No. 2-- 06--0556 File d: 10-30-07

_____________

_________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) A pp ea l f rom th e C i rc ui t Cou rt OF ILLINOIS, ) of Du Page Coun ty. ) Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, )

) v. ) No. 05-- CF--1719 ) TOMAS OCA

MPO, ) Honorable ) George

J. Ba kal i s, Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEO' MA

LL EY de l i v ered th e op i ni on of th e c our t: De f en da n t, To mas Oc ampo , w as c har ged wit h po sses sion o f a con trol l ed su b sta n ce wi th intent to de l i

ve r, i n c onn ec ti on wi th an al le ged i nci dent in whi ch polic e observed h

im enter in to a drug tran sacti on and s ubse que nt ly discove re d dr ugs aft er sea rc hing him. On Aug ust 29, 200 5, defend ant fi le d a m oti on to s uppr es s a ss er

ti n g th at h e h ad b een detai n ed wi th out probabl e ca us e, r ea so nable susp icion, or a warrant and that he had b een sea rched wi thout hi s consen

t. The St ate appeal s the jud gme nt o f t he t r ial c o ur t gr an t ing t ha t mo t io n. Fo rt he r ea so ns t ha t fo llo w, we affir m. At t he hea ring on defen

dant's m ot ion to suppress, def

endan t fi rst call ed Detective Rober t Toert e of the Du Page County sheri ff 's of fi ce. Toert e testif

ie d that, o n the af

ternoo n of J

une 14, 2005, he was i

n pl ai n cl ot hesan d on duty con duc ti ng su rv ei l l an ceon a res i denc e w

he n h e w en t to a ne arby gasstation to ref

uel his au tomob i l e. He parked his car atthe last gas pump on the e ast side of the gas station, and he saw a ca r p ar k clo se t o a near by car w ash w hile its dr iver t alked on aNo. 2-- 06--0556

-2-

cellul ar pho ne and lo ok ed a ro und. The driver even tually moved the vehi

cle 15 to 30 feet to the east side of the gas station, so that the car was ap pr o ximat ely 50 t o 6 0 feet fro m To er t e's p os itio n at t he gas pump . T oe rt e t hen sa w de fendant emerg e fro m behind t he ga s st at ion, "wa lk[] ar ou nd the back side of the [c ar], tap[] on th

e tru nk an d [g et] i n on t he pa ss en ge r 's s ide
. " T o er t e s t at ed t ha t he did not not ic e i f def

endan t was carryi

ng a cel lul ar phone. Toertethen "n

ot ic ed as [def

endan t] sat do wn

[def endan t and the d ri ver] looked at each other
an d [ de fen da nt ] sa t ba ck in the seat as though he was tryi ng to rem ove s ome thi ng f rom h i s pa nts." Toertedid n

ot hear ei ther ma n say an y thi ng b eca use the c ar wi

ndow s we re up, b ut the two m

en were "m ovin g as though

the y were ta l ki ng ." H e c oul

d n ot se e a ny thi ng be l ow t he t wo men 's u pp er ar ms because hi s vi

ew was bl ocked by the car do or, an d, accordingl y, h e di d not see the men

exch ange any thin g. When de fendant go t ou t of t he vehicle a fte r "les s t han t wo minute s," he did no t have anything in his ha nd s. De fen da nt wa lke d b ac k b eh indt he ga s s t at io n. T o er t e d id not k now ei ther defend ant or t he dr iver o f the au tomobi l e a nd di d n ot knowof

an y outs tan di ng arres t wa rra nts f or eithe r man. Toerteco nt act ed t he o ffi

cer s who wer e helping him o n su rve illanc e a nd as ke d t he m t o co me to the gas stat i on

b ec au se h e s us pe cte d th at h e h ad j ust wi tn es se d a n arcoti cs tra n sa cti on . Toe rte approached

th e d ri v er of th e a utom ob i l e a n d i n str uc ted th e oth er of f i cersto ap

proach de f en da n t. Fr om hi s v an tag e p oi nt, Toer te c oul d n ot see t he ot her off

ic ers conf ront defendan

t. The offi

cers later t old To er t e t hat t hey had d isco ver ed illegal nar co t ics o n defend ant 's pe rso n. On cr o ss - ex amina t io n, T o er t e s t at ed t ha t he wa s a ss ign ed t o t he un de r co ve rna r co t ics un it at the Du Page County s heriff 's of fi ce and h ad been part o f "[h

