 
 
 
Decision Under  
Review 
 
Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Third District; heard in that 
court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Hancock County; the Hon. 
Richard H. Gambrell, Judge, presiding. 
 
 
Judgment 
Appellate court judgment reversed. 
Circuit court judgment affirmed. 
 
Counsel on 
Appeal 
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Stephanie Hilton, 
State’s Attorney, of Carthage (Carolyn E. Shapiro, Solicitor General, 
and Michael M. Glick and Drew Meyer, Assistant Attorneys General, 
of Chicago, and Patrick Delfino, Terry A. Mertel and Justin A. 
Nicolosi, of the Office of the State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, 
of Ottawa, of counsel), for the People. 
 
Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Peter A. Carusona, 
Deputy Defender, and Thomas A. Karalis, Assistant Appellate 
Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Ottawa, for 
appellee. 
 
Digitally signed by 
Reporter of Decisions 
Reason: I attest to the 
accuracy and integrity 
of this document 
Date: 2016.05.11 
08:36:57 -05'00'
 
 
- 2 - 
 
Justices 
JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with 
opinion. 
Chief Justice Garman and Justices Kilbride, Karmeier, and Theis 
concurred in the judgment and opinion. 
Justice Thomas specially concurred, with opinion. 
Justice Burke dissented, with opinion. 
 
 
 
OPINION 
 
¶ 1 
 
The question presented in this appeal is whether police officers had reasonable suspicion to 
stop defendant Jacob D. Timmsen’s vehicle when he made a U-turn approximately 50 feet 
before a police roadblock. The circuit court of Hancock County found that defendant’s U-turn 
justified the stop and denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the stop. A 
divided panel of the appellate court reversed defendant’s conviction, concluding that 
defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted. 2014 IL App (3d) 120481. We 
allowed the State’s petition for leave to appeal (Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015); R. 612(b) 
(eff. Feb. 6, 2013)). For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court 
and affirm the judgment of the circuit court. 
 
¶ 2 
 
 
 
 
BACKGROUND 
¶ 3 
 
The following facts are not in dispute. 1  At approximately 1:15 a.m. on Saturday, 
December 17, 2011, defendant was driving eastbound on U.S. Highway 136 from Iowa to 
Illinois. The highway is a four-lane road, with two lanes in each direction. Just across the 
Illinois border, Illinois State Police had erected a safety roadblock. The roadblock was marked 
by an orange, diamond-shaped sign with black lettering. As defendant traveled into Illinois, he 
saw the police roadblock and made a U-turn at a railroad crossing, which was the only location 
to turn around before reaching the roadblock. 2  The railroad crossing was located 
approximately 50 feet from the roadblock. After the U-turn, Hancock County Deputy Travis 
Duffy stopped defendant’s vehicle as he proceeded westbound on Highway 136. Illinois State 
Police Officer Heath Miller was stationed at the roadblock and saw Deputy Duffy pull over 
defendant’s vehicle. Deputy Duffy requested assistance and Trooper Miller went to the 
location where defendant’s vehicle was stopped. Defendant was arrested for driving with a 
suspended license, in violation of section 6-303(a) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 
5/6-303(a) (West 2010)).3 Defendant was also issued a citation for driving “to the left of center 
of roadway” in violation of section 11-706(a) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 
                                                 
 
1The record does not contain a report of proceedings but does include a bystander’s report (see 
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(c) (eff. Dec. 13, 2005)). The facts are taken from the bystander’s 
report and the circuit court’s order denying defendant’s motion to suppress. 
 
2U-turns are legal in Illinois as long as the turn can be made safely and without interfering with 
other traffic. See 625 ILCS 5/11-802 (West 2010). 
 
3Defendant’s passenger, Trevor Nichol, was also arrested based on an active warrant for his arrest. 
 
 
- 3 - 
 
5/11-706(a) (West 2010)).4 Officers conducted an inventory search incident to arrest and 
recovered a metal pipe and less than one gram of marijuana from the vehicle. 
¶ 4 
 
Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence that was recovered from the vehicle as 
well as evidence that he was driving with a suspended license. At the hearing on the motion, 
only defendant and Trooper Miller testified. Defendant testified that he saw the roadblock and 
made a U-turn at the railroad crossing but did not give a reason for turning around and heading 
back toward Iowa. Trooper Miller stated that he saw Deputy Duffy stop defendant’s vehicle, 
but he did not know why Deputy Duffy stopped the vehicle. Trooper Miller also stated that 
none of the police officers knew who was in the vehicle or that defendant’s license had been 
suspended. He further admitted that the officers knew of no arrest or search warrant 
authorizing the stop of the vehicle or its occupants. The circuit court denied the motion, finding 
that defendant’s U-turn 50 feet prior to the roadblock provided a reasonable, articulable 
suspicion of criminal activity that justified the stop. The parties subsequently agreed to 
proceed by way of a stipulated bench trial on the license charge, and the court found defendant 
guilty of driving with a suspended license (625 ILCS 5/6-303(a) (West 2014)). Defendant was 
sentenced to 24 months’ conditional discharge and 90 days in the county jail. 
¶ 5 
 
On appeal, defendant argued that the police did not have reasonable, articulable suspicion 
to stop his vehicle and that his motion to suppress should have been granted. A divided panel of 
the appellate court agreed and found that, absent any other suspicious activity, the U-turn itself 
did not provide specific, articulable facts that a criminal offense had been or was about to be 
committed. 2014 IL App (3d) 120481, ¶ 16.5 The majority concluded that defendant’s motion 
to suppress evidence should have been granted and reversed his conviction and remanded the 
cause to the circuit court for further proceedings. Id. ¶ 17. The dissent disagreed and concluded 
that defendant’s U-turn to avoid the roadblock provided the police with reasonable, articulable 
suspicion to stop the vehicle. Pointing out that the majority failed to consider the totality of the 
circumstances, the dissent noted that the majority placed too much emphasis on the possibility 
of defendant’s innocent conduct rather than the suspicious nature of making a U-turn in the 
middle of the night over railroad tracks shortly before a police roadblock. Id. ¶ 42 (Schmidt, J., 
dissenting). The State now appeals to this court. 
 
¶ 6 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS 
¶ 7 
 
The State makes two arguments on appeal. First, defendant’s avoidance of the police 
roadblock provided reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop, and, alternatively, Deputy 
Duffy’s reasonable mistake of law justified the stop. In response, defendant maintains that his 
legal U-turn, shortly before the police roadblock, did not rise to the level of reasonable 
suspicion, and Deputy Duffy’s purported mistake of law was not objectively reasonable. 
 
 
                                                 
 
4The citation is not included in the record, but is noted in the bystander’s report and the circuit 
court’s order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss. 
 
5Justice Holdridge filed a specially concurring opinion noting that under the facts present in this 
case, there was no “objective manifestation” that “criminal activity may be afoot.” 2014 IL App (3d) 
120481, ¶ 24 (Holdridge, J., specially concurring). 
 
