FIFTH DIVISION Septembe r 21, 2007

No. 1-04- 3686 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS,

Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, v. CALV IN RICHARDSON, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appe al fro m the Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Coo k C oun

ty

Ho no r ab le James R . E pst ein, Judge Presidin

g. JU STI CEGA

LL A GH ER de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Foll owing a ben ch trial, defen

dant Cal vi n Ri chardson was

convi cted of burglary an

d was sentence d to ei ght ye ars i

n pri son. On appeal, defen dant contends that hi s trial counsel was in eff ective i n f ai li ng to move to suppress evi dence obtai

ned wh en polic e eff

ectuated a Terrystop. Defend ant also ask s t his co ur t t o r emand his c ase t o t he t rial co ur t for a new fitness hear ing beca use he wa s no t admo nished o f his right t o c onfr ont wit nesse s. I n add itio n, d efenda nt ch al l en ge s th e tri al cou rt’ s orde r th at he p rovi dea s am ple f or i nc l us i on i n D NA i de nti f i ca ti on datab ase s. The Illinois Su pr eme Co ur t has d irect ed u s t o va cat e o ur pr eviou s Ru le 23 o rd er and
re co nsid er t his c as e in lig ht o f People v. Luedemann , 222 Il l . 2d 530 , 857 N .E.2d 187(2006 ).1-04-3686

2

Bec aus e, upo n re co nsider at ion, we c onc lude t hat a mot ion t o s upp re ss likely wo uld no t have
suc cee ded , w e affirm defend ant ’s co nvictio n. We also re ject defend ant ’s ad dit ional co nt ent ions on ap peal
.
BACK GROUND At trial , Stanley

Puchalski

testifi ed that on the morni

ng of Dec em

ber 30, 2003, he was
em ploye d by Wh y Not Iron, a c omp an

y that sp eci

al ized i n orn am en tal and arch i tectural i ronwork. Puchalski testifi ed that whi le

compl eting a job a t 1621 Nor th Ken

to n, he wen

t t o his van at about 11:20 a.m . to fi nd th at i t had be en broke n i nto an d two of h

i s toolb oxes

were gone . Chi cago poli ce off

ic er Wi ll ia m L ehn er testifi ed that at about 11:25 a.m. on Decem ber 30, 2003, he and h

is partner observed def

endan t walki ng ne ar 4609 West Grand A ven ue carryi ng a po we rt o o l ca se in e ac h ha nd
. T he o ffice r s w er e in pla in c lo t he s a nd dr iving an un mar ke d v eh icle trave l i ng i n the opposi

te di rection tha

t def endan t was w al ki ng. Offic er Le hne rt es t ified t ha t aft er he o bse rve d d efe nd an t ca rrying t he ca se s, he t ur ne d h is vehicle ar ou nd and pulled t o t he cu rb ne ar defend ant . As t he o ffi cer s go t ou t of t he ca r, defend ant set the cases down on the ground an d approached them . The off ic er further testif

ie d: “Q. Wh en the def endan t came over to your vehi

cl e, what happ ened ? A. I questioned h

im as to what he had i

n the case s and wh

at they
were . Q. What did he t ell you?”1-04-3686

3

Th e tri al cou rt su stai ne d a de f ense obj ec ti on to O f

f i cer L eh ne r’ s a ns wer to th at q

ue sti on and t he o ffi

cer was ask ed t he qu est ion ag ain:

“Q . Spec i f

i cal l y wh at did he

say , off i cer? A. At firs t he st at ed t ha t t ho se we r e t o o ls a nd t he y belo ng ed t o his dad. Then we aske d again, and he st ate d he go t t hem f ro m hi s friend’s house by Kostner and Di

vi si on. Then h

e stated t hat they

were hi s. Then aft er I a ske d him what kind o f to ols t hey wer e, he st at ed s ever al different typ es of tools. Q. Did y ou ask hi m wh at kind? A. Yes, I did. Q. Wha t di d h e s ay? A. H e coul

dn’ t exactl

y state wh at they were . He di

dn’ t know.” Off ic er Lehn er stated t hat he then

noticed the l

etter s WNI on the cas es and as ked defen dant what those marki

ngs m eant. Defen

dant did n ot respond; the off

ic er stated it was “l

ike [d efenda nt ] d idn’t kno w wha t I w as t alking abo ut .” Officer L ehner op ened t he ca ses a nd fo und an invoice bear ing t he co mpany name o f Why Not Ir on. The officer s ar re st ed d efenda nt and trans ported hi m to the station, wh

ere h e adm i tted that he stole the

tools f or mon ey to buy drugs
. On cross-exam

in ation, Of fi cer Lehn er stated t hat durin

g their conv

ersation on the street, he asked defen dant two o r three tim

es where h

e got t he tools and that the questi onin g lasted one or t wo m i nute s. The def

en se prese

nted no testi mony . A f ter th e tri al cou rt f oun d de f en da nt g ui l ty of bu rgl ary , th e c ourt h

el d a he ari ng on1-04-3686

4

de f en da nt’ s f i tne ss to be sente nc ed , at w

hi ch the pa rti essti pul ate d that a

sta f f ps y ch i atrist f or Forensi c Clin ic al Services observed defe

ndan t and would testif

y to a reasonabl

e degree of m

edi cal
and psy chi atri c certai

nty that de f endan t was f i t for s en tenc i ng w hi l e taki ng c ertai n m edi cations. The court f ound d ef endan t fi t for s en tenc i ng a nd i m posed a term of e i ght y

ears i n pr i son. I n ad dit io n, t he co ur t o r de r ed de fen da nt t o su bmit a s amp le o f blo o d, sa liva o rt iss ue fo rinc lus io n in a DNA datab ase purs uan t to secti on 5-4 -3 of

the U ni f i ed Code of C orrections ( 730 IL CS 5/5 -4-3 (We st 2004 )).

ANA LYSIS I. Effe ctive

ness of Trial Counsel On appeal, defen

dant fi rst contends that he recei

ved i nef fecti ve ass is tance of trial

counsel beca use his at t or ney did no t move t o s upp re ss t he co nt ent s o f the t oo lboxes or his incriminating statements to police . He argues that hi s m ost pro mi si ng def ense i nvol ved the ex

cl usi on of that
ev i den ce , a n d h e a ss er ts h i s tr i al cou n se l di d n ot f oll ow a sou n d tri al strate gy b y f ai l i n g to m ov e to suppress that ev i den ce. To suppor t a clai

m of in eff ective assistance of couns el , a defen dant mus t show that counsel ’s represen

tation fel l b el ow an obj ective standard of reasonable ness and, f urthermore, that
coun sel ’sactions r

esu l ted i n pr ej udice to the d

ef endan t. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 80L. E d. 2 d 67 4, 6 93, 104 S. C t. 20 52, 206 4 (1 984 ). W e n ote that c oun se l ’s

de ci si on n ot t o file a mo t ion t o s upp re ss evide nce invo lves t rial st ra t egy and t her efo re is gene ra lly beyond t he scope of a ppel l ate rev i ew. People v. Medrano , 271 Ill . App. 3d 97, 101, 648 N.E. 2d 218, 2221-04-3686