]undreds" of un

dercover drug t ra nsac t ions in

side veh ic le s. He estim

ated th at d

ru g dea l er s rem ov e n arcoti cs f rom th ei r p an tsNo. 2-- 06--0556

-3-

pockets ap pr o ximat ely

"[s]even ty percen t o f the ti me ." Toert e testif

ie dthat defenda

nt's l eani ng ba ck in h i s s ea t i n th e m otor v eh i cl e w as "th e sam e" as wh at he had obse

rved i n other in -vehi cl e drug transact ions. Defend ant ne

xt c al l ed De tec ti ve La rry Rog ers of the Du Page Co unty sheri ff 's o ffi ce. He testifi ed t ha t , at ap pr o ximat ely 3 :4 5 p . m. o n Ju ne 14 , 20 05 , aft er r ec eiv ing a call fro m To er t e, he drove to a gas station approxi ma tely one-half m

il e from where he had b een parked. As he arri ved, Toert e i nf ormed hi m that Toerte suspected that defen dant, who was wal

kin g away from a car, had taken pa rt in adr ug t r an sa ct io n ins ide t he ca r . Ro ge r s d r o ve his ca r b eh i nd the ga s station

and parked "aboutfi fty feet ah ead of t he su bj ec t , " b ut he did no t po sit io n his pa rke d c ar in su ch a w ay t ha t it
wo uld ha ve impe de d d efe nd an t 's p r o gr es s o rcu t de fen da nt o ff. Ro ge r s t he n e xit ed his v eh icle and approached

def endan t. Rogers"had [h

is ] badge out in [h

is ] hand an

d [he] told [defen

dant] [he] was
a police off ic er and [he] needed to talk to hi m." Defe ndan t "start ed shaki

ng an d to ld [Rogers] he was sca red." On cross -e x am

i n ati on , Rogerssta

ted th at h e a sk ed de f en da n t f o r ide nt if ic ation an d that defend ant produced a Me xi can d river 's license. Ro ger s re called o n cr os s-e xaminatio n t hat he ident ifi ed himself as a p olice o ffi cer in English and that d efendan t respo nded in

English that he was scared. Rogers

stated t hat defe

ndan t never i ndicated that he did n

ot understand wh

at Rogers was say i ng d uri ng th e en coun ter. Rogers never fri sked def

endan t o r pressed def

endan t against a wall, and, wh

i l e h e w as pr es en t, nei ther he nor any other det ectives threatened defendant. He did not ad vi se defendan t o f h is ri ghts, and, t ho ug h R o ge r s ha d a sid ea rm, it was hidden fr om d efenda nt 's view. Rogers could see n o bulge s in defend ant 's pa nt s o rshir t up o n e nc o un t er ing him, an d R ogers knew

of no ou tsta nd i ng wa rra nts f or de f en da n t' s a rre st.No. 2-- 06--0556

-4-

Af ter two more detective s arriv ed to quest ion de fen

dant, Rogers walked awa

y to ch eck wi th Toertebef

ore r etur ni

ng to defendan

t and t he two d etect iv

es. Al l three were "just

stan di ng a round ," and one of the detectives was h oldi ng a b ag of whi

te powder, whi

ch h e told Roger s h e re cov ered from the front of defendant's pants. Defend ant next called D et ect ive Antho ny Ter ra nova of t he Du Page Cou n ty sheri ff 's of fi ce. He testifi ed that, at approxim

ately 3:45 p. m. o n June 14, 200 5, he r ec eiv ed a c all fr o m To er t e w hile he was workin

g undercover ne ar

the gas station descri

bed ab ove. Whe

n he ar rived at t he ga s st at ion, he got out of his veh

ic le and wal ked t ow ar d T oe rt e, who t old him that he bel ie ved that two o ther de tectives we re with def endan t at t he b ack of the gas station. Terranova saw the two det ectives st anding n ex

t to de f en da n t, and, as he app ro ache d, Ro ger s t old him that defend ant was the suspect wh om Ro ger s had st op ped . O n cr os s-e xaminatio n, T er ra nova re called t hat , w hen he fi rst approached de f en da n t, defend ant was "mot ioning and holdi ng hi s shi rt area ** * w he r e h is p an t s be lt bu ck le w o uld be ." De f en da n t wa s " j ust m ak i n g m ov em en ts t ow ar ds t hat ar ea a ndhold ing, jus t hold ing, hiding t he
area ." Terranova testif

ie d that he bel

ie ved that defe

ndan t was ca rrying eit he rdr ug s o ra w ea po n in that area. Af ter appro xi

mately two mi nutes, an d a s R o ge r s s t o o d t he r e, T er r an o va as ke d d efe nd an t if police could search

hi m , and def endan t agree d. On cross-exam

in ation, Terranova stated that he asked de f en da n t, and def endan t agr eed , in bo t h Englis

h an d Spani sh. W

hen another off

ic er, who was
wea ring a p oli ce

un i f orm , s ea rc h ed de f en da n t, a sm al l b ag gi e wi th four other clear pl

astic b ags, each
co nt aining

a w hit e p o wd er y su bst an ce , fell t o t he ground. On cross-exam in ation, Terranova agreed th at, when he initially

app ro ache d de fendant , t he po lice officer s who wer e wit h defend ant were n ot t hr ea t en ing o rha rming de fe nd an t in a ny w ay.No. 2-- 06--0556

-5-

On r ed ire ct ex amina t io n, T er r an o va ind ica t ed t ha t he did no t r ec alli f Rogers was pr ese nt when T er ra nova ask ed fo r d efenda nt 's co nsent t o p er for m a sear ch. Defend ant next t est ifi

ed o n his ow n behalf. At t he outs et of hi s testim ony, def endan t indi cated that he spoke"[a] li

tt le bi t" of Englis

h. (Def endan t did not use a translator durin g hi s testim

ony a t t he heari ng.) He testif

ie d that, o n Jun

e 14, 2005, as he was wa lki ng be hi nd a gas s

tation, he was encountered

by so meo ne wh o ide nt ified himse lf as a poli ce off ic er. Three more poli

ce off ic ers arriv ed wit hin a m in ute. The fi

rst offi cer showed hi

s badge b ut d i d n ot s ay

th at h e " n ee de d to ta

l k" to de f en da n t. Rather, he asked def

endan t, "what did y

ou buy and what did y

ou gi ve the othe r o ne? " Wit hin two minute s o f the first officer sho wing his bad ge, defend ant wa s s ea rc h ed wi th out c on se

n t, by an officer in plain clot hes. On cr os s-e xaminatio n, defen dant deni ed t ha t he ha d b ee n p ut t ing his han ds by his shirt or belt bu ckle be for e t he o ffi cer sea rc hed him. H e r eca lled t hat t he off ic ers spoke to hi m onl y i n En gli sh , des pi te his tel l i ng th em that he coul

d not un derstand them
. Af ter hear ing ar gument fro m bot h sides, t he t rial co ur t st at ed t hat it d id no t t hi n k t he encounter between

police and def

endan t was consensua

l, b ecause polic e asked

t o t alk t o d efenda nt and "they ma de it clea r by t heir d isplay of au t hor ity t hat t hey need ed t o t alk t o him, t hat he was being stopped for that purpose." The tr ia l c ourt stated t hat the qu es t io n be cam e whether polic e had a reasonabl e and artic

ula ble suspi ci on to jus

tif y the stop, and i

t held ove rits rul in g on that iss ue un t il it was able t o r eview t he r elevant cas elaw. The mem oran dum opi ni on t he t r ial c o ur t su bse qu en t ly i ss ue d on Ma y 8, 2 00 6, s

tate d a s f oll ows , i n perti n en t pa rt: "1. Defe ndan t's i ni tial encounter

wit h [Ro ger s] w as a non- co nsensu al enco unt er . T he courthe ld tha t [Rog ers 's ] disp l ay

of hi s badge to the defen

dant and telli

ng def endan t 'we needNo. 2-- 06--0556

-6-

to tal k'f ol l owe d by

the i m medi atearr

i va l of three ot her off

ic ers on the scen

e would h ave l ed
a re as on ab l e p er son

to co nclude t hat [he was ] no t free t o ig nor e t he o ffi cer and wa lk

aw ay. 2. Ba se d on

th e cre di b i l i ty of th e wi tn es se s th e c our t h el d th at a fter thi s encounter defend ant did co nsent t o t he se ar ch o f his per so n re sult ing in the dis covery of the drug evi dence n ow sought t o be suppressed. The question to be deci

ded i s whether there ex

is ted a basi s f

or a Terry

st op of t he defendan t. The cour t fin

ds the facts to be as f

ollows: 1. Detective Toerpe [ sic ] was at a g as stat ion purchasi ng gas. 2. The officer not ed a car par ked near t he st at ion ca r w ash. 3. The off

ic er observed f

rom approxi

ma tely 50-60 feet away

t he dr iver in t he car al one on his cel

l ph one, lookin

g around the area. 4. T he o ffice ro bse rve d d efe nd an t wa lk from beh in d the station and en

ter t he pas sen ger s i de of

the c ar. 5. T he off

ic er observed def

endan t lean back i n hi s seat appeari

ng to t ake
so mething fro m his poc ket but t he o ffi cer co uld no t see what if anything de fendant
wa s a ctual l y doi n g oth er th an l ea ni n g b ack i n th e s ea t. 6. The off

ic er observed n

o exchan ge of any item s and s aw no m

oney or o ther item s bei ng exchan

ged. 7. The def endan t exi ted the car a nd wal ked a way i n a norm al man ner. 8. Th e of f i cer i ns tructed hi s f el l owofficer s t o s t op t he de fendant in the back of t he ga s st at ion.No. 2-- 06--0556

-7- Det ect iveToerpe [ sic ] di

d n ot t est ify t o a ny prio r k now ledge of t he de fendant or t he driv er of the veh

ic le , nor did he

testify that he was f

ami li ar with the area as a pla

ce for drug transact ions. *** The det ect ive te st ifi ed t hat he felt ba sed on his t ra ining [and] experi

ence t hat what he had obs er ved in t he vehicle w as a dr ug t ra nsac t ion. * * * The cour t fin

ds that t hese observations are not su f f i ci en t to rai se a suspici on of crim in al activ ity . Numerous i

nnocen t constructions can be gi ven to the activ

ity observed here. *** Here, even

acknowledgi

ng the l esser stan dard of reasonab le

articuabl e [ sic ] su spicio n, t he court fi

nds that the off

ic er's observ

ations [were] insufficient t o w ar n [ sic ] a Terry stop. Def endan t's m otion to suppre ss i

s gra nted ." Af ter th e t ria l co ur t de nied t he S t at e's mo t io n t o re co nsid er , t he S t at e filed a c er t ificate o f impairment (see Pe o ple v. Y ou ng , 8 2 I ll. 2d 2 34, 247 (1 980 )) and a t imely not ice o f app eal o n June 5, 200 6. The lone iss ue o n app eal is whet her t he trial cou rt erre d i n gr an ti n g def en da n t' s m oti on to suppress . In co nsider ing a cha llenge t o a t rial co ur t 's ru ling on a moti on to suppress , a rev

i ewi ng c ourt willup ho ld find ings o f hist o ric al fac t mad e by t he t ria l co ur t unle ss su ch fi ndings are aga inst t he
man if est weight of the evi

de nc e. Peo ple

v. Pi tman , 211 Il

l . 2d 502 , 512 (2 004). H owever, a re viewing court remai

ns f ree to dr aw i

ts own legal

concl usions bas ed o n the hi storical facts, an d,
ac co r di ng ly, we review de no vo the ultim ate quest i on of

whether the ev

ide nce sh ould ha ve b een suppress ed b ase d on the f acts prese nted
. Pitm

an , 211 Ill . 2d at 512.No. 2-- 06--0556

1 Though I llino is c o ur t s d ev iat e in l i m i ted ci rcum stan ces f rom i nterpreti ng a rtic l e I, section 6, of our co nsti

tut ion i n l ockstep wi

th th e f our th am endm ent (see People v . Cabal

le s , 221 Ill . 2d 282 (2006)), t he presen

t case presents no reason to devi ate from l ockstep. -8- The f our th amendment t o t he Un it ed St at es Co nst it ut io n p r o t ec t s t he " ' r igh t o f t he pe o ple to be secure i

n thei r persons, houses, papers, and ef fects, agai

n st u nre aso nable sea rc hes a nd sei zures .' