## Illinois Official Reports

Appellate Court

People v. Redding

, 20 20 IL App ( 4th ) 190252

Appellate Court Caption THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff

- Appellant, v. MATTHEW Q. REDDING, Defendant

- Appellee.

District & No. Fourth District

No. 4

- 19

- 0252

Filed
Rehearing denied June 22, 2020
July 31, 2020

Decision Under

Review Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macon County, No. 18

- DT

- 38; the Hon. Erick F. Hubbard, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Reversed and remanded.

Counsel on
Appeal Jay Scott, State’s Attorney, of Decatur (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and James Ryan Williams, of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

James E. Chadd, Catherine K. Hart, and Jessica L. Harris, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Springfield, for appellee.- 2

- Panel JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice Harris concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 In January 2018, defendant, Matthew Q. Redding, was charged with one count of misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). On January 30, 2018, at approximately 10 p.m., officers stopped defendant’s truck near the area of Sliderz Bar and Grill (Sliderz) in Decatur after being informed defendant was involved in an altercation inside the bar. Other officers investigating the alleged battery at the bar quickly arrived to speak with defendant. After demonstrating visible signs of intoxication and s howing indicators of impairment on standard field sobriety tests, defendant was arrested for driving under the

influence of alcohol.
¶ 2 In September 2018, defendant filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, claiming sheriff’s deputies did not have probable cause to stop his vehicle. In November 2018, the trial court heard and subsequently granted defendant’s motion.
¶ 3 On appeal , the State offers three arguments for our consideration: (1) the trial court erred in finding the evidence was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop, (2) defendant did not satisfy his burden by proving or making a preliminary showing that police lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop, and (3) it was error for the trial court to exclude evidence under the facts of this case, based on the good faith of the officers.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 5 In January 2018, Deputy David Lew allen of the Macon County Sheriff’s Department received a radio dispatch identifying defendant as a suspect involved in a bar fight at Sliderz. In addition to identifying defendant’s involvement in the altercation, the caller provided dispatch the color, m ake, and model of defendant’s truck and informed them he had left the scene. Approximately six minutes after the call, Deputy Lewallen located the truck traveling near the area of Sliderz, confirmed the truck was registered to defendant, and contacted Depu ty Patrick Smith, who was investigating the fight. Deputy Smith directed Deputy Lewallen to stop the truck so Smith could speak to defendant about the bar fight. Within minutes of Deputy Lewallen effectuating a traffic stop on defendant’s truck, Deputy Smi th and Deputy Megan Burgener, a newly hired officer under Deputy Smith’s supervision, arrived on scene. Upon interacting with defendant, Deputy Burgener observed several indicators of alcohol intoxication, conducted field sobriety tests, and arrested defen dant for driving under the

influence of alcohol as a result of her observations and the test results.
¶ 6 In January 2018, the State charged defendant with one count of driving under the influence of alcohol (625 ILCS 5/11

- 501(a)(2) (West 2018)). In September 2018, defendant filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, arguing the police lacked probable cause to effectuate the traffic stop and defendant’s statements should be suppressed because of the deputies’ failure to read him Miranda warnings. Se e Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). In response, the State argued probable cause was not the correct standard to determine whether- 3

- the traffic stop was permissible, contending the question was whether the deputies had a reasonable articulable suspic ion to conduct the stop. The State contended they did. Because the trial court found the officers did not have a reasonable articulable suspicion sufficient to justify the stop, it did not reach the merits of the suppression of defendant’s statements.

¶ 7 A. Motion to Suppress Hearing
¶ 8 In November 2018, defendant’s motion to suppress was heard. Before the presentation of evidence, defense counsel conceded the proper standard for evaluating the legality of the traffic stop was whether the deputies had a rea sonable articulable suspicion to conduct the stop. The defense called Deputy Lewallen and Deputy Burgener to testify during the hearing. The State recalled Deputy Lewallen in support of its response to the motion.

¶ 9 1. Deputy Lewallen
¶ 10 On direct examina tion, Deputy Lewallen testified he received information from dispatch about an altercation at Sliderz, that defendant was a suspect, and defendant left the bar in a black Chevrolet Silverado. While en route to Sliderz, since Lewallen had already been

infor med the suspect left in his vehicle, he began looking in the area for a vehicle matching the description given. Other officers were sent to Sliderz to investigate. He testified that, once he got behind defendant’s truck (a black Chevrolet Silverado), he ve rified the license plate with dispatch and confirmed it was registered to defendant. He then called Deputy Smith, who was investigating the bar fight, and asked if Deputy Smith wanted him to make a traffic stop on

defendant’s truck so Smith could talk to d efendant about the fight. When asked what Deputy Lewallen’s reasonable suspicion was in making a traffic stop on defendant’s truck, he stated, “We were called to Sliderz for a battery they said, between the Redding brothers. That’s a possible domestic batt ery.” On cross

- examination, he stated the investigation of the battery was still ongoing and he pulled defendant’s vehicle over pursuant to that ongoing investigation. When recalled by the State, Lewallen testified he informed defendant why he was being

st opped and may have asked if he had been in a bar fight at Sliderz before Deputy Burgener

arrived on the scene.

¶ 11 2. Deputy Burgener
¶ 12 At the time of the traffic stop, Deputy Burgener had been with the Macon County Sheriff’s Department for approximately f our months. She was still working under the supervision of Deputy Smith, who was her field training officer. She testified she was called to back up Deputy Lewallen regarding a traffic stop. She was aware the original call involved a bar fight

at Sliderz b etween the Redding brothers. Upon her arrival at the traffic stop, she approached defendant and “immediately” noticed signs of impairment and began conducting a DUI investigation. On cross

- examination, she testified she began focusing on a possible DUI aft er observing defendant had “slowed movements, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, indicators of being intoxicated.”
¶ 13 Defendant argued the deputies who stopped him did not have a “reasonable suspicion” because “in order for a police officer to stop that person [(a suspect who has left the scene),] they have to have something unfold in front of them that gives them reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime has been committed.” Defendant argued because Deputy Lewallen did not have reasonable suspicion that a c rime was unfolding in front of him, Deputy Lewallen should- 4

- have “s[a]t back and watch[ed] [to] see if he could observe a traffic violation” and, without more, there was no basis to stop defendant’s vehicle.
¶ 14 The State argued Deputy Lewallen received a cal l from dispatch that defendant and his brother were in an altercation at Sliderz and the reason Deputy Lewallen made a traffic stop on defendant’s truck was to help investigate that report. The stop was based on an ongoing investigation. The State disagree d with counsel’s argument that the criminal activity had to reveal itself or unfold in front of the officer in order to have a reasonable suspicion. Regardless of whether Lewallen had probable cause to believe defendant had committed a battery, “he had

rea sonable suspicion to investigate.” The State noted the officers were entitled to rely on the information they were given, even if it proved to be incorrect. “Someone called and complained about a domestic dispute that occurred at Sliderz. Someone had given someone at dispatch or

another officer information to lead them to believe that it was the defendant who was involved in the fight, and that’s clearly enough for reasonable suspicion.” After arguments, the trial court

took the matter under advisement.
¶ 15 I n March 2019, the trial court issued its written order finding “defendant made a
prima facie showing that Deputy Lewallen lacked reasonable articulable suspicion to temporarily detain defendant.” The court explained Deputy Lewallen did not see defendant

vi olate any traffic laws and the only reason for the stop was due to defendant’s alleged involvement in a bar fight with his brother. Furthermore, the court noted that neither of the deputies called to testify identified the complainant of the alleged batter y or articulated any facts involving the alleged battery, and neither witness went to investigate the alleged battery. The court found the sole basis for the stop was a dispatch indicating defendant was involved in a bar fight and that neither witness “off ered testimony or facts sufficient to establish reasonable and articulable suspicion to make a Terry stop of defendant.” See Terry v. Ohio

, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). As a result, the court found the State failed to meet its burden. The court further opined that, if the State had called Deputy Smith, who was detailed to investigate defendant’s alleged involvement in a bar fight, or the dispatcher wh o relayed the information concerning the bar fight to Deputy Lewallen, then the State may have provided facts and testimony sufficient to establish a reasonable articulable suspicion to make the stop. Finally, the court stated the complainant was not ident ified and therefore was “effectively anonymous” and an anonymous tip, without more, could not provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See People v. Holmes , 2019 IL App (1st) 160987, ¶ 2, 125 N.E.3d 1268.
¶ 16 This appeal followed.

¶ 17 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 18 A. Motions to Suppress
¶ 19 The defendant bears the burden of proof at a hearing on a motion to suppress. People v.

Brooks , 2017 IL 121413, ¶ 22, 104 N.E.3d 417. It is the responsibility of the defendant to make

a prima facie showing the evidence was obta ined by an illegal search or seizure. People v. Gipson , 203 Ill. 2d 298, 306

- 07, 786 N.E.2d 540, 545 (2003). The Illinois Supreme Court

discussed what constitutes a prima facie case

— albeit in the context of a defendant seeking rescission of a statutory sum mary suspension of his driver’s license

— in People v. Relwani

, 2019 IL 123385, 129 N.E.3d 1222. Our supreme court first noted, “in rescission cases we apply the same standard of review used in appeals of suppression motion rulings.” Relwani , 2019 IL 123385, ¶ 18. The court further explained how, in making a prima facie case, the defendant- 5

- “has the primary responsibility for establishing the factual and legal bases for the requested action.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Relwani , 2019 IL 123385, ¶ 17. I t went on to
define a prima facie case as one where the party having the burden produces “enough evidence

to allow the fact

- trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favor.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Relwani , 2019 IL 123385, ¶ 18. Within the context of a suppression hearing, once the defendant does so, the burden of proceeding, or going forward with the evidence, shifts to the State to present evidence to counter defendant’s prima facie case. Gipson , 203 Ill.

2d at 307. The ultimate burden of proof remains, however, with the defendant. People v.

Brooks , 2017 IL 121413, ¶ 22, 104 N.E.3d 417. Applying a two

- part analysis when reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we review the trial court’s factual findings under the manifest weight of the evidence standard and then apply the de novo standard of review to the court’s ultimate legal ruling on whether the evidence should be suppressed. Brooks , 2017 IL 121413, ¶ 21.

¶ 20 B. Vehicle Stops
¶ 21 The ultimate touchston e of the fourth amendment is “reasonableness,” and vehicle stops are subject to that same reasonableness requirement. Whren v. United States , 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996). Since “the usual traffic stop is more analogous to a Terry investigative stop than

to a formal arrest,” “courts generally analyze fourth amendment challenges to the reasonableness of traffic stops under Terry principles.” People v. Jones , 215 Ill. 2d 261, 270, 830 N.E.2d 541, 549 (2005); see also Terry , 392 U.S. 1. When applying Terry princip les, our supreme court has said: “For a traffic stop to comport with the reasonableness requirement of the constitutional guarantees, the police officer must have at least reasonable, articulable suspicion that a violation of the law has occurred.” (Intern al quotation marks omitted.) People v. Gaytan , 2015 IL 116223, ¶ 20, 32 N.E.3d 641. Discussing Gaytan , this court explained how a “reasonable, articulable suspicion” means the officer effectuating the stop “must have a particularized and objective basis fo r suspecting the particular person stopped was violating the law.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Hill , 2019 IL App (4th) 180041, ¶ 17, 123 N.E.3d 1236 (citing Gaytan , 2015 IL 116223, ¶ 20), aff’d on other grounds , 2020 IL 124595). This is a less exacting standard than probable cause, and such stops are evaluated objectively. We are to consider the facts available to the officer at the moment of the stop and whether they would “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate,” considering the totality of the circumstances. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Timmsen , 2016 IL 118181, ¶ 9, 50 N.E.3d 1092. In other words, “when evaluating the validity of the stop, [the reviewing courts] consider t he totality of the

circumstances

— the whole picture.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Timmsen , 2016 IL 118181, ¶ 9.
¶ 22 The Supreme Court of the United States recently reaffirmed this reasonable suspicion standard necessary for vehicle stops. Kansas v. Glo ver , 589 U.S. ___, ___, 140 S. Ct. 1183, 1187 (2020) (“[T]he Fourth Amendment permits an officer to initiate a brief investigative traffic stop when he has ‘a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activ ity.’ ” (quoting United States v. Cortez , 449 U.S. 411, 417

- 18 (1981))). We find the Court’s instruction illuminating here. In Glover , 589 U.S. at ___, 140 S.

Ct. at 1186

- 87, a deputy sheriff ran a license plate check on a vehicle, found the owner to have a revoked license, and stopped the vehicle. The Court held the vehicle stop reasonable.- 6

- Considering the totality of the circumstances

— namely the computer database information coupled with the deputy’s reasonable, commonsense inference that the vehicle owner was driving his car with a revoked license

— the Court found the deputy possessed reasonable suspicion Glover was engaged in criminal activity. Discussing the “reasonable suspicion” standard, the Court reiterated: “The standard depends on the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men , not legal technicians, act.” (Emphasis in original and internal quotation marks omitted.) Glover , 589 U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1188 (citing Ornelas v. United States , 517 U.S. 690, 695 (1996)). The Court echoed the long

- standing principle that the reasonable suspicion standard sets a lower bar than either

the probable cause or preponderance of the evidence standards, instructing, “[t]he reasonable suspicion inquiry ‘falls considerably short’ of 51% accuracy [citation] for, as we have explained, ‘to be reasonable is not to be perfect.’ [Citation.]” Glover , 589 U.S. at ___, 140 S.

Ct. at 1188.
¶ 23 Heeding the Court’s guidance, we turn to the case before us. The State argues defendant

did not make a prima facie showing the traffic stop was unlawful and, by contrast, the testimony produced at the suppression hearing was sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. We agree.

¶ 24 C. Anonymous Tip
¶ 25 Although much has been made by defendant regarding an “anonymous tip,” in reality, other than the suggestion by defendant’s counsel at the suppression h earing, there is no evidence in this record the call to dispatch was anonymous. Deputy Lewallen said he received his information from dispatch and did not know who gave the information to them. Deputy Burgener said she did not know who called the sheriff’s office and suggested there may be a record of who called dispatch. It was only after counsel suggested, “[c]ould it have been an anonymous caller?” the deputy said it “could have been.” Regardless, the legality of the stop is not necessarily based on the original source of the information but instead on the objective

reasonableness of the officer’s actions based on the facts available to him at the time of the stop. See People v. Dunmire , 2019 IL App (4th) 190316, ¶ 40. Deputy Lewallen knew the following a t the time of the stop: (1) a caller who was familiar with the “Redding brothers” and a local bar named Sliderz called the sheriff’s department to report a fight; (2) the caller knew enough about the situation to describe the fight as being between the bro thers themselves at the bar; (3) dispatch considered the information sufficiently reliable to warrant contacting the deputies on duty to advise them of the call and direct them to investigate; (4) the caller was in a position to tell dispatch that one of t he brothers had left the scene; and (5) the caller provided a description of the vehicle the brother was driving, including color, make

, and model. Coupled with that, Deputy Lewallen, searching in the vicinity of the bar within six minutes of the call, cam e across a vehicle matching the description (color, make, and model) given, which he learned after contacting dispatch was registered to a Redding brother. He then contacted the deputy investigating the fight and learned the deputy wanted the driver detain ed in order to speak to him about the fight. It is based upon this body of information we are to evaluate the reasonableness of the stop.- 7

- ¶ 26 1. Practical Pitfalls in Applying Holmes
¶ 27 Even if we accepted defendant’s (and the trial court’s) premise the ca ll was anonymous, the outcome would be no different. The trial court concluded, “It is well established that an anonymous tip, without more cannot provide a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity,” citing the argument made by the defendant in Holmes , 20 19 IL App (1st) 160987. The court then erroneously said it was the State’s responsibility to provide testimony from either Deputy Smith, who was charged with investigating the bar fight, or the dispatcher, in order to test the reliability of the informatio n. First and foremost, the court accepted defense counsel’s suggestion the information was anonymous, although that fact is not contained in the record. Regardless, it also ignored the information known to Deputy Lewallen at the time of the stop,

which for med the basis for his reasonable suspicion. More importantly, the court shifted the burden to the State prematurely. Had defendant presented testimony the original call was not as represented, or had information that any reasonable police officer would hav e found suspect, or was never even made, then the State would have been obligated to present evidence to justify the deputy’s reliance on the information given. But the defendant did not present such testimony. As noted above, “The officer’s conduct is jud ged by an objective standard, which analyzes whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the stop justify the action taken.” (Emphasis in original and internal quotation marks omitted.) Dunmire

, 2019 IL App (4th) 190316, ¶ 40 (citing Hill

, 2019 IL App (4th) 180041, ¶ 17).

¶ 28 2. Holmes ’s Legal Deficiencies
¶ 29 Besides the trial court’s practical mistakes, we find its reliance on Holmes misplaced, both legally and factually. In Holmes , the First District, much like defendant’s trial counsel an d the trial court here, characterized the information known to officers conducting a Terry stop and frisk on a suspected gunman at a large Chicago park gathering as, “effectively,” an anonymous tip. Holmes , 2019 IL App (1st) 160987, ¶ 2. In reality, the ti p had come from a Chicago Park District security guard who told a Chicago police sergeant a man, “described as black, about

five

- and

- a

- half feet tall, wearing a purple shirt and black jeans” was in the park with a gun in his pocket. Holmes , 2019 IL App (1s t) 160987, ¶ 1. The sergeant conveyed the same information to two Chicago police officers, who within two to three minutes found someone matching that description. Holmes , 2019 IL App (1st) 160987, ¶ 1. The Holmes court ultimately found this “effectively a nonymous” tip “did not support a finding of reasonable suspicion” and “reverse[d] the trial court’s denial of [defendant’s] motion to suppress.”

Holmes , 2019 IL App (1st) 160987, ¶ 18.
¶ 30 In our view, the Holmes court unnecessarily provided a novel analysis for “effectively anonymous” informant tips that we find flawed and inapplicable to these facts. First, despite basing its analysis on its conclusion that police acted on an “effectively anonymous tip,” the

Holmes majority routinely noted how the tip was n ot actually anonymous but came from the security guard. See Holmes , 2019 IL App (1st) 160987, ¶ 3 (acknowledging that knowing the security guard provided the tip “arguably dissipated the cloud of anonymity”); Holmes , 2019 IL App (1st) 160987, ¶ 18 (identif ying the tip police acted upon as “the security guard’s tip”);

Holmes , 2019 IL App (1st) 160987, ¶ 21 (stating the tip started with the security guard);

Holmes , 2019 IL App (1st) 160987, ¶ 41 (noting defendant’s acknowledgment that “the tip

from the securi ty guard *** [was] not anonymous in a literal sense”); Holmes , 2019 IL App (1st) 160987, ¶ 42 (noting again how defendant’s “counsel acknowledged that the tip was not- 8

- literally anonymous”). Besides teetering on a faulty factual foundation, the Holmes court built its legal analysis upon a misunderstanding of relevant precedent, namely Alabama v. White

, 496 U.S. 325 (1990). Citing White , the Holmes court announced, “An anonymous tip, without more, generally provides ‘virtually nothing’ by which one could conclude that the tipster is honest, that his or her information is reliable, or that he or she has a basis by which to predict a suspect’s criminal activity.” Holmes , 2019 IL App (1st) 160987, ¶ 22 (citing White , 496 U.S. at 329). But, as we see it, this broad statement misunderstands and misapplies White

— a case the Ho lmes majority found instructive. See Holmes , 2019 IL App (1st) 160987, ¶¶ 22, 55.

Because we see Holmes ’s misstatement of White as the first domino falling in its flawed analysis, we pause to closely examine White

. ¶ 31 In White , police received an anonymous telephone tip “stating that Vanessa White would be leaving 235

- C Lynwood Terrace Apartments at a particular time in a brown Plymouth station wagon with the right taillight lens broken, that she would be going to Dobey’s Motel

, and that she would be in possession of about an ounce of cocaine inside a brown attaché case.”

White , 496 U.S. at 327. Police corroborated the tip by finding the brown Plymouth station wagon at the given address, observing the broken taillight, and follo wing the wagon toward Dobey’s Motel before conducting a Terry stop. White , 496 U.S. at 327. After receiving consent from White (the driver), police searched her vehicle and purse and found marijuana and

cocaine. White , 496 U.S. at 327. In upholding the Ter ry stop as reasonable and therefore constitutional, the Supreme Court of the United States discussed informants’ tips and reasonable suspicion.
¶ 32 Unlike Holmes

, White did not announce a general rule that anonymous tips alone provide “virtually nothing” to determine if the tipster is reliable or if the bases for the tip prove reliable. Instead, White quoted the “ ‘virtually nothing’ ” language when describing the specific tip that included the brown Plymouth, the attaché case with cocaine, and Dobey’s Motel. White , 496 U.S. at 329 (quoting Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 227 (1983)). White merely acknowledged tips

— anonymous or otherwise

— need more. In other words, informants’ tips must be corroborated by police in order to establish reasonable suspicion for a n investigative stop. See

White , 496 U.S. at 329

- 32. And in building on that principle, White instructed that the amount of police corroboration necessary to find the tip reliable varies based on whether the police need reasonable suspicion or probable cau se to act. See White , 496 U.S. at 330 (“Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause, but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause.”). Once police corroborate the significant information in the tip, the less demanding rea sonable suspicion standard is satisfied, and police may make the investigative stop. White , 496 U.S. at 332 (“When significant aspects of the caller’s predictions were verified, there was reason to believe not only that the caller was honest but also that he was well informed, at least well enough to justify the stop.”).
¶ 33 White made no generalizations that anonymous tips provide us “virtually nothing” to test their reliability. White simply instructs that courts must look at the totality of the circumstanc es, including the quantity and quality of information in the anonymous tip when deciding if police had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop. More importantly, White did not dive into the deep rabbit hole of what it did not know, like precisely how the tipster learned the- 9

- information or precisely what an officer said to other officers in relaying the tip. Rather, White considered the totality of the circumstances

— the telephone tip and independent police

corroboration

— and found those circumstances gav e rise to reasonable suspicion

— and found the police action constitutional. See Navarette v. California , 572 U.S. 393 (2014) (looking at the whole picture, particularly what police corroborated or could infer from an anonymous tip and whether that knowledge established reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances). Interestingly, Holmes never mentions, let alone applies, a totality

- of

- the

circumstances analysis.
¶ 34 We cannot cosign the Holmes majority’s

— and by extension this trial court’s

— novel “effectively anonymous” informant tip analysis when it proceeds from a misunderstanding and misapplication of precedent. Instead, we find the Holmes dissent persuasive. Presiding Justice

Mason’s dissent , in our assessment, correctly focused on the reasonableness of the articulable suspicions held by the officers to whom the information was conveyed by their sergeant when, within a matter of minutes, still in the park, they found a person who matched the rather specific description. When coupled with the observations and information known to the officer by the time of the stop, the dissent in Holmes correctly found there was sufficient evidence upon which to conclude the officers had a reasonable, articula ble suspicion to warrant the stop of

Holmes. “ ‘We do not view these facts with analytical hindsight but instead consider them from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the time the situation confronted him.’ ” Holmes

, 2019 IL App (1st) 160987, ¶ 70 (Mason, P.J., dissenting) (quoting In re J.J. , 183 Ill. App. 3d 381, 388, 539 N.E.2d 764, 768 (1989)). Presiding Justice Mason’s dissent also provided an excellent discussion of burden shifting in suppression hearings, noting, as we have here,

defendant ha d the burden of proof, both at the outset of the suppression motion and throughout. The State had only the burden of production if defendant was able to establish the unreasonableness of the officer’s actions in stopping him.

¶ 35 3. Eyler
¶ 36 Rather than sho ehorn the instant facts into the Holmes model, we opt to follow our recent opinion in People v. Eyler , 2019 IL App (4th) 170064, because we find it on point and useful. This court listed several factors to consider when evaluating the reliability of an ano nymous tip in Eyler , including “(1) whether the tip provides a sufficient quantity of information so that the officer may be certain that the stopped individual is the one the tipster identified; (2) the time interval between the officer receiving the tip and locating the suspect; (3) whether the tip is based upon contemporaneous eyewitness observations; (4) whether the tip is sufficiently detailed to permit the reasonable inference that the tipster has actually witnessed a crime; and (5) whether the tip wa s made to a police emergency number.” Eyler , 2019 IL App (4th) 170064, ¶ 30 (citing People v. Shafer , 372 Ill. App. 3d 1044, 1050, 868 N.E.2d 359, 363 (2007)). There is no question the caller knew the individuals involved; he named them. Further,

consideri ng how the deputies testified about “the Redding brothers,” it is reasonable to conclude they were already known to police. The caller did not give a physical description but identified them as “the Redding brothers,” and that was enough information for th e deputies to know for whom they were looking. The caller’s description of the vehicle proved correct as to make, model, and color since Deputy Lewallen saw it and confirmed through dispatch it did, in fact, belong to a Redding. The caller’s information wa s such that it was reasonable to believe he or she was present at the bar; he or she knew it was the Redding brothers, knew they were- 10

- fighting between themselves as opposed to fighting with someone else, knew when one of them left the scene, and described the vehicle in which he left. The call must have been either during or immediately after the fight because they informed dispatch one had left, and Deputy Lewallen, who received the call at 10 p.m., responded to the area and found defendant and his

vehicle at 10:06 p.m. The only factor from Eyler not contained in the record is whether the call was placed to a police emergency number; although under the circumstances, it is reasonable to believe it was. Furthermore, the fact the information contained “predic tive information” (defendant Redding had left the scene) and “readily observable details” (the description of the vehicle registered to defendant found in the area) the deputies corroborated or confirmed adds reliability. As a result, the information would be deemed even more reliable. See Eyler , 2019 IL App (4th) 170064, ¶ 30.
¶ 37 Here, even if we consider this an anonymous tip case, when considering the totality of the circumstances, the information provided by the caller demonstrated “sufficient indicia of reliability” to justify a temporary Terry stop for investigative purposes. White , 496 U.S. at 327.

¶ 38 D . Radio Bulletin
¶ 39 In reality, this case hinges on the content of the radio dispatch received by the deputies and

not its source. The trial court cited People v. Lawson , 298 Ill. App. 3d 997, 1001, 700 N.E.2d 125, 129 (1998), for the proposition that, “when the State attempts to justify a warrantless arrest on the basis of a radio bulletin, it must establish that the officer who issued the bulletin

had r easonable articulable suspicion to make the stop.” The trial court conflated two different standards: reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause. The correct standard, espoused by Lawson when discussing a warrantless arrest, says the State “must e stablish that the officer

who issued the bulletin had probable cause to effect an arrest .” (Emphasis added.) Lawson

, 298 Ill. App. 3d at 1001 (citing People v. Bascom , 286 Ill. App. 3d 124, 127

- 28, 675 N.E.2d 1359, 1362 (1997)). The court in Lawson went on to say, “[I]f a flyer or [radio] bulletin has

been issued on the basis of articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that the wanted person has committed an offense, then reliance on that flyer or bulletin justifies a stop.” (Emphasis in original and internal quotation marks omitted.) Lawson

, 298 Ill. App. 3d at 1004. The United States Supreme Court said so in United States v. Hensley , 469 U.S. 221 (1985). There, the Court held an officer could reasonably rely on a radio bulletin issued on the bas is of articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion in order to justify a Terry stop, despite having no personal knowledge of the information that formed the basis of a reasonable suspicion. Hensley , 469 U.S. at 232. Illinois courts also permit offic ers to rely on police radio

transmissions to make Terry stops even if they are unaware of the specific facts that established reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. See People v. Green , 2014 IL App (3d) 120522, ¶ 30, 19 N.E.3d 13; People v. Wallace , 20 15 IL App (3d) 130489, ¶ 38, 42 N.E.3d 945; People v. Maxey , 2011 IL App (1st) 100011, ¶ 54, 949 N.E.2d 755 (and the cases cited therein). While the information known to Deputy Lewallen may not have been sufficient to justify a

warrantless arrest of defend ant for the crime of battery, when coupled with the fact that the officer assigned to the bar fight was requesting defendant be detained for questioning about a possible criminal offense, it was sufficient to justify a traffic stop on the vehicle to invest igate his involvement in the bar fight at Sliderz. See Hensley , 469 U.S. at 232

- 33 (holding that if a police bulletin was issued from articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that the individual committed an offense, the temporary stop based on th e bulletin is justified to obtain- 11

- further information or check identification). “An officer may act on information provided by a third party in making a Terry stop, but only if the information provided is reliable and allows an officer to reasonably infer that a person was involved in criminal activity.” People v.

Jackson , 348 Ill. App. 3d 719, 729, 810 N.E.2d 542, 553 (2004) (citing People v. Lockhart

, 311 Ill. App. 3d 358, 362, 724 N.E.2d 540, 543 (2000)).
¶ 40 A police officer has authority to briefly detain a person for investigatory purposes if the officer reasonably believes that person has committed or is about to commit a crime. Terry

, 392 U.S. at 21

- 22. This is exactly what Deputy Lewallen did. He is the o fficer who made the investigatory stop, not a warrantless arrest for the crime of battery. He was conducting a stop pursuant to an ongoing investigation concerning defendant’s involvement in a bar fight that occurred less than 10 minutes before. Deputy Lew allen acted based upon the information from dispatch and at the behest of the investigating officer, who wanted to speak with defendant about the fight. In our view, Terry allowed this investigative stop because the information relayed from dispatch led of ficers to reasonably suspect defendant may have committed a

crime. People v. Close , 238 Ill. 2d 497, 505, 939 N.E.2d 463, 467 (2010) (citing Terry , 392 U.S. at 22). As a result, based on the testimony presented by defendant himself, there was no

evidence t he information provided to the deputies by dispatch was unreliable or otherwise suspect. Looking at that information objectively, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing the stop was unlawful. Having failed to do so, the trial court erred in gra nting the suppression motion.

¶ 41 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 42 For the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶ 43 Reversed and remanded.