5

(1 995 ). In d et er mini

ng whe t her a de fendant suffer ed s ubst ant ial pre judice in a s itu at ion invo lving
a m ot ion to suppress, a revi

ewi ng court considers wh

ether a reasonabl

e probabi li ty ex is ts that: ( 1) t he mot ion t o s upp re ss wo uld have been g ra nt ed; a nd ( 2) t he o ut co me of t he t rial wo uld have be en di f f eren t had the evi den ce b een suppress ed. People v. Orange , 168 Ill . 2d 138, 153, 659 N.E.2d 9 35, 942(1995 ). Defend ant ar gue s t hat a mot ion t o s upp re ss likely wo uld have suc cee ded beca use t he officer s lack ed a re aso nable su spicio n t o s t op and q ues t ion him and, furt her mor e, beca use t he offi cers lacked probable cause to search t he too lb oxes. Mo reover, defendan t assert s that because hi s m ost v i ab l e d ef ense wa s th e suppres si

on of the con ten ts of the tool ca se s a nd the su ppr es si on of h i s i ncul patory statem en ts, he would not hav e b een

conv i cted ab sen

t that ev i den ce. The fou rt h amendment t o t he Unit ed S t at es Co nst itu t ion and ar t icle I, sec t ion 6 , o f the Il l i noi s Consti

tution protect ci

tiz en s f rom u nre ason ab l e se arch

es a nd s ei zures by the g overn

men t. U.S. Const., am

ends. IV, XIV; Il

l. Const. 1970, art. I , §6. Three types of pol ic e-citi zen inter act ion ar e no t co nsider ed s eizur es u nder t he fo ur t h amendment : ( 1) an ar re st , w hich must be supp orted by

proba bl e ca use ; (2)bri

ef i nv esti gati ve deten tions, or Terryst op s, w hich must be accompan ie d by a reasonabl

e, articulabl

e suspi ci on of cri

mi nal activ ity ; an d (3) “encounters that in volv e no coercion or detention an d thus do not impl

ic ate fourth amen

dme nt in terests.” Luedemann , 222 Il

l . 2d at 54 4, 857 N .E.2d at 19 6. In it s re cent op inion in Luedemann , the Ill in ois Suprem

e Court analy

zed what i

t t ermed the hi storically

“i mpreci se” cl assifi cation of the thi

rd tier of poli

ce-ci tizen encounters as “c omm uni ty c aretak i ng.” Luedemann , 22 2 I l l . 2d

at 5 44 , 85 7 N .E. 2d

at 1 96 . A

b rog ati n g i ts1-04-3686

6

dec isions in People

v. White , 2 21 I ll. 2d 1 , 2 1, 849 N. E. 2d 4 06, 418 (2 006 ), and o t her cas es, t he suprem e court clarif

ie d the dif feren ce between a

consens ual off ic er-citi zen en counter and a poli

ce act of “co mmunity car et aking, ” which invo lves t he pe rfo rmance of a “ta sk u nre late d t o t he in vestigation of cri

me .” Luedemann , 22 2 Il

l . 2d at 5 45, 857N.E .2d

at 1 97;se e al so People v. Robinson , 368 Ill . App. 3d 963, 973-74, 859 N.E .2d 232, 243-44 (2006) ( noting Luedemann ’s anal ys is and f in din g that a polic e off

ic er’s “ well-b ei ng” ch eck of def endan t, who was slum

ped over the steerin

g wheel, was not ini

tiated to det ect, inv

estigate or acquire ev

ide nce, an d thus constituted “comm

uni ty caretaki

ng,” al though the off

ic er’s sub sequent observa tions supported DUI char ge) . T he su pr eme co ur t in Luedemann thu s d i sti ng ui sh ed “ com m un i ty ca reta ki ng ” f rom a con sensua

l encoun ter be tween a pol i ce of f i cer a nd a ci tiz en . Luedemann , 222 Ill . 2d at 548, 857 N.E.2d a t 198-99. In th e i n sta n t ca se , w h en th e of f i cerssto pp ed

th ei r veh i cl e a t th e cur b an d g ot out, defen dant put t he tool cases down on the ground an d approached the off

ic ers. The parties agree that t he i ni tial contact was a co nsensual encounter , which

does n ot i

m pl i ca te th e f our th
am endm ent. See Luedemann , 22 2 Il l . 2d at 5 44, 857N.E .2d

at 1 96;se e al so People v. Gherna , 203 Ill . 2d 165, 177, 784 N.E .2d 799, 806 (2003). “[N]ot every en counter between the poli

ce and a pri vate ci tizen resul ts in a sei zure.” Luedemann , 222 Ill . 2d at 544, 857 N. E.2d at 196, ci ting Immigration &

Naturalization Service v

. Delgado , 466 U.S. 210, 215, 80 L. Ed. 2d 247, 254 , 1 04 S . C t . 1 758 , 1 762 (1 984 ). “The fo ur t h amendment was not intend ed t o p re vent co nsensu al enco unt er s bet wee n t he po lice and c itizens . T hus, a po lice officer may appr oa ch a person on the street and ask questions if that person is wi

ll in g to li sten.” People

v. Tate , 36 7 I ll.1-04-3686

7

Ap p. 3d 10 9, 114, 8 53 N.E.2 d 1249 , 1254 ( 2006)
. Bef ore we exam

in e the nex t step o f the en

counter, t hi s court wishes to cl arif y i ts previ ous char act er izat ion o f the po lice officer s’ ac t of c ur bing t heir vehicle ne ar defend ant . I t might be i m pl i ed f rom thi s c ourt’ s or

i gi na l orde r th at the of

f i cers req ui red a re as ona bl e suspici on of
cr imi nal act ivity at t he o ut set of t heir int er act ion wit h defend ant , w hich sug ges t ed t hat defend ant was sei zed at that po in

t. We do not hold that the off ic ers perform

ed a Terryst op of d efenda nt by pull in g their car to the curb in def endant’s vi

cin ity. Indeed, such a stop w ould be wi thou t basis, because , as this

court noted, t he si

ght of a person wal

kin g down the street carryi

ng too lb oxes do es no t sup po rt an o bject ively reaso nable su spicio n of c riminal act ivity. Ra t her , w e fo cus on t he
conv ersa tion between def endan t and the of f i cers af ter the of f i cers got out of thei

r car. Defe ndan t contends that he was sei zed when the off ic ers refus ed to accept hi s i ni tial
answ er th at h i s f ath er own ed th e too l b ox es an d th at th e of f i cersdi d n ot h av e f ac ts, at th at ti me, to j us ti f y an i n v esti ga tory sto p. Th e S tate

as se rtsth at p oli ce

qu esti oni n g of a c i tizen doe s n ot v i ol ate th e f our th am en dm en t an d th at def en da n t’s i n con siste n t an d c on f l i cti n g a n sw er s l ed th e of f i cer to open the boxes a

nd study the contents, thus establis hi ng not only

reasonabl

e suspi ci on but providi ng the off ic ers wi th probable cause to arrest. The State argues that defendan t’s responses t o O ffi cer Lehner ’s qu est ions “he ight ened ” t he o ffi cer ’s su spicio ns abo ut t he t oo lboxes , w hich the State poi nts out we

re “ prof ess i onal -grade boxes” that b ore a com

pan y l ogo. Because def

endan t raises the i

ssue of the requi

remen t for a Terrystop, we set out that st an da r d, t ho ug h w e d o no t de t er mine s uc h a st o p in it ially occurred in this case. A police off

ic er ma y de tain a person wi

thout hav in g probable cause to arrest; however, the off ic er must have a1-04-3686

8

reas onab l e, articul

ab l e su spi cion tha t the person

ha s com m i tted or is ab out to comm

i t a cri me. Terry v. Ohio , 392 U .S. 1, 20 L . Ed. 2d 88 9, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (19 68). Th us, un der Terry , an of f i cer m ay “br i ef l y stopa p ers on f

or tem pora ry que sti oni ng i f the of f i cer haskn

owl edgeof sufficient ar t iculable fact s at t he t ime of t he enc ou nt er t o c re at e a r eas ona ble susp icion t hat t he person i n question has com

mi tt ed or is ab out to comm

it a cri me .” People v. Lee , 214 Ill . 2d 476, 487, 82 8 N.E.2d

237, 24 6 (200 5). Our attem

pt to accura

tel y ex am i ne the b ri ef encoun ter be tween def endan t and the of f i cers is li mited by the fac t s t hat wer e pr ese nt ed a t t rial. D efenda nt offer ed inco nsist ent re spo nses t o t he
o ffice r s’ qu es t io ns a bo ut t he co nt en t s o f t he t o o l bo xe s. Ac co r din g t o Offic er Le hne r( t he o nly wit ne ss pr es en t ed by t he St at e o t he rt ha n t he co mpla ina nt ) , de fen da nt firs t st at ed t ha t t he t o o ls be lo ng ed t o his fa t he r . De fen da nt t he n st at ed t ha t t he t o o ls be lo ng ed t o a fr ien d, an d t he n sa id the y were h i s. D ef en da nt a l so w asunab l e to e xp l ai

n th e i ni ti als on the box esor s tatewhat ki

nd of t oo ls the boxe s co nt ained. In a ddit ion, as w e no t ed in o ur or iginal or der , t he St at e pr ese nt ed no testi m on y or ev i den ce

of f ac ts k n own to th e of f i ce rsat th e ou tse t of th e c on v er sa ti on wi th def endan t, such as a report of s

tolen tools or a

phy sical des cri pti on of a su spe ct. Defend ant ar gue s t hat t he enc ou nt er beca me a seizu re dur ing t he co nver sat ion whe n t he off ic ers’ questi onin

g persi sted and, i

n def endan t’s words, becam

e “accus ator y a

nd adversaria

l.” However, the Uni

ted St ates Supreme Court has he ld that poli ce questioni

ng, i n an d of i tself , does not con sti tute a se izure. Florida v. Bostick , 501 U.S. 429, 434, 115 L. Ed. 2d 389, 398 , 111 S. Ct . 23 82, 238 6 (1 991 ); Florida v. Royer , 460 U.S. 491, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229, 103 S. Ct. 1319 (1983). Mor e preci sel

y, the Court has stated:1-04-3686

1 Defe ndan t argues that he did n

ot feel free to leav

e the scen e after Of fi cer Lehn er “ ref us ed to ac ce pt [h i s] i ni ti al answ er a s s ati sf

ac tory .” H owe ve

r, w he the r a rea son ab l e p ers on woul d have f

el t f ree to l ea ve hi ng eson a n ob j ec ti ve eval ua ti on of the pol i cecon duc t an d n ot on the s ubj ecti ve perce pti on of the i ndi vi dual approac he d. Luedemann , 222 Ill . 2d at 551, 857 N.E.2d at 200; see also Hodari D. , 499 U .S. at 628, 1 13 L. E d. 2d a t 698, 111 S. Ct. at 155 1. 9 “[L] aw e nfor cement officer s do not violat e t he Fo ur t h Amendment by merely app ro aching a n individual o n t he st re et or in anot her public plac e, by asking him i f he is willi

ng t o a nswe r so me que st ions, by put t ing qu est ions t o him if the pe r so n is w illing t o list en , o rby o ffer ing in e vid en ce in a cr iminal p r o se cu t io n his volun tary ans wers to such questions.” Royer , 460 U.S. at 497, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 236, 10 3 S. Ct. at 13 24. A poli ce-ci tizen encounter rema

in s consensual

as long as a reasonab le

person would f

eel free “ ‘to disregard the poli

ce and go about hi s busi

ness .’ ” Bostick, 501 U.S. at 434, 115 L. Ed. 2d at 398, 111 S. Ct. at 2386, quot in g California v. Hodari D. , 499 U.S. 621, 113 L. Ed. 2d 690, 111 S. Ct. 1547 (19 91). 1 Indeed, as Luedemann em phasi zed, “the polic e m

ay do more than merely ask que st ions w itho ut t ur ning t he enc ou nt er into a se izur e”; o ffi cer s may examine i den tif i cation an d request consen

t to search

l ugga ge. Luedemann , 222 Ill . 2d at 551, 857 N. E.2d at 200 , c iting Bostick, 501 U. S. at 434-35, 115 L. Ed . 2d at 398-99, 111 S. Ct . at 2386. S ee also Peop le v. Cr oft, 3 46 I ll. App. 3d 6 69, 674 , 8 05 N .E .2 d 12 33, 123 9 ( 200 4) (invest igat ive ques tio ning by

po li ce do es no t a ut omat icall

y establish that an indivi

dual is seized) ; People v. Erby , 21 3 I l l . A pp . 3d 65 7, 6 62 , 57 2 N .E. 2d

34 5, 3 48 (1 99 1) (“ [a ] p er son v ol un tar i l y coop erati

n g w i th the p oli ce is n ot sei zed f or fourth am endm en t purpose s”).1-04-3686

10

At o ra l ar gu ment up o n t his c o ur t ’s r ec o nsid er at io n o f t his c as e in lig ht o f Luedemann , de f en da n t’s cou n se l as se rte d th at th e of f i cerssh oul d h av e acc ep ted

de f en da n t’s i n i ti al re sp on se to t he qu est ion o f what t he bo xes c ont ained a nd t o w hom t hey belong ed. In e ffect , d efenda nt co nt ends t hat t he o ffi

cer s we re re quir ed t o a cce pt his first answ er t o t heir inqu iry and end t he
co nve r sa t io n. Ho we ve r , we ca nno t ag r ee wit h d efe nd an t ’s po sit io n t ha t wh at o cc ur r ed aft er his f i rst answe r to the of

f i cer’ s que sti oni

ng c onsti tuted a s ei

zure u nde r the f ourth am endm en t. Con f l i cti n g or ev as i v e res ponse s to pol

i ce qu esti oni n g c an con sti tute pr ob ab l e c au se

to
ar re st t he pe rso n being qu est ioned “when c ons ider ed t og et her wit h t he pr ior sus picions .” 2 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure §3.6(f), at 362 (4t h ed. 2004). Pro fessor LaFave ci tes United States ex rel. Kirby v. Sturges , 51 0 F .2d 39 7 ( 7th Ci r. 1 97 5) , i n wh i ch th e s us pe ct of f ered dif f eren t, contradictory expl

anati ons f or his posse ssion of travelers’ checks, fi rst stat in g that t hey

were pla y money and t hen sa ying he had w on t hem by gambling. “The co ur t co nclude d t hat while ‘t he posse ssi on of property be ari ng s ome one e l se’ s nam

e woul d not con sti

tute proba

bl e ca use ,’ grounds for arrest came i

nto exis tence when

the suspect ‘gave two co ntradictory ex pla nations .’ ” 2 W . La Fa ve , Se arc h & Sei zu re, §3. 6(f ) at 3 62 (4th

ed . 20 04) . Se e al so United Sta tes v. Ga rcia , 179 F .3d 265 (5th C i

r. 1999 ); United States v. Tudoran , 476 F. Supp. 2d 205, 213 (N. D. N.Y. 20 07 ) ( cit ing nu mer o us fed er al c as es an d d isc us sing fac t o r s p r o ba t ive o f t he ex ist en ce o f pr o ba ble
caus e, i nc l udi ng “ i m pl aus i bl e, conf l i cti ng, e va si ve or unre spon si

ve an swe rs to questions”). To ho ld, as defen

dant co ntends, that an i

ndi vidual i s seized af

ter his or her first response t o p olice q ues t ioning w ou ld be illogical in light o f the cas es t hat discu ss t he fo ur t h amendment implic at io ns o f co nflic t ing r es po nse s a nd “inve st iga t ive qu es t io ning
. ” C o nflic t ing r es po nse s c o uld1-04-3686

11

not oc cu r wi thou t the pre senta ti on of m ul ti ple i nq ui ri es , b ec au se

an answ er to on

e q ue sti on can not be des cri be d asconf

l i cti ng or i nc onsi sten t unl ess i t is com pared to another an swe

r. Li kewise , w h at c our ts h av e te rm ed “ i n v esti ga ti v e q ue sti oni n g” i m pl i es repe ate d i

n qui ries , not a si ngl e q ue sti on a nd answ er. There f

ore, con trar y to de f en da nt’ s c onte nti on, an i nd i vi dua l i s n ot sei zed w hen a pol i ce of f i cer a sks more than

one q ues tion
. We o bser ve t hat t he Su pr eme Co ur t ’s ho ldings o n t his to pic, along wit h t he fede ra l and st at e ca ses w e have fou nd, use t he plur al, a s o ppo sed t o t he singu lar, when r efer ring t o t he allowab le num ber of polic e i

nqui ries that can be m

ade bef ore a person is cons ide

red sei zed under the fourth am

endm ent. “Our cases m

ake i t clear that a sei

zure does not o ccur si

mpl y b ecause a police off ic er approaches an i

ndi vi dual and asks a few questions .” (Em

phasi s ad ded.) Bostick, 501 U.S . at 434 , 11 5 L. Ed. 2d at 398 , 11 1 S. Ct . at 238 6; Royer , 460 U.S. at 497, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 2 36, 103 S. C t. at 1 324 (quoted ab ove). Se e al so State v. Yoder , 935 P.2d 534, 542 (Ut ah App. 1997) (defen

dant’s “ uncooperative, f

al se and ev

asi ve” responses

ta ken in to acco unt ); State v. Nguyen , 878 P.2d 1183, 1187 (Ut ah A pp. 1994) (“fal

se or evasi

ve” answers

alo ng wit h hig hly
sus pi cious b ehavi or ma

y be use d to estab l i sh

proba bl e ca use ). Pr oba ble cau se fo r a n ar re st exist s whe n t he fact s and circu msta nces wit hin the a rr est ing off ic er’s knowl

edge are suf

fi ci ent to warr ant a m

an of reas onabl

e caution i

n be li evi ng that an off ense h as been comm itted and that the person arrested comm itted the off

ense. Gerstein v. Pugh , 420 U. S. 103, 111-12, 43 L. Ed. 2d 54, 64 , 95 S. Ct. 8 54, 862 ( 1975). “Probable cause does not require evi

dence suf fi ci ent to co nvi

ct, but it requires m

ore t han articulabl e suspi ci on.” People v. Mata , 178 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 15 5, 161, 5 33 N.E.2 d 370, 3 75 (19 88).1-04-3686

12

It is tr ue t hat , he re , t he o ffi cer s we re not even a war e t hat a cr ime had bee n co mmi t t ed a nd t hus, of c ou rse , ha d no des cr ipt ion o f a sus pec t when t hey saw d efenda nt walking d ow n t he street. However, the police “n eed not have actual knowl edge of a cri

mi nal violation b efore they can ef fect an arrest if the facts of the case gi

ve ri se to a reasonabl e bel ie f that a cri

me has b een comm itted.” Mata , 178 Ill . App. 3d at 161, 533 N.E .2d at 375 (also noting that off ic ers “of ten
m ust act upon a

quick ap praisal of the data b ef

ore them ”). Officer L ehner t est ifi

ed t hat defend ant set t he t oo lboxes on t he gr ou nd and app ro ache d t he officer s whe n he sa w t he po lice car st op near him. Defend ant t hen ga ve co nfli ct ing answ er s t o t he qu es t io ns a sk ed an d c o uld no t ide nt ify t he co nt en t s o f t he t o o lbo xe s he ca rr ied
. T he o ffice r s d id
no t vio lat e t he fo ur t h a men dme nt by as kin g d efe nd an t mult iple qu es t io ns a nd elic it ing his volun tary ans wers, which were i

nconsistent. Such confl

icting res ponses to police

questioni ng, toge the r wi th th e total i ty of the ci rcu m sta nc es , ga ve ri se not on l y to a re as ona

bl e suspici on of crim in al activ ity, but gave the off

ic ers probabl

e cause to arrest. Accordin gly , defense counsel

was not inef fecti ve f or faili ng to file a m ot ion to suppress ev

ide nce, gi ven that such a m

ot ion l acked a
reas onab l e ch

ance of suc ces s.
II. St ipul ated Testim

ony a t Hearing on De fen

dant’s Fi tness f or Sentencin

g Af ter def endan t’s c onv i cti on, the tria l court he l d a h

eari ng on his f i tnes s to be s en

tenc ed. The hear ing co nsist ed s olely of t he st ipulat ed t est imony of t he St at e’s p sychiat rist t hat defend ant was f it f or sentenci

ng wi th medi cations. Def

endan t now asserts that his cas e should be rem anded for a new fitness hear ing beca use t he co ur t was re quir ed t o a dmo nish him as t o t he effect of t he1-04-3686

13

stipul ation an d ascertain

that defenda

nt knew h e was wai vi ng hi s righ t t o present witness es. He conten ds those s teps w ere re qui

red un der People

v. Campbe ll , 208 Ill . 2d 203, 221, 802 N.E .2d 1205, 1 215 (2 003), w

hi ch we di scu ss i n f urthe r detai l be l ow. Defend ant re pea t edly refe rs t o t he ap plicability of du e pr oc ess t o fit ness he ar ings, and t he
cas es t hat he cit es d iscuss due pr oc ess r equ irement s in relat ion t o a defend ant ’s fitne ss t o s t and trial
. Du e p roce ss

ba rs the cri m i na l pros ecution or

sente nc i ng of a d ef en da nt w ho i s n ot com peten t to stand trial
. People v. Woodard , 367 Ill . App. 3d 304, 319, 854 N.E. 2d 674, 689 (20 06) ; People v. McColler , 3 63 I ll. App. 3d 8 1, 92, 842 N. E. 2d 1 93, 202 (2 005 ). The re for e, t he
sa me d ue pr o ce ss r eq uir eme nt s t ha t ap ply t o a d efe nd an t ’s fit ne ss t o st an d t r ial a lso ap ply t o his f i tnes s to be s en

tenc ed. We no t e, how ever , t hat defend ant ’s ar gument s involve a st ipulat ion abo ut his fitness t o be sentence d, while Campbe ll did not i nv olv e a f i tnes s i ssue. In

that ca se, the Il

l i noi s Suprem

e Court addre ss ed the ab i l i ty of de f ense cou ns el to wai ve a d ef en da nt’ s s i xth am en dm en t righ t of conf rontation by

sti pul ati ng to the adm i ssi on of evi den ce a t trial
. Campbe ll , 208 Ill . 2d at 221, 802 N. E. 2d a t 121 5. The defend ant in Campbe ll was char ged wit h t he r eside nt ial burg lary o f the apartm en t of se veral coll ege s tuden ts. Campbe ll , 2 08 I ll. 2d a t 207 , 8 02 N .E .2 d at 120 6- 07. One of the students testif

ie d at tr ia l, an d when hi s roomma

te did not appear to t estif y, def ense couns el agree d to the room

mate’s sti pul ated testim

ony . Campbe ll , 208 Ill . 2d at 208, 802 N. E.2d at 1207- 08. On ap pea l, t he de fendant in Campbe ll argu ed th at b ec au se

de f ense cou n se l sti pul ate d to th e room mate ’s testi mon y wi th out h i s k n owi n g c on se n t, he w as den i ed h i s c on sti tuti on al ri gh t to1-04-3686

2 Defe ndan t acknowledges

that he di d not o bj ect to this procedure in the tri al

court but ask s thi s court to cons i der h

i s posi tion und er the plai n error doctri

ne . 14 conf ront wi tnes ses agai nst hi m . Campbe ll , 2 08 I ll. 2d a t 209 , 8 02 N .E .2 d at 120 8. The def endan t conten ded that onl

y he , as the ac cus ed, coul

d wai ve his ri ght to conf

rontation. Campbe ll , 208 Ill . 2d at 209, 802 N. E.2d at 1208. The suprem e court r evi

ewed several f

ederal
an d s tate ca se s i n wh i ch de f ense cou n se l wa s a l l owe d to w ai

v e a de f en da n t’s ri gh t to co nfro nt at ion if the dec ision amo unt ed t o t rial st ra t egy and t he de fendant did no t objec t t o t he sti pul ati on. Campbe ll , 20 8 Il

l . 2d at 2 15, 802N.E .2d

at 1 211 -12 . In

ac cord an cewi th m ost of those d ecisions, Campbe ll he l d that the d ef en da nt m us t be ad moni sh ed an d agre e to a

sti pul ati on t o t he ad miss io n o f ev ide nc e w he r e: ( 1) t he st ipu lat io n inc lud es a s t at eme nt t ha t t he ev ide nc e is suf f i cien t to convi ct the def endan t; or (2) th e State’ s en

tire cas e i s to be p

rese nted by sti pul ati on. Campbe ll , 208 I ll . 2d at 221, 802 N.E. 2d at 1 215. T he supreme court concluded that defense
co unse l’s st ipulat ion t o t he r oo mmate’ s t est imony pre sent ed a re aso nable exp lanat ion fo r t he defend ant ’s ent ry into t he ap ar t ment, and t her efo re t he at t or ney’s ag re ement t o s t ipulat e t o t he testi m ony wastria l strategy. Campbe ll , 208 Il l . 2d at 22 0-21, 8 02 N.E.2 d at 121 4-15. De f en da n t con ten dsth at Campbe ll

was vi olated becaus e hi s “en

tire f itnes s heari

ng” was st ipulat ed w itho ut an ad monit ion fro m the c ou rt t hat he und er st oo d t he co nseq uenc es o f the st ip ul at io n a nd ag r ee d t o wa ive his r ig ht t o pr es en t t es t imo ny. 2 De f en da n t urge s th i s c our t to extend Campbe ll ’s ho lding t o fit ness he ar ings. He a sser t s t hat t he su pr eme co ur t in Campbe ll did
n ot li m i t i ts d ec i si on to th e g ui l t or i n n oce n ce ph as e of a tr i al “ wh ere a sti pul ati on i s ta n tam oun t to a gui lty ple a.”1-04-3686

15

It is wi thout question that a def

endan t has a f undam ental righ t t o confront witness es agai nst hi m. See Campbe ll , 208 I ll . 2d at 211, 802 N.E. 2d at 1 209-10. However, a fi tness he ar ing “is n o t pa r t o f t he leg al p r o ce ed ing s by w hic h t he ac cu se d’ s lia bilit y fo ran o ffen se is determ i ne d.” People v. McCullum , 66 I ll. 2 d 3 06 , 31 2, 36 2 N
. E . 2d 30 7, 31 0 ( 19 77 )
. I nd ee d, in urgin g us to foll

ow Campbe ll , defendant cites no c ases t hat involve stipulations to a defendant’s fitness t o e ither st and t rial o r be sent ence d. We do not agr ee w ith d efenda nt ’s co nt ent ion t hat t he right t o c onfr ont at ion d iscuss ed in Campbe ll appl i es to f i tnes s heari

ngs . Fur t her mor e, t he st ipulat ion r ega rd ing defend ant ’s fitne ss co mplied wit h t he exist ing standard. A trial

court ma y rel y on s tipulated test im

ony regardi

ng a def endan t’s fi tness, al though the c ourt can

not bl i ndl y def er to an e xpe rt’s opi ni on. People v. Goodman , 347 Ill . App. 3d 278, 28 7, 8 06 N. E.2 d 1 12 4, 1 13 2 ( 20 04 ). “The p ar ti es may sti pul ate to wh at a n ex pert w ou ld te st ify [as to a defendan

t’s fi tness], but they m

ay n ot stipulate to an expert’s conclusions re gar ding f i tnes s.” (Em

phasi s ad ded.) Goodman , 347 I ll . App. 3d at 287, 806 N.E. 2d at 1 132; see also People v. Lew is , 10 3 Ill. 2d 111 , 11 6, 4 68 N .E .2d 122 2, 1 225 (19 84) ; People v. Greene , 10 2 I ll. App. 3d 639, 643, 430 N.E. 2d 219, 2 22 (1981 ). Her e, t he parties stipulated that t he psy chiatrist would testif

y that de f endan t was f i t for s en tenc i ng.

III . C on sti

tuti on al i ty of DN A Sta tute De f en da nt a rguestha t the com pul sor y ex tracti on of

hi s D NA pur suan t to se cti on 5 -4- 3 of t he Unified Co de o f Cor re ct ions ( 730 ILC S 5 /5 -4 -3 (Wes t 200 2) ) vio late s his fou rt h amendment right t o be free of u nre aso nable sea rc hes a nd se izur es. Ho weve r, in the t ime since defe ndant1-04-3686

16

asse rt ed t hat ar gument , it has be en ad dr esse d by t he I lli nois S upr eme Co ur t in People v. Garvi n , 219 Il l . 2d 104 , 847 N .E.2d 82 ( 2006) , whi ch upheld the

statute’ s con sti

tution al i ty.

CONCLUSION In sum ma ry, we h old that because

a m ot ion to suppress l

ike ly would not have succeeded, de f en da n t’s trial cou n se l wa s n ot i n ef f ec ti v e. W e a l so f i n d def en da n t’s re mai n i n g c on ten ti on s to be una va i l i ng. A ccordi ngl y , def endan t’s c onv i cti on i s af

f i rmed. Af fi rmed. O'MARA FROSSARD, J., co ncurs. O'BRIEN, J., dissen

ts.1-04-3686

-17-

JUSTICE O'BRIEN, dis senti ng: We got it righ

t t he f irst tim e. I a dop t our

ori gi n al ord er , w h i ch we wi th dr ew af ter th e S up re me C our

t i ss ue d i ts su perv i sor y ord er , a s m

y di ss en t. Foll owing a ben ch trial, defen

dant Cal vi n Ri chardson was

convi cted of burglary an

d was sentence d to ei ght ye ars i

n pri son. On appeal, defen dant contends that hi s trial counsel was in eff ective i n f ai li ng to move to suppress evi dence that poli

ce obtain ed durin g a Terrystop. Defend ant also ask s t his co ur t t o r emand his c ase t o t he t rial co ur t for a new fitness hear ing beca use he wa s no t admo nished o f his right t o c onfr ont wit nesse s. I n add itio n, d efenda nt ch al l en ge s th e tri al cou rt’ s orde r th at he p rovi dea s am ple f or i nc l us i on i n D NA i de nti f i ca ti on databases. Because we co ncl ude that a motion to suppress li kely would have succeeded because police lacked a reas onable art iculab le suspici on o f crim

inal act ivi ty, we r everse de fendant’s
con v i cti on an d s en ten ce an d r em an d to th e tr i al cou rt. At trial , Stanley

Puchalski

testifi ed that on the morni

ng of Dec em

ber 30, 2003, he was
em ploye d by Wh y Not Iron, a c omp an

y that sp eci

al ized i n orn am en tal and arch i tectural i ronwork. Puchalski testifi ed that whi le

compl eting a job a t 1621 Nor th Ken

to n, he wen

t t o his van at about 11:20 a.m . to fi nd th at i t had be en broke n i nto an d two of h

i s tool b oxes

were gone . Chi cago Polic e Off

ic er Wi ll ia m L ehn er testifi ed that at about 11:25 a.m. on Decem ber 30, 2003, he and h

is partner observed def

endan t walki ng ne ar 4609 West Grand A ven ue carryi ng a po we rt o o l ca se in e ac h ha nd
. T he o ffice r s w er e in pla in c lo t he s a nd dr iving an un mar ke d v eh icle trave l i ng i n the opposi

te di rection tha

t def endan t was w al ki ng.1-04-3686

-18-

Offic er Le hne rt es t ified t ha t aft er he o bse rve d d efe nd an t ca rrying t he ca se s, he t ur ne d h is vehicle ar ou nd and pulled t o t he cu rb ne ar defend ant . As t he o ffi cer s go t ou t of t he ca r, defend ant set the cases down on the ground an d approached them . The off ic er further testif

ie d: “Q. When t he de fendant came o ver t o yo ur vehicle, what happ ened ? A. I q ues tion ed h i m as to wh at he had i n the ca ses

and what they

were . Q. What did he t ell you?” Th e tri al cou rt su stai ne d a de f ense obj ec ti on to O f

f i cer L eh ne r’ s a ns wer to th at q

ue sti on and t he o ffi

cer was ask ed t he qu est ion ag ain: “Q . Spec i f

i cal l y wh at did he

say , off i cer? A. At f irst he stated t hat those were to ols an d they bel onged to his dad. The n we a ske d ag ain, a nd he s t at ed he go t t hem fro m his friend’s ho use by Ko st ne ran d D ivisio n. T he n he st at ed t ha t t he y we r e h is. T he n a ft er I as ke d h im wh at ki nd of tools they

were , he stated s ev eral

di f f eren t type s of tools. Q. Did y ou ask hi m wh at kind? A. Yes, I did. Q. Wha t di d h e s ay? A. H e coul

dn’ t exactl

y state wh at they were . He di

dn’ t know.” Off ic er Lehn er stated t hat he then

noticed the l

etter s WNI on the cas es and as ked defen dant what those marki

ngs m eant. Defen

dant did n ot respond; the off

ic er stated it was “l

ike [d efenda nt ] d idn’t kno w wha t I w as t alking abo ut .” Officer L ehner op ened t he ca ses a nd fo und an invoice bear ing t he co mpany name o f Why Not Ir on. The officer s ar re st ed d efenda nt and1-04-3686

-19-

trans ported hi m to the station, wh

ere h e adm i tted that he stole the

tools f or mon ey to buy drugs
. On cross-exam

in ation, Of fi cer Lehn er stated t hat durin

g their conv

ersation on the street, he asked defen dant two o r three tim

es where h

e got t he tools and that the questi onin g lasted one or t wo m i nute s. The def

en se prese

nted no testi mony . A f ter th e tri al cou rt f oun d de f en da nt g ui l ty of bu rgl ary , th e c ourt h

el d a he ari ng on de f en da nt’ s f i tne ss to be sente nc ed , at w

hi ch the pa rti essti pul ate d that a

sta f f ps y ch i atrist f or Forensi c Clin ic al Services observed defe

ndan t and would testif

y to a reasonabl

e degree of m

edi cal
and psy chi atri c certai

nty that de f endan t was f i t for s en tenc i ng w hi l e taki ng c ertai n m edi cations. The co ur t fou nd de fendant fit for sent encing a nd impo sed a t er m of eight years in priso n for t he of f ense . In addi ti on, the cou rt ord ere d de f

en da nt to s ubm i t a s am ple of bl ood, s al i va or ti ss uef or in cl usi on in a DNA databas e pursuant to section 5-4-3 of the Unifi ed Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5-4- 3 (West 200 4)). ANA LYSIS I. Effe ctive

ness of Trial Counsel On appeal, defen

dant fi rst contends that he recei

ved i nef fecti ve ass is tance of trial

counsel beca use his at t or ney did no t move t o s upp re ss t he co nt ent s o f the t oo lboxes or his incriminating statements to police . He argues that hi s m ost pro mi si ng def ense i nvol ved the ex

cl usi on of that
ev i den ce , a n d h e a ss er ts h i s tr i al cou n se l di d n ot f oll ow a sou n d tri al strate gy b y f ai l i n g to m ov e to suppress that ev i den ce. To suppor t a clai

m of in eff ective assistance of couns el , a defen dant mus t show that counsel ’s represen

tation fel l b el ow an obj ective standard of reasonable ness and, f urthermore, that1-04-3686

1 Nei ther party purport s that the offi cers were perf

ormi ng com mun ity caretakin g. -20- coun sel ’sactions r

esu l ted i n pr ej udice to the d

ef endan t. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 8 0 L. Ed . 2 d 67 4, 693 , 1 04 S . C t . 2 052 , 2 064 (1 984 ). In d et er mini ng whe t her a de fendant suf f ered s ubs tantial prej udice i

n a si tuati on i nv olv i ng a motion to suppre ss, a

revi ewi ng c ourt co nsider s whe t her a r eas ona ble pr oba bili t y exists t hat : ( 1) t he mot ion t o s upp re ss wo uld have been granted; and (2) the outcome of the trial would ha ve b een di

ff erent had the ev

ide nce b een suppress ed. People v. Orange , 168 Il l . 2d 138 , 153, 65 9 N.E.2d 935, 94 2 (199 5). Defend ant ar gue s t hat a mot ion t o s upp re ss likely wo uld have suc cee ded beca use t he offi cers lacked a reasonable suspi cion to st op and quest ion hi m an d further lacked probable cause t o s ear ch t he t oo lboxes . Mo re ove r, he as ser t s t hat beca use his most viable defens e wa s t he sup pr essio n of t he co nt ent s o f the t oo l cases and t he su ppr essio n of his inculpa t or y sta t ement s, he would not hav e b een

conv i cted ab sen

t that ev i den ce. W e agre e wi

th de f endan t on both poi nts. The fou rt h amendment t o t he Unit ed S t at es Co nst itu t ion and ar t icle I, sec t ion 6 , o f the Il l i noi s con sti

tution protect ci

tiz en s f rom u nre ason ab l e se arch

es a nd s ei zures by the g overn

men t. U.S. Const., am

ends. IV, XIV, Ill . Const. 1970, art . I, § 6. T hree type s of poli ce-ci tizen in teraction are not considered to be sei zures under the f

ourt h am endm ent: (1) an arrest, whic

h
mus t be supported by probab le cause; (2) a Terrystop; or (3) comm uni ty caretaki

ng, whi ch des cri be s a c onse

ns ual encoun ter gen eral l y f or pub l i c saf

ety . People

v. White , 221 Ill . 2d 1, 21, 849 N .E.2d 406 , 418 (2 006). 1 In a Terrysto p, a

pol i ce of f i cer m ay detai n a p er son wi th out h av i n g p rob ab l e c au se

to arrest; however, the off

ic er must have a reasona

bl e, articulabl

e suspi ci on that t he person detai ned1-04-3686

-21-

ha s com m i tted or is ab out to comm

i t a cri me. Terry

v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 88 9, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968). The f

acts support in

g a reasonabl

e suspi ci on for a Terrysto p n

ee d n ot co n sti tute proba bl e ca use to arrest, an

d of f i cers do not ha

ve to witn ess a vi ola tion of the law; however, a me re hunch is in suf fi ci ent to justif

y a Terrystop. People

v. Beverl y , 364 Ill . App. 3d 361, 369, 845 N .E.2d 962 , 969 (2 006). De fen da nt ar gu es t ha t t he o ffice r s d id n o t pe r fo rm a la wfu l Terry stop because they i nterroga ted hi m wi thout ha vi ng a reas onab l e su spi

cion tha t he h ad com m i tted a cri me. Defend ant asse rt s t hat altho ugh he may have initially co nsent ed t o t alk t o t he o ffi cer s, t he
en cou n ter tur n ed i n to an un l aw f ul se izu redu ri n g th ei r q ue sti oni n g. H e c on

ten dsth at th e f ac ts known to Off

ic er Lehn er and hi s partner at that t im

e, i.e. , hi s act of wal

kin g down the street carryi ng two t ool cases, were i

nsuf fi ci ent to give the off

ic ers a reasonab le

suspici on of cri

mi nal acti vi ty. W e agre e. A Terrystop is proper if

a person of reasonable

caution b elie

ves that the action taken

was j ustif i ed kn owi ng th e f acts a va i l ab l e at the

tim e of the stop. People v. Spann , 332 Ill . App. 3d 425, 433, 773 N.E. 2d 59, 66 (2002). T he reasonable ness of a Terrystop is depen

dent on whether t he o ffi cer ’s ac t ion wa s: ( 1) just ifi ed a t its ince pt ion; and (2 ) “r eas ona bly relat ed in sc op e t o t he ci rcumstances whi

ch j ustif ie d the in terference i

n the f irst place.” Terry , 392 U.S . at 19-2 0, 20 L. Ed. 2 d a t 905 , 88 S. C t. at 1 879 ; s eealso People v. Gonzalez , 204 Ill . 2d 220, 228-29, 789 N. E. 2d 2 60, 266 (2 003 ). A Terry st o p mu st be o bje ct ive ly re as o na ble an d p r ed ica t ed o n sp ec ific and a rt iculable fact s t hat , t ake n t og et her wit h t he r esu lting infere nces , w ou ld war ra nt t he i ntrus i on. People v. Hopkins , 363 Ill . App. 3d 971, 981, 845 N.E. 2d 661, 671 (2005). Offi cer1-04-3686

-22-

Lehner t est ifi

ed t hat aft er he sa w de fendant walking d ow n t he st re et car rying t wo t oo lboxes , he
rev ers ed the di recti on of hi s v eh i cl e a nd pul l ed i t to the cu rbbe si dede f en da nt. See i ng a p ers on wal ki ng dow n th e s tree t ca rry i ng tool box esdoe s n ot su ppor t an obj ec ti ve l y rea son ab l e suspici

on of cri m i na l acti vi ty. Wh en the of f i cer a ske d def

endan t “wh at he had i n the [tool] c ase s an

d what they

were ,” defen dant gave se

veral in consi stent answers. The State argues that defen dant’s response s “h eightene d” Of

f i cer L eh ner’s sus pi cions a bout the toolb oxes , whi ch

the State poi nts out we

re “profes si onal -grade boxes” that bore a compan y l ogo. We ackn

owledge that i

nve stigati ve Terry st op s have been d esc ribed as “evo lving enco unt er s whe re new fac t s co nt inually emerge, feeding in to the Terry calcul

us and j ustif

yi ng poli ce action that onl

y m omen ts bef ore would have

been unl awful .” People v. Sloup , 359 I ll . App. 3d 84 1, 847, 834 N.E .2d 995, 1001 (20 05); see also People v. James , No. 1- 05-0811 (May 5, 2006). However, the State cannot po in t t o t he ev

ide nce coll ected during the

stop – i.e. , t he in

consistent answers t hat de fendant gave t o Officer Lehner’s que st ions a nd any o bser vat ions t he o ffi cer s may have made abo ut t he cha ra ct er istics of t he t o o lbo xe s – an d u se t ha t ev ide nc e in a “ bo o t st r ap ” fa shio n t o su pp o r t t he o ffice r ’s r ea so na ble arti cul ab l e su spi cion f or ma ki ng th e stop i n the f i rst pl ace . Terryallows an

off ic er to “b rief ly stop a perso n f

or t em porary questioni

ng if the of

fi cer ha s k no wle dg e o f su fficie nt ar t icu lab le fa ct s a t t he t ime o f t he en co un t er t o cr ea t e a r ea so na ble suspici on that t he person i n question has com

mi tt ed or is ab out to comm

it a cri me .” People v. Lee , 214 Il

l . 2d 476 , 487, 82 8 N.E.2d 237, 24 6 (200 5). The con duct j ustif y i ng a stop under Terry
m ust hav e b een

j ustif i ed at i ts i nc eption. People v. Thomas , 198 Ill . 2d 103, 109, 759 N.E .2d1-04-3686

-23-

899, 902 (2001). “Viewed as a whole, the si tuation confronti

ng the poli

ce off ic er must be so far from the ordinary

that any competent off

ic er would be e

xpected to act quic

kly .” Thomas , 19 8 I ll. 2d a t 109 -1 0, 759 N. E. 2d a t 902 -0 3. While we ac kno wledg e t he viewp oint in Sloup and James t hat invest igat or y sto ps a re “evo lving enco unt er s,” in the inst ant cas e, t he St at e pr ese nt ed no t es t imo ny o f fac t s t ha t we r e k no wn t o t he o ffice r s a t t he o ut se t o f t he co nve r sa t io n t ha t wo uld
su ppor t a b el i ef tha t de f en da nt h ad com m i tted or wa s a bou t to com m i t a c ri me. Asi def rom defen dant’s act of carry

in g the too lb oxes down the street, t he State points to no additional i nf orma tion that the off i cers posse sse d pri

or to thei r stop of def endan t. T he St at e c o nt en ds t ha t Offic er Le hne r“br iefly d et ain ed de fen da nt t o inve st iga t e p o ss ible crim in al activ ity .” Agai

n, the State did not offer an y f acts known to t he off

ic ers bef ore t hey stoppe d de f

en da nt, othe r th an the i r ob serv ati

on of hi m wal ki ng dow n th e s tree t ca rry i ng two to olboxe s. Furthermore, the undisputed testimony that defenda

nt approached the off

ic ers, as oppos ed to the of f i cers ’ h al ti ng de f en da nt’ s p rogres s, d

oesnot jus ti f

y the que sti oni ng of def endan t wi thout a rea sona

bl e su spi cion of cri m i na l acti vi ty. Thi s court has found def

ense couns el

in eff ective for f

ai li ng to move to suppress evi dence in cases wit h mor e co mpre hensive p ro sec ut ion t est imony tha n t hat pr ese nt ed he re . I n Spann , an off ic er testifi ed that in a nei ghborhood known f

or drug act iv

ity, he observe d the defe

ndan t t ake
m oney f rom a n i ndi vi dual i n excha nge f or an u ni den tif i ed i tem . Spann , 332 Ill . App. 3d at 433, 773 N. E. 2d a t 67. Ho weve r, t his co ur t held in Spann t hat t he de fendant ’s co unse l was ineffect ive for fa il in g to seek suppressi

on of the evi

dence gi ven the absen ce of testim

ony to support a Terry st op , sp ecifically the lack of t est imony from t he o ffi cer “as t o w hat fact or s he fo und s ignifi cant1-04-3686

-24-

regardin g hi s deci si on to approach [the] defen dant and conduct f

urther in vestigation.” Spann , 332 Ill. App . 3 d at 433 -3 4, 773 N. E. 2d a t 66- 67. Co mpar ing t he circ umst ance s in Spann t o t he
cas e at b ar, f

or exa m pl e, the testi mony i n the i nstant ca se d

i d not establ

i sh that the off i cers were aw are of a re port of stol en tool s or i nd i ca te that the of

f i cers ha d a de scri ption of a suspe ct w

hom def endan t resem bl ed. W e ack n owl ed ge th at th e dec i si on to f i l e a moti on to s uppr es s is g en

eral l y con si dere d to be a m atter of tri

al strategy i m m une f rom i ne f f ecti ve ass i stan ce c l ai m s. People v. Deloney , 359 Ill. App . 3 d 45 8, 466 , 8 35 N .E .2 d 10 2, 109 (2 005 ). “Neit her mistak es in t rial st ra t egy no r t he ben efi t o f an ot her atto rney ’s h

in dsight are suff

ic ie nt to dem onstrate t hat the trial

la wyer was obje ctive ly

in competent.” Deloney , 35 9 I ll. A pp . 3d at 46 7, 83 5 N . E . 2d at 10 9. Ho we ve r , in t his
cas e, a su cce ssful mot ion wo uld have kep t t he t oo lboxes fro m evidence and a lso w ou ld have pr ev en t ed t he ad miss io n o f de fen da nt ’s inc ulp at o ry st at eme nt s t o po lice , t hu s d ep let ing t he wh o le of the State’s case. Had the trial court been

unab le to consider the evi

dence obtai

ned i n the i ll egal search or consi

der defen dant’s statemen

ts, t he resul

t o f def endan t’s trial cl early would ha ve b een di f f eren t. Be ca us e a mo t io n t o su pp r es s ha d a r ea so na ble ch an ce o f su cc es s a nd t he t r ial’ s o ut co me l i ke l y woul d have b een d

i f f ere nt h ad the moti on b een m

ad e, def en se cou ns el wa s i ne f f ec ti ve f or fai li ng to fi le such a motion. Therefore, we reverse defendant’s convi ction and remand thi s case to the tri al cou rt to al l ow d ef ense cou ns el to f i l e a moti on to s

uppres s evi

de nc e a nd , de pe nd i ng on the outco me

of the suppressi

on heari ng, f or a new trial . Giv

en that hol din

g, we need n

ot consider defen dant’s argum

ent that, had the Terryst op been s upp or t ed by r eas ona ble susp icion, t he1-04-3686

-25-

offi cers lacked probable cause to search t he too lb oxes.

II. Defenda

nt’s Rem ai ni ng Contenti ons on Appeal A. Stipul ated Testim

ony a t Hearing on De fen

dant’s Fi tness f or Sentencin

g Afte r d efenda nt ’s co nvictio n, t he t rial co ur t held a he ar ing o n defend ant ’s fitne ss t o be sentence d. The heari

ng consisted solel

y of the stipul ated test im

ony of the Stat e’s psy

chi atrist that defend ant was fit for sent encing w ith med icat ions. Defend ant now ask s t his co ur t t o va cat e t he t r ial c o ur t ’s find ing o f fit ne ss , as se r t ing t ha t his c as e s ho uld be r ema nd ed fo ra n ew he ar ing o n his fit ne ss t o be se nt en ce d b ec au se t he co ur t did no t ad mo nish him as t o t he st ipu lat io n a nd as ce r t ain tha t he agree d to i

t, as de f en da nt a rgueswa s req

ui red pur suan t to People

v. Campbe ll , 208 Ill . 2d 203, 802 N.E.2d 1205 ( 2003). Because we ha ve reve rsed def endan t’s convi ction an d sentence and are rem

andi ng based on our resolution of the Terrystop issue, def endan t’s request for a new he ar ing o n his fit ne ss t o be se nt en ce d is mo o t . We mak e n o co mment o n w he t he rt he ho ldin g in Campbe ll appl i es i n the con text of a heari ng on a def endan t’s f i tnes s to be s en

tenc ed.

B. Con sti tuti on al i ty of DN A Sta tute In addi tion, we note defen

dant’s argum

ent that the compul sory ex tract ion of

hi s DNA pursuan t to secti on 5-4 -3 of

the U ni f i ed Code of C orrections ( 730 IL CS 5/5 -4-3 (W est 200 2)), vio lat es his fo ur t h a men dme nt r igh t t o be fr ee o f un r ea so na ble se ar ch es an d s eiz ur es . Ho we ve r , in t he t ime s inc e d efe nd an t as se r t ed t ha t ar gu men t , it ha s be en ad dr es se d b y t he I llino is S up r eme Co ur t in People

v. Garvi n , 219 Ill. 2d 104, 847 N. E.2 d 82 ( 2006) , which upheld the st atu te’s1-04-3686

-26-

constituti onal i ty. W e the ref ore rej ect def

endan t’s c onten tions on th

i s poi nt.

CONCLUSION In sum ma ry, we h old that defen

dant recei ved i nef fecti ve ass is tance of counsel

because a m otion to suppre ss e

vi den ce l i kel y would ha ve suc cee ded g i

ven the lack of

evi den ce that off

i cers had a reasona

bl e articul ab l e su spi cion of cri m i na l acti vi ty w hen they question ed de f endan t. Acco rd ingly, this c ase is remand ed t o a llow t he fili ng o f such a mot ion, and fo r a new t rial if one i s nece ssa ry ba sed on the outcome of the m otion
.