 
- 4 - 
 
¶ 8 
 
 
 
 
Reasonable Suspicion 
¶ 9 
 
The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, which applies to the states under 
the fourteenth amendment, and article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution protect people 
against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const., amend. IV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, 
§ 6. 6 Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 213 (1960). The touchstone of the fourth 
amendment is “the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental 
invasion of a citizen’s personal security.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968). The law is well 
settled that stopping a vehicle and detaining its occupants constitute a “seizure” within the 
meaning of the fourth amendment. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 255-56 (2007); 
People v. Close, 238 Ill. 2d 497, 504 (2010). Such a seizure is analyzed pursuant to the 
principles set forth in Terry, 392 U.S. 1. See Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 117 (1998) (a 
routine traffic stop is a relatively brief encounter similar to a Terry stop rather than to a formal 
arrest); People v. Henderson, 2013 IL 114040, ¶ 25. Pursuant to Terry, a police officer may 
conduct a brief, investigatory stop of a person where the officer reasonably believes that the 
person has committed, or is about to commit, a crime.7 Terry, 392 U.S. at 22; Close, 238 Ill. 2d 
at 505. The officer must have a “reasonable, articulable suspicion” that criminal activity is 
afoot. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000). Although “reasonable, articulable suspicion” 
is a less demanding standard than probable cause, an officer’s suspicion must amount to more 
than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch’ ” of criminal activity. Terry, 392 
U.S. at 27. The investigatory stop must be justified at its inception. and the officer must be able 
to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from 
those facts, reasonably warrant the governmental intrusion upon the constitutionally protected 
interests of the private citizen. Id. at 20-21. In judging the officer’s conduct, we apply an 
objective standard and consider, “would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the 
seizure or the search ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the action taken 
was appropriate?” Id. at 21-22. Further, when evaluating the validity of the stop, we consider 
“ ‘the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture.’ ” United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 
1, 8 (1989) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981)). 
¶ 10 
 
Moreover, just as an officer must have reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify a stop, an 
individual has the right to avoid an encounter with the police in the absence of reasonable 
suspicion. The Supreme Court has made clear that “when an officer, without reasonable 
suspicion or probable cause, approaches an individual, the individual has a right to ignore the 
police and go about his business.” Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 125; see Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 
491, 497-98 (1983). Further, an individual’s refusal to cooperate, without more, does not 
amount to reasonable suspicion. Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 125; Royer, 460 U.S. at 498. 
¶ 11 
 
Since we are reviewing the circuit court’s order denying defendant’s motion to suppress 
evidence, we apply a two-part standard of review. People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 542 
(2006) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996)). First, this court will uphold the 
circuit court’s factual findings unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. 
                                                 
 
6We construe the search and seizure provision of the Illinois Constitution in limited lockstep with 
the United States Constitution. People v. Caballes, 221 Ill. 2d 282, 314 (2006); People v. Fitzpatrick, 
2013 IL 113449, ¶ 15. 
 
7These principles have been codified in section 107-14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 
(725 ILCS 5/107-14 (West 2014)). 
 
 
- 5 - 
 
at 542. Second, we review de novo the circuit court’s ultimate legal conclusion as to whether 
suppression is warranted. Id. The facts here are not in dispute, so we focus our analysis on the 
legal question of whether suppression is warranted. 
¶ 12 
 
We first address the State’s contention that defendant’s avoidance of the police roadblock 
provided reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. The State argues that the totality of the 
circumstances supports a finding of reasonable suspicion and specifically points to: (1) the 
“suspicious nature” of defendant’s “evasive maneuver”; (2) the proximity of the maneuver to 
the roadblock; (3) the day and time of the maneuver; (4) the roadblock was well marked; and 
(5) the roadblock was not busy. The State compares defendant’s U-turn to the defendant’s 
“headlong flight” from police in Wardlow. Further, the State maintains that defendant’s U-turn 
alone, upon encountering the roadblock, was sufficient to generate reasonable suspicion. 
¶ 13 
 
In Wardlow, police officers were patrolling an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking. 
The defendant, who was holding an opaque bag, looked in the officers’ direction and fled on 
foot. Officers stopped him and recovered a handgun from the bag. The Supreme Court held 
that the defendant’s presence in a high-crime area, as well as his unprovoked flight upon seeing 
police officers, gave the officers reasonable suspicion to stop him and investigate further. 
Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 124-25. The Court noted that an individual’s presence in a high-crime 
area, standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the 
person is committing a crime. Id. at 124. But, the Court observed that officers are not required 
to ignore the relevant characteristics of a location in determining whether the circumstances 
are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation, and, thus, the fact that an 
investigatory stop occurred in a high-crime area is among the relevant contextual 
considerations in a Terry analysis. Id. The Court also found significant the defendant’s 
unprovoked flight upon noticing the police, noting that nervous, evasive behavior is also a 
pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion. Id. It explained that “[h]eadlong 
flight—wherever it occurs—is the consummate act of evasion: It is not necessarily indicative 
of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such.” Id. The Court further noted that a 
reasonable suspicion determination must be based on commonsense judgments and inferences 
about human behavior. Id. at 125. Finally, the Court dispelled any notion that its holding was 
not consistent with a person’s right to ignore police and go about his business. Id.; Royer, 460 
U.S. at 498. Finding that unprovoked flight is not simply a mere refusal to cooperate, the Court 
explained that “flight,” by its very nature, is just the opposite of going about one’s business. 
Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 125. 
¶ 14 
 
Here, we agree with the State that the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of 
reasonable suspicion. Defendant’s U-turn across railroad tracks just 50 feet before the 
roadblock is the type of evasive behavior that is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable 
suspicion. Id. at 124, see also United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 885 (1975) (a 
driver’s obvious attempts to evade officers is an appropriate factor in deciding reasonable 
suspicion); Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1, 6 (1984) (a person’s “strange movements” in his 
attempt to evade police officers contributed to a finding of reasonable suspicion); United States 
v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8 (1989) (a person’s evasive route through an airport can be highly 
probative in a reasonable suspicion analysis). Also, the fact that the U-turn was made in the 
early morning hours of a weekend (1:15 a.m. on a Saturday) indicates more of a probability of 
criminal behavior such as driving under the influence than does the same action at 8 a.m. on a 
weekday. As noted above, reasonable suspicion determinations must be made on 
 
 
- 6 - 
 
commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior. Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 125. 
Further, since the roadblock was well-marked, it was readily identifiable as a roadblock rather 
than being mistaken for an accident site or a road hazard, which one may generally desire to 
avoid. Moreover, the roadblock was not busy, which suggests that a driver would not have 
feared a lengthy delay. We conclude that when considering “the totality of the 
circumstances—the whole picture,” Deputy Duffy had reasonable suspicion to conduct an 
investigatory stop. 
¶ 15 
 
As in Wardlow, our conclusion is entirely consistent with an individual’s right to go about 
one’s business. Defendant’s U-turn upon encountering the police roadblock was the opposite 
of defendant going about his business. Continuing eastbound on the highway would have been 
going about his business. We cannot view defendant’s evasive behavior under these 
circumstances as simply a refusal to cooperate. Evasive behavior and a person’s refusal to 
speak with an officer when an officer approaches him are not one and the same. See id. 
¶ 16 
 
We disagree with defendant’s contention that his legal traffic maneuver shortly before the 
police roadblock did not amount to reasonable suspicion. Defendant views his U-turn as a 
single, isolated event, contending that avoidance of a roadblock alone is insufficient to form 
the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct a traffic stop. He disregards the additional 
circumstances present, arguing that these factors “simply reflect the choice of when, where, 
and how the police decided to erect the [roadblock].” However, defendant’s contention misses 
the point of a reasonable suspicion analysis, which considers the totality of the circumstances. 
The Court in Wardlow did not view the defendant’s legal act of flight from police in isolation. 
It found that the defendant’s flight upon noticing the police as well as his presence in a 
high-crime area were sufficient to generate reasonable suspicion. Id. at 124. Here, defendant’s 
U-turn upon encountering the roadblock, as well as the other circumstances present, were 
sufficient to generate reasonable suspicion. While it is true that some of these circumstances 
reflected the choice of when, where, and how the police decided to erect the roadblock, this 
will always be true of a police officer’s presence in any location. In Wardlow, the fact that 
police officers decided to converge upon a high-crime area did not make the consideration of 
that factor in the Court’s reasonable suspicion analysis any less significant. Similarly here, the 
location, day, and time of the roadblock are pertinent circumstances to consider in a reasonable 
suspicion determination. 
¶ 17 
 
Just as defendant contends that avoidance of a roadblock by itself is not sufficient to 
amount to reasonable suspicion, the State contends the opposite, that the sole act of avoiding a 
roadblock is sufficient to generate reasonable suspicion. The State’s brief includes numerous 
citations to federal and state authority in support of its position but also acknowledges 
authority that finds to the contrary. And, as pointed out by Professor LaFave, determining 
when a vehicle avoids a roadblock in a “suspicious manner” has caused state and federal courts 
“considerable difficulty,” with no clear consensus. See 5 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and 
Seizure § 10.8(a) & n.85, at 417 (5th ed. 2012).8 
¶ 18 
 
We decline to adopt either defendant’s or the State’s bright-line rule because we find that 
both are at odds with a reasonable suspicion determination, which considers the totality of the 
circumstances of each case. The United States Supreme Court has not addressed the issue of 
                                                 
 
8Appended to this opinion is the relevant text of the footnote. Infra ¶ 67. 
 
 
- 7 - 
 
whether evasive behavior such as avoiding a police roadblock is sufficient by itself to generate 
reasonable suspicion but has found that such an action is appropriately considered as one of the 
circumstances contributing to a reasonable suspicion analysis. United States v. Arvizu, 534 
U.S. 266, 277 (2002). In doing so, the Court reiterated that, when it comes to 
reasonable-suspicion determinations, reviewing courts must look at the totality of the 
circumstances of each case. Id. at 273. The Court has also explained that the concept of 
reasonable suspicion is not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules but 
must be determined by looking to “the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture.” 
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 7-8. In fact, in Wardlow, the Court 
did not endorse a per se rule regarding a person’s flight upon seeing the police. Wardlow, 528 
U.S. at 126 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, 
and Breyer, JJ.). Noting the diversity and frequency of possible motivations for flight, the 
concurring justices stated that, rather than a per se rule, courts should consider factors such as 
the time of day, the number of people in the area, the character of the neighborhood, the 
direction and speed of the flight, and whether the person’s behavior was otherwise unusual. Id. 
at 129-30. They explained that it is precisely the number of variables that should preclude 
either a bright-line rule that always justifies, or that never justifies, an investigatory stop based 
on the sole fact that flight began after a police officer appeared nearby. Id. at 130. The 
concurrence further pointed out that it is no longer “an accepted axiom of criminal law that ‘the 
wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.’ ” Id. at 131 (quoting 
Alberty v. United States, 162 U.S. 499, 511 (1896)). 
¶ 19 
 
Following this guidance, the totality of the circumstances present in each case must govern 
whether a motorist’s avoidance of a roadblock amounts to reasonable suspicion. Our position 
is consistent with the majority of courts that have refused to adopt a bright-line rule that 
avoiding a roadblock automatically gives rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. 
See Shan Patel, Note, Per Se Reasonable Suspicion: Police Authority to Stop Those Who Flee 
From Road Checkpoints, 56 Duke L.J. 1621, 1640 (2007). These jurisdictions view avoidance 
as simply one factor in determining the existence of reasonable suspicion. Id. We believe this 
view comports with Supreme Court precedent. See Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 277 (avoidance of a 
roadblock is appropriately considered as one of the circumstances contributing to a reasonable 
suspicion analysis). 
 
¶ 20 
 
 
 
 
Mistake of Law 
¶ 21 
 
The State also contends that this court should reverse the appellate court’s judgment based 
on Deputy Duffy’s reasonable mistake of law. The State maintains that it was objectively 
reasonable for Deputy Duffy to believe that defendant’s U-turn violated section 11-706(a) of 
the Illinois Vehicle Code, which prohibits driving to the left of the center of the roadway. 
However, because we find there was reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s vehicle, we need 
not address this issue. See People v. Campa, 217 Ill. 2d 243, 269-70 (2005) (reviewing court 
will not decide nonessential issues or render advisory opinions). 
 
¶ 22 
 
 
 
 
CONCLUSION 
¶ 23 
 
Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude there was reasonable suspicion to 
conduct an investigatory stop of defendant’s vehicle. Thus, the circuit court properly denied 
 
 
- 8 - 
 
defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. We reverse the judgment of the appellate court and 
affirm the judgment of the circuit court. 
 
¶ 24 
 
Appellate court judgment reversed. 
¶ 25 
 
Circuit court judgment affirmed. 
 
¶ 26 
 
JUSTICE THOMAS, specially concurring: 
¶ 27 
 
I agree with the majority that the police had the necessary reasonable suspicion to stop 
defendant’s vehicle when he made a U-turn in front of a police roadblock. I write separately to 
more fully explain my views on this issue and also to express my disagreement with the 
majority’s statement that adopting a per se rule allowing the police to stop those who evade 
roadblocks would be inconsistent with United States Supreme Court authority. 
¶ 28 
 
At the outset, I will set forth two things that should be beyond dispute. First, the Supreme 
Court has upheld the constitutionality of fixed checkpoints (see Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 
419 (2004); Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990); United States v. 
Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)), and there is no contention by defendant that the 
checkpoint here was illegal. Second, the only way that constitutionally lawful checkpoints can 
possibly serve their intended purpose is if compliance with them is not optional. If the public is 
offered two choices—(1) proceed through the checkpoint or (2) make a U-turn in front of the 
checkpoint—no one committing an illegal act would ever be caught at the checkpoint. In State 
v. Foreman, 527 S.E.2d 921 (N.C. 2000), the North Carolina Supreme Court elaborated on this 
point as follows: 
“The checkpoint was established with the intent to stop every vehicle briefly and to 
check for impaired drivers traveling on Neuse Boulevard within the vicinity of the 
checkpoint. It is obvious that a law-enforcement agency cannot ‘make impaired driving 
checks of drivers of vehicles on highways’ unless such vehicles can be stopped. 
Certainly, the purpose of any checkpoint *** would be defeated if drivers had the 
option to ‘legally avoid,’ ignore or circumvent the checkpoint by either electing to 
drive through without stopping or by turning away upon entering the checkpoint’s 
perimeters. Further, it is clear that the perimeters of the checkpoint or ‘the area in which 
checks are conducted’ would include the area within which drivers may become aware 
of its presence by observation of any sign marking or giving notice of the checkpoint. 
Therefore, we hold that it is reasonable and permissible for an officer to monitor a 
checkpoint’s entrance for vehicles whose drivers may be attempting to avoid the 
checkpoint, and it necessarily follows that an officer, in light of and pursuant to the 
totality of the circumstances or the checkpoint plan, may pursue and stop a vehicle 
which has turned away from a checkpoint within its perimeters for reasonable inquiry 
to determine why the vehicle turned away.” Id. at 924. 
¶ 29 
 
And, indeed, the Supreme Court has explicitly held that stopping all drivers and thus 
removing police discretion is precisely what is required to make license checks constitutional. 
In Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the Supreme Court held that roving stops to 
check drivers’ licenses, in the absence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion, violated the 
fourth amendment. The problem with such a practice was the complete discretion afforded to 
law enforcement officers as to who would be stopped. Id. at 661-63. However, the Supreme 
 
 
- 9 - 
 
Court explained that the state of Delaware was allowed to develop less intrusive means for 
license checks that did not allow the officers unfettered discretion and explained that, 
“[q]uestioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative.” 
(Emphasis added.) Id. at 663. How, then, to deal with drivers like defendant who attempt to 
evade the checkpoint? Courts have followed two different approaches. 
 
¶ 30 
 
 
 
I. The Checkpoint Encompasses a Reasonable Area Around the Checkpoint 
¶ 31 
 
One approach is the one set forth above in Foreman: to hold that the checkpoint necessarily 
encompasses an area within a reasonable distance of the checkpoint. This is the same position 
our appellate court took in People v. Long, 124 Ill. App. 3d 1030 (1984). Thus, in that case, the 
police were entitled to question a motorist who parked his car within 100 yards of the 
roadblock. Id. at 1034. The court acknowledged that the determination of what is a “reasonable 
distance” is an objective inquiry based on the facts of the specific case. In that case, the court 
determined that 100 yards was within a “reasonable distance” given that one of the officers 
stationed at the checkpoint was able to walk to the defendant’s car to question him. Id. The 
appellate court majority in the present case agreed with Long, but misread the case. The 
majority below recognized that defendant was within the bounds of the checkpoint when he 
made a U-turn a mere 50 feet in front of it but held that Long did not apply because defendant 
did not stop his car. 2014 IL App (3d) 120481, ¶ 11. But the fact that the defendant parked his 
car in Long was in no way dispositive. Rather, the court reasoned that “[a] checkpoint 
encompasses not only the immediate area at which vehicles stop in response to requests by the 
police, but also the area within a reasonable distance from the checkpoint.” Long, 124 Ill. App. 
3d at 1034. Thus, had the appellate court applied Long faithfully, it would have held that at the 
time defendant executed his U-turn, he was already within the boundaries of the checkpoint 
and was thus subject to having his license checked. 
¶ 32 
 
The Foreman and Long approach is entirely reasonable, and it is worth considering. Again, 
Prouse explained that the police can ensure that driver’s license checks are constitutional by 
giving the police no discretion as to who should be stopped and instead stopping all oncoming 
traffic at checkpoints. Surely, if the police set up a checkpoint to do precisely that, it cannot be 
the rule that only drivers whose tires touch a specific spot on the pavement may be stopped. 
The police must be entitled to implement measures ensuring that all vehicles will indeed be 
stopped. The State, however, has not argued this position, so resolution of this question is 
probably best left for another day when the court has had full briefing on the issue. 
 
¶ 33 
 
 
 
 
II. Evasion of the Checkpoint Is Grounds for a Terry Stop 
¶ 34 
 
The Foreman and Long approach can prove difficult to apply, because in each case the 
court would have to determine the reasonable boundaries of the checkpoint. Thus, another 
approach is to hold that evading a roadblock gives the police the necessary reasonable 
suspicion for a Terry stop. This was the approach taken by the Indiana Appellate Court in 
Snyder v. State, 538 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989), a case with very similar facts to ours. In 
that case, at approximately 1 a.m., the defendant turned around in the road 100 yards before a 
sobriety checkpoint. A state trooper left the roadblock and pulled the defendant over. The 
defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated and moved to suppress the evidence on 
the grounds that the stop was unlawful. The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate 
 
 
- 10 - 
 
court affirmed. The court acknowledged Long’s position that the roadblock necessarily 
encompasses a reasonable area around the roadblock. However, the court held that such a rule 
could prove difficult to apply in certain circumstances and that the “better rule” is that a 
driver’s attempt to avoid a roadblock raises the necessary reasonable suspicion for a Terry 
stop. Id. at 965. The court explained that telling the police that they could not infer from a 
driver’s attempt to avoid a roadblock that the driver is likely engaged in criminal activity 
would tell the police to “ignore reality.” Id. at 966. The court also acknowledged the obvious 
point that roadblocks would lose their deterrent value if the very drivers the police seek to deter 
are allowed to flagrantly avoid them. As we will see, the Snyder court was right that this is the 
“better rule” only if a court adopts a per se rule that evading a roadblock gives the police the 
necessary reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop. If courts start illogically and inexplicably 
requiring the presence of other factors besides the already highly suspicious behavior of 
evading the roadblock, then the test becomes very difficult to apply, courts will reach different 
conclusions on virtually identical facts, and the police will be required to engage in 
complicated subjective determinations about which vehicles are acting sufficiently suspicious 
when they evade the roadblock. 
 
¶ 35 
 
 
 
III. Terry Stops of Drivers Who Evade Roadblocks: Three Approaches 
¶ 36 
 
 
 
 
A. Evading a Roadblock Is Grounds for a Stop 
¶ 37 
 
I turn now to an overview of how other courts have addressed the stopping of vehicles that 
evade roadblocks. Several courts have held that the mere fact of a driver evading a roadblock 
gives the police the necessary reasonable suspicion to stop the driver. For instance, in State v. 
Griffin, 749 S.E.2d 444 (N.C. 2013), the defendant attempted to make a three-point turn in 
front of a well-marked checkpoint. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the police 
were entitled to stop the driver, even though he had executed a legal turn. The court explained 
that “a legal turn, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances, may give rise to reasonable 
suspicion.” Id. at 447. The court explained that, although the turn was legal, the place and 
manner of the turn in proximity to the checkpoint gave the police the necessary reasonable 
suspicion to stop the defendant. Id. Other states holding that avoidance of a checkpoint is 
grounds for a Terry stop include Arkansas (Coffman v. State, 759 S.W.2d 573 (Ark. Ct. App. 
1988) (police entitled to stop driver who, prior to a roadblock, turned around in a driveway and 
began heading back in the opposite direction; police could reasonably suspect that someone 
attempting to avoid roadblock is trying to hide unlawful activity)), Alabama (Smith v. State, 
515 So. 2d 149 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987) (police had necessary reasonable suspicion when, 200 
yards before roadblock, car turned rapidly into a private driveway and turned its lights off but 
not its engine, this behavior could indicate that driver was attempting to avoid the roadblock)), 
Indiana (Snyder, 538 N.E.2d at 965-66 (discussed earlier)), Mississippi (Boches v. State, 506 
So. 2d 254 (Miss. 1987) (police were entitled to stop car that, prior to a roadblock, turned 
around in a driveway and headed back in the opposite direction, court explains that police are 
entitled to stop drivers who attempt to evade roadblocks)), New Mexico (State v. Anaya, 217 
P.3d 586 (N.M. 2009) (evading a marked checkpoint is a specific and articulable fact 
supplying sufficient reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop; police could thus stop driver who 
made a U-turn at sign indicating an upcoming checkpoint)), Tennessee (State v. Binion, 900 
S.W.2d 702 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (court holds that where motorist acts to avoid a 
roadblock, that alone amounts to reasonable suspicion, however, on record before it, court 
 
 
- 11 - 
 
could not say that it was clearly shown that the defendant was avoiding the roadblock when he 
turned around in a store parking lot 1000 feet from the roadblock)), Virginia (Stroud v. 
Commonwealth, 370 S.E.2d 721 (Va. Ct. App. 1988) (police had necessary reasonable 
suspicion of criminal activity when driver executed a U-turn between 100 and 150 feet before a 
roadblock)),9 Georgia (Taylor v. State, 549 S.E.2d 536 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001) (abnormal or 
unusual driving to evade a roadblock gives rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; 
normal driving that incidentally avoids a roadblock does not)), and Maine (State v. D’Angelo, 
605 A.2d 68 (Me. 1992) (reasonable suspicion present when car pulled into a driveway 75 
yards before the checkpoint and did not exit the vehicle)). 
 
¶ 38 
 
 
 
 
B. Evading a Roadblock Is Grounds for a Stop When Coupled 
 
 
 
 
With Other Suspicious Factors 
¶ 39 
 
Other courts, including this court today, have held that evading a roadblock, when coupled 
with other suspicious circumstances, is sufficient for a stop. See United States v. Smith, 396 
F.3d 579 (4th Cir. 2005) (reasonable suspicion when driver abruptly put on brakes and turned 
into private driveway and then did not stop when police activated lights); United States v. 
Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (in reasonable suspicion analysis, it is 
proper to consider avoidance of a roadblock; reasonable suspicion found where car made a 
U-turn in front of a roadblock, car had been driving in tandem with another vehicle, and this 
took place in a high-crime area); United States v. Carpenter, 462 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2006) 
(avoiding a roadblock is suspicious, although not sufficiently suspicious absent other 
circumstances; reasonable suspicion present when driver pulled off highway and parked after 
sign for checkpoint and gave suspicious explanation when approached by officer); State v. 
Rademaker, 813 N.W.2d 174 (S.D. 2012) (avoiding checkpoint suspicious when coupled with 
other factors; sufficient other factors here were time of day (1 a.m.) and fact that turn to avoid 
checkpoint was legal but “unusually wide”); Steinbeck v. Commonwealth, 862 S.W.2d 912 
(Ky. Ct. App. 1993) (reasonable suspicion present when driver, at 3:15 a.m., turned onto 
unpaved country road before checkpoint and officer testified that he had pursued others who 
avoided roadblocks on numerous occasions and inevitably they were driving on expired 
licenses or otherwise violating the law). 
 
¶ 40 
 
 
 
 
C. Evading a Roadblock Is Not Grounds for a Stop 
¶ 41 
 
Still other courts have held that a driver’s avoidance of a roadblock does not amount to 
reasonable suspicion. See Commonwealth v. Scavello, 734 A.2d 386 (Pa. 1999) (no basis to 
stop vehicle that evades roadblock because vehicles are not required to go through roadblocks; 
police would have to observe traffic violation or other facts giving rise to reasonable 
suspicion); State v. Bryson, 755 N.E.2d 964 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001) (no reasonable suspicion 
                                                 
 
9In a later case, the Virginia Supreme Court distinguished Stroud on its facts and held that there was 
no reasonable suspicion where a car executed a number of maneuvers, including driving through a gas 
station parking lot, that resulted in the car reversing its original direction. Bass v. Commonwealth, 525 
S.E.2d 921, 925 (Va. 2000). The court explained that the reasons that a vehicle might reverse direction 
are “legion in number,” and it was not clear that the car was avoiding the checkpoint. Id. Implicit in the 
court’s holding is that, if it were clear the car was evading the checkpoint, the police would have had the 
necessary reasonable suspicion for a stop. 
 
 
- 12 - 
 
where driver turned around in roadway to avoid roadblock because people may wish to avoid 
encounters with the police for any number of reasons); In re Suspension of Driving Privileges 
of Pooler, 746 P.2d 716 (Or. Ct. App. 1987) (no basis to stop vehicle that made a U-turn before 
roadblock because U-turn was legal); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (no 
basis to stop vehicle that made a U-turn a quarter mile in front of roadblock, because citizens 
are entitled to decline encounters with the police); State v. McCleery, 560 N.W.2d 789 (Neb. 
1997) (no basis to stop driver who, one quarter of a block before roadblock, threw car into 
reverse and backed into closed grocery store parking lot, where Department of Transportation 
policy said avoidance of a checkpoint is not grounds for a stop); People v. Rocket, 594 
N.Y.S.2d 568 (N.Y. Just. Ct. 1992) (no reasonable suspicion when car avoided checkpoint by 
turning onto a public highway; however, court said that drivers do not have “carte blanc to 
avoid DUI checkpoints in all circumstances”). 
 
¶ 42 
 
 
 
 
IV. This Court Should Hold That Evading a Roadblock 
 
 
 
 
Is Alone Grounds for a Terry Stop 
¶ 43 
 
Among these three approaches, I would hold that, when a driver evades a roadblock, the 
police have the necessary reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop. Before explaining why I prefer 
that approach, I will briefly point out why the other two approaches are flawed. The most 
poorly reasoned cases are those in the third group that hold that avoiding a roadblock does not 
amount to reasonable suspicion. Evading a roadblock is obviously a highly suspicious activity. 
It should be too obvious to even have to state that the people most likely to try to evade a 
roadblock are those who are committing an illegal act. As the Snyder court aptly put it, telling 
police that they cannot infer criminal activity from a car’s attempt to avoid a roadblock tells 
them to ignore reality. Snyder, 538 N.E.2d at 966. Most importantly, however, the Supreme 
Court specifically held in Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 277, that it is appropriate to consider avoidance 
of a roadblock in a reasonable suspicion analysis. 
¶ 44 
 
Moreover, it does not matter, as the Bryson court stated, that a driver may wish to avoid an 
encounter with the police for any number of reasons (Bryson, 755 N.E.2d at 969) or that a 
driver made a legal turn when evading the roadblock (Pooler, 746 P.2d at 718). The Supreme 
Court explained in United States v Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 9 (1989), that innocent behavior 
frequently provides the necessary reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop. And it will always be 
the case in a Terry reasonable suspicion analysis that the behavior the police observe will not 
be obviously illegal. If the police observe illegal activity, then they easily meet the probable 
cause standard and a reasonable suspicion analysis is unnecessary. Where possibly innocent 
conduct also suggests criminal activity, though, an investigative stop is justified to resolve the 
ambiguity. Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 125. And, as this court has explained, the “ ‘purpose of a 
Terry stop is to allow a police officer to investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion 
and either confirm or dispel his suspicions.’ ” People v. Close, 238 Ill. 2d 497, 512 (2010) 
(quoting People v. Ross, 317 Ill. App. 3d 26, 31 (2000)). 
¶ 45 
 
The second set of cases—those that require additional suspicious factors besides evasion of 
the roadblock—are also problematic in that no court has ever given a compelling explanation 
for why additional factors are required. For instance, why is a driver who, in front of a 
roadblock, makes a turn that is legal but “unusually wide” more likely involved in criminal 
activity than a driver who makes a legal but not unusually wide turn in front of a roadblock? 
 
 
- 13 - 
 
See Rademaker, 813 N.W.2d at 177. As Judge Kozinski aptly put it in his concurrence in 
Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122: 
“Turning in one’s tracks just before reaching a law enforcement checkpoint is precisely 
the kind of behavior that properly gives rise to reasonable suspicion. It is possible that a 
motorist will do so for entirely legitimate reasons, but ‘commonsense judgments and 
inferences about human behavior’ suggest that the maneuver was designed to avoid the 
checkpoint. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, [125] *** (2000). Ogilvie [an earlier 
Ninth Circuit case] seems to require that the motorist have done something more to 
arouse suspicion, like disobeying the traffic laws or driving erratically, 527 F.2d at 332, 
but the opinion doesn’t explain why any of those things would make it more likely that 
the motorist was trying to evade the checkpoint. After all, a motorist wishing to avoid 
police scrutiny will slink away as unobtrusively as possible, not peel rubber and 
disappear in a cloud of dust.” Id. at 1140 (Kozinski, J., concurring, joined by T.G. 
Nelson, Kleinfeld, and Silverman, JJ.).10 
¶ 46 
 
If what the courts really mean to say in these cases is that additional factors are required 
when it is not clear that the car is in fact evading the roadblock, that is not objectionable. For 
instance, if a car simply takes an exit off of a highway before reaching a roadblock, it may not 
be clear that the car is evading the roadblock. This type of problem confronted our appellate 
court in People v. Scott, 277 Ill. App. 3d 579 (1996). In that case, the driver, prior to reaching a 
roadblock, turned onto the residential street where he lived. The police had been instructed not 
to stop residents of that street, but the defendant was stopped and told to proceed through the 
roadblock. The court accepted the proposition that reasonable suspicion for a stop may arise 
from a driver’s attempt to evade a roadblock (id. at 584) but found that the officer “did not have 
a reasonable suspicion that Scott was attempting to evade the roadblock solely because he 
turned onto Garfield” (emphasis added and in original) (id. at 585). That clearly is not a 
problem here, as there was no question that defendant was attempting to evade the roadblock. 
Absent a compelling explanation for why additional factors are required, I would hold that, 
when it is clear that a driver is attempting to evade a roadblock, the police have the necessary 
reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop. 
¶ 47 
 
A driver reversing direction when it is clear that he will have to show his driver’s license to 
a police officer is suspicious. Does it amount to probable cause that the driver is involved in 
criminal activity? Clearly not. But it obviously gives the police the necessary grounds to 
briefly detain the person to resolve the ambiguity. See Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 125. As the same 
commentator cited by the majority (supra ¶ 19) has noted, significant justifications support 
allowing the police to stop those who attempt to evade roadblocks, without requiring the 
presence of any other factors. See Shan Patel, Note, Per Se Reasonable Suspicion: Police 
Authority to Stop Those Who Flee From Road Checkpoints, 56 Duke L.J. 1621 (2007). First, 
allowing motorists to evade checkpoints undermines the justifications for having checkpoints. 
The people who are most likely to evade checkpoints are those with something to hide. If 
courts were to announce a policy that everyone is free simply to ignore checkpoints, the reality 
                                                 
 
10In criticizing the Ninth Circuit majority’s position that additional factors besides the turn in front 
of the roadblock are required, one law professor remarked sarcastically, “apparently, innocent drivers 
regularly make U-turns as they approach checkpoints.” See Craig S. Lerner, Reasonable Suspicion and 
Mere Hunches, 59 Vand. L. Rev. 407, 441 (2006). 
 
 
- 14 - 
 
is that only law-abiding citizens would be processed. Id. at 1643-44. This would undermine the 
very justification for checkpoints, as no one would be caught by them. Allowing officers to 
stop those who evade checkpoints will ensure that the checkpoints serve their intended 
purpose. Id. at 1646. Second, allowing the police to stop those who evade checkpoints limits 
the discretion of police officers, and it reduces the subjective intrusion on drivers who go 
through the checkpoint, because the same rules would apply to everyone. Otherwise, it might 
appear to motorists who choose to go through the checkpoint that they are being singled out, 
while others are simply free to drive away. Requiring factors besides evasion will mean that 
officers allow some people to avoid the checkpoint, but not others. The reasons would be 
unclear to motorists, and it would appear to them that the police have unfettered discretion to 
decide who to stop. Id. at 1645. Finally, “bright-line rules of criminal procedure help uphold 
the purpose of the Fourth Amendment and have the practical benefit of informing officers of 
exactly what they can and cannot do.” Id. at 1650. Moreover, such rules “ensure that the 
government treats all citizens equally.” Id. This is obviously preferable to requiring officers at 
checkpoints to engage in complicated subjective determinations about which fleeing drivers 
they can stop and which they cannot. Id. The above points are well-taken. Again, it is not 
possible to remove all subjective determinations from the equation because there will be cases 
when it is not clear whether or not a driver is evading a roadblock. Nevertheless, when the 
totality of the circumstances suggests that the driver is evading the roadblock, the best 
approach is to allow the police to briefly detain the driver to “resolve the ambiguity” 
(Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 125). 
 
¶ 48 
 
 
 
 
V. The Majority’s Approach 
¶ 49 
 
The majority today adopts the position that evasion of a roadblock is sufficient for a Terry 
stop only when other suspicious factors are present. The majority holds that adopting a 
bright-line rule would be at odds with the totality of the circumstances approach. Of course, 
this is not correct. In Wardlow, the very case that the majority relies upon, the Supreme Court 
adopted a bright-line rule. The Court held that unprovoked flight from the police in a 
high-crime area amounts to reasonable suspicion under Terry. Is there any doubt that, in any 
future case, the police may stop someone who, in a high-crime area, flees upon seeing the 
police? Thus, the totality of the circumstances test is clearly not incompatible with bright-line 
rules. All that this court would have to hold is that, when the totality of the circumstances 
shows that a driver is attempting to evade a roadblock, the police have the necessary 
reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop. 
¶ 50 
 
The majority notes that the Supreme Court in Wardlow did not endorse a per se rule that 
flight from the police, without more, could amount to reasonable suspicion. The Supreme 
Court did not have to consider that issue, however, because the case in front of it involved 
flight from the police in a high-crime area. The Court simply addressed itself to the case in 
front of it. Thus, the Supreme Court did not foreclose a per se rule, either. The reader will note 
that when the majority makes this claim about what the Supreme Court declined to do, it cites 
not to the Court’s opinion but to Justice Stevens’s partial concurrence and partial dissent. 
Supra ¶ 18 (citing Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 126 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in 
part, joined by Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ.)). The majority is forced to do this because the 
Court’s opinion says no such thing. Professor LaFave has explained that the Wardlow separate 
opinion’s description of the Wardlow majority opinion is not accurate: 
 
 
- 15 - 
 
“While the four dissenters identify, discuss and reject a variety of per se rules put 
forward by the state and the defendant, respectively, the majority opinion does none of 
that. The majority, perhaps understandably, does no more than it has to in order to 
resolve the fact situation at hand, and thus leaves all other situations for another day. 
The dissenters, perhaps trying to make the best of a bad situation, praise the majority 
for ‘wisely’ endorsing none of the tendered per se rules, but then take one giant step 
beyond that by expressing agreement ‘with the Court’s rejection of the per se rules 
proffered by the parties.’ I find that a bit of an overstatement, as the majority, taking the 
easiest way out in the case by merely concluding that flight plus high crime area 
collectively amount to reasonable suspicion, never says it would come out differently if 
the flight had occurred elsewhere. Indeed, the majority unhesitantly declares that 
‘[h]eadlong flight—wherever it occurs—is the consummate act of evasion.’ ” 
(Emphasis in original.) 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.5(g), at 731 (5th 
ed. 2012). 
All of the majority’s subsequent citations to Wardlow are also to Justice Stevens’s separate 
opinion, and the majority explains that this is where it is looking for “guidance.” Supra 
¶¶ 18-19. Thus, any suggestion by this court that the Supreme Court has rejected bright-line 
rules in this context is not well-taken. 
¶ 51 
 
Moreover, as the commentator quoted earlier has explained, flight within sight of a 
roadblock is not the same as flight at the mere sight of the police in general because a driver 
knows he will be stopped by the police at a roadblock: 
“[F]leeing from a high-crime area is enough on its own to constitute reasonable 
suspicion, as the flight in conjunction with the location gives rise to individualized 
suspicion. Evading a checkpoint is no different. Unlike unprovoked flight at the mere 
sight of the police, individuals know that they will actually be stopped at a checkpoint. 
This emphasizes the inference that they have something to hide if they flee. Just as the 
existence of a high-crime area contributes to reasonable suspicion analysis in flight 
cases, the presence of a checkpoint is an important factor in the current scenario. 
Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the evasive action taken within sight of a 
checkpoint creates reasonable suspicion, allowing officers to make a Terry stop.” Patel, 
supra, at 1648. 
¶ 52 
 
The majority also relies on Arvizu for its claim that a per se rule would be incompatible 
with Supreme Court precedent. As the majority notes, in Arvizu, the Supreme Court considered 
avoidance of a roadblock as an appropriate factor to consider in a reasonable suspicion 
analysis. Arvizu is distinguishable on its facts, however, as the driver in Arvizu did not make an 
evasive maneuver within sight of a roadblock. Rather, he was simply traveling on an alternate 
route. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 268-69. Thus, the Supreme Court had no occasion to consider 
whether an evasive maneuver in front of a roadblock is alone grounds for a stop. 
 
¶ 53 
 
 
 
 
VI. Conclusion 
¶ 54 
 
Clearly, there is nothing in Supreme Court precedent that would prevent states from 
adopting a per se rule that evasion of a roadblock is grounds for a Terry stop, and several states 
have done just that. The rule that I would follow is that set forth by the court in Taylor:  
 
 
- 16 - 
 
“[A]bnormal or unusual actions taken to avoid a roadblock may give an officer a 
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity even when the evasive action is not illegal. By 
contrast, completely normal driving, even if it incidentally evades the roadblock, does 
not justify a Terry-type ‘tier-two’ stop.” Taylor, 549 S.E.2d at 538. 
Thus, someone who merely turned onto a residential street or took an exit off a highway would 
not be subject to being stopped absent other suspicious factors, but someone who committed 
evasive actions in front of the roadblock would. “Clear cut examples of evasive behavior 
include drivers who make U-turns or reverse direction at the sight of a checkpoint.” Patel, 
supra, at 1633. Here, where defendant executed a U-turn 50 feet in front of the roadblock, the 
totality of the circumstances showed that he was attempting to evade the checkpoint. This gave 
the police sufficient reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop, and no other suspicious factors were 
required. 
 
¶ 55 
 
JUSTICE BURKE, dissenting: 
¶ 56 
 
The State argues, in part, that when a driver makes a legal U-turn before approaching a 
police roadblock, that act, by itself, creates a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal 
wrongdoing that justifies seizing the driver. The majority rejects this argument (supra 
¶¶ 14-15), and I agree. 
¶ 57 
 
It is a fundamental principle of fourth amendment law that when a person is approached by 
a police officer who lacks either reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing or 
probable cause, the person “has a right to ignore the police and go about his business.” 
(Emphasis added.) Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125 (2000) (citing Florida v. Royer, 460 
U.S. 491, 498 (1983)). Any “refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal 
level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure.” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 
429, 437 (1991). 
¶ 58 
 
When a driver, such as the defendant in this case, approaches a police roadblock in a 
normal way, without speeding or violating any traffic regulation, the police officers manning 
the roadblock do not have reasonable, articulable suspicion that the driver is engaged in any 
criminal wrongdoing. At that point, because there is no reasonable suspicion of criminal 
activity, the driver has the right to avoid an encounter with the police. Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 
125. If the driver then chooses to exercise that right by lawfully driving in another direction, 
and doing nothing more, it follows that the police officers may not use that fact as justification 
for a seizure; if they could, the right to avoid an encounter with the police would no longer 
exist. 
¶ 59 
 
The appellate court below understood this point and understood the illogic and “Catch-22” 
situation created by the State’s position. As the appellate court observed, under the State’s 
rationale, “if a person chooses to exercise his rights of personal liberty and freedom from 
search by avoiding contact with the police, the very act of avoidance rises to a level of 
suspicion sufficient to allow the police to stop and detain.” 2014 IL App (3d) 120481, ¶ 16. Or, 
to put it another way, accepting the State’s argument that a legal U-turn before a police 
roadblock, by itself, is adequate grounds for an investigatory stop would mean negating the 
fundamental principle that we have the right, in the absence of reasonable, articulable 
suspicion of criminal wrongdoing, to avoid encounters with the police. Because I cannot 
accept that result, I join the majority in rejecting the State’s argument. 
 
 
- 17 - 
 
¶ 60 
 
Having rejected the State’s contention that defendant’s U-turn was sufficient, in itself, to 
justify his seizure, the majority goes on to conclude that defendant’s seizure was lawful under 
the totality of the circumstances existing at the time of the stop. While I agree with the majority 
that it is appropriate to consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding defendant’s 
seizure, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that those circumstances amounted to 
reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. 
¶ 61 
 
First, and most importantly, defendant did not commit any traffic violation prior to being 
stopped by the police. The U-turn over the railroad tracks was legal, and no other traffic law 
was violated. Further, nothing defendant did suggested that he was engaging in criminal flight 
or seeking to conceal criminal conduct. When he executed the U-turn there was no “speeding, 
squealing tires, or spraying gravel.” 2014 IL App (3d) 120481, ¶ 16. There was nothing, in 
short, in defendant’s actions that could reasonably support an inference of criminal activity. 
¶ 62 
 
The majority also notes that the roadblock was well marked, that it was not busy, and that 
defendant approached the roadblock at around 1:15 a.m. Supra ¶ 14. But these factors cannot 
provide a basis for seizing defendant for the simple reason that a person’s right to avoid an 
encounter with police cannot vary depending on the time of day or whether other people are 
also being stopped. In sum, the only thing that occurred in this case is that defendant chose to 
avoid an encounter with the police, something he had the right to do. Like the appellate court 
below, I would therefore hold that the police officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion 
of criminal wrongdoing to justify defendant’s seizure. 
¶ 63 
 
The State also makes an alternative argument in support of the circuit court’s order denying 
defendant’s motion to suppress. The State notes that, under Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 
___, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014), reasonable suspicion can arise from a police officer’s objectively 
reasonable mistake of law. The State contends that, in this case, the police officers stopped 
defendant because they erroneously, but reasonably, believed that defendant’s U-turn violated 
section 11-706(a) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-706(a) (West 2010)), which 
prohibits driving to the left side of the center of the roadway.911 
¶ 64 
 
I would reject this argument because the record on appeal is inadequate to address it. 
Although it appears that a ticket was issued to defendant for driving on the left side of the 
roadway, it is not clear from the record when that ticket was issued or whether that offense in 
any way formed a basis for the stop. Deputy Duffy, the officer who initially stopped 
defendant’s vehicle, did not testify at the suppression hearing, and Trooper Miller stated that 
he did not know why Deputy Duffy stopped defendant. Supra ¶ 4. In addition, no reason for 
defendant’s stop appears in the circuit court’s order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss. 
Because the record simply does not reveal why defendant was initially stopped, it cannot be 
determined if there was an objectively reasonable mistake of law. 
¶ 65 
 
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent. 
 
¶ 66 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 
¶ 67 
 
In relevant part, LaFave’s footnote 85 (5 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 10.8(a) 
n.85, at 417 (5th ed. 2012)) states: 
                                                 
 
11Section 11-706(a) pertains to two-lane roads, where driving on the left side of the road means 
driving in the lane with oncoming traffic. The road at issue here was a four-lane road. 
 
 
- 18 - 
 
“Compare United States v. Smith, 396 F.3d 579 (4th Cir.2005) (reasonable suspicion 
where defendant’s vehicle seen to ‘brake abruptly and turn suddenly into a private 
gravel driveway,’ after which it ‘stopped in the middle of the driveway, more than 200 
ft. from the public road but still some distance from the residence’ and ‘around the 
curve in the driveway’); Smith v. State, 515 So.2d 149 (Ala.Crim.App.1987) 
(reasonable suspicion where defendant, upon seeing roadblock, turned rapidly into 
driveway and turned off lights but not engine); Coffman v. State, 26 Ark.App. 45, 759 
S.W.2d 573 (1988) (where defendant, upon seeing roadblock, pulled into driveway, 
backed out, and headed in opposite direction, officers at roadblock ‘could reasonably 
suspect that one who attempted to avoid this roadblock was trying to hide some type of 
unlawful activity’); Stanley v. State, 191 Ga.App. 603, 382 S.E.2d 686 (1989) 
(stopping and backing up 6–8 car lengths from roadblock is reasonable suspicion); 
Snyder v. State, 538 N.E.2d 961 (Ind.App.1989) (where defendant, 100 yards from 
roadblock, turned vehicle around to avoid it, this provided reasonable suspicion for a 
stop); State v. D’Angelo, 605 A.2d 68 (Me.1992) (reasonable suspicion where vehicle 
pulled into private driveway 75 yards before checkpoint, vehicle known not to belong 
to occupants of those premises, and occupants did not leave vehicle but instead turned 
to watch the police activities nearby); State v. Thill, 474 N.W.2d 86 (S.D.1991) 
(reasonable suspicion where motorist pulled in driveway and headed other direction 
upon seeing police car flashing warning of roadblock and then took ‘circuitous route’ 
by making two left turns, apparently in effort to get around roadblock); with State v. 
Heapy, 113 Hawai’i 283, 151 P.3d 764 (2007), discussed in Note, 31 U.Haw.L.Rev. 
607 (2009) (not sufficient that defendant ‘made a legal right turn onto a paved 
roadway,’ where ‘turn was not made erratically and his headlights were on’; also, 
policy of stopping all vehicles making legal turn away from roadblock is unlawful); 
State v. Powell, 591 A.2d 1306 (Me.1991) (no reasonable suspicion where defendant 
‘turned around as much as four-tenths of a mile, or 700 yards, before the roadblock 
itself, and 500 yards before the first traffic cones and signs warning of the upcoming 
roadblock’); State v. McCleery, 251 Neb. 940, 560 N.W.2d 789 (1997) (because 
checkpoint purportedly was conducted in ‘total compliance’ with U.S. Dep’t of 
Transportation guidelines, one of which asserts that the ‘act of avoiding a sobriety 
checkpoint does not constitute grounds for a stop,’ court says it cannot conclude there 
was reasonable suspicion re car which, one-quarter mile from the checkpoint, backed 
away from it into a grocery store parking lot); State v. Anaya, 147 N.M. 100, 217 P.3d 
586 (2009) (reasonable suspicion where defendant made a U-turn at intersection right 
in front of visible sign announcing checkpoint, and defendant then proceeded in the 
opposite direction, inconsistent with typical driving patterns given the location of the 
highway); Pooler v. Motor Vehicles Division, 306 Or. 47, 755 P.2d 701 (1988) (state 
concedes legal U-turn before reaching roadblock not reasonable suspicion); State v. 
Binion, 900 S.W.2d 702 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994) (avoiding roadblock not suspicious 
where defendant turned into parking lot of store 1,000 feet from roadblock; ‘it was 
significant that the roadblock was not “controlled,” in that approaching drivers could 
avoid the roadblock by making safe, legal U-turns’); Bass v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 
470, 525 S.E.2d 921 (2000) (where driver did not pass through checkpoint 500 ft. 
ahead because he turned from highway onto side road and then into gas station and then 
 
 
- 19 - 
 
exited back onto highway headed other direction, this not reasonable suspicion 
justifying a Terry stop, as all driving maneuvers were legal, and ‘the reasons for which 
a driver may reverse directions other than to evade a traffic checkpoint are legion in 
number and are a matter of common knowledge and experience’).” (Emphasis in 
original.) 5 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 10.8(a) n.85, at 417 (5th ed. 2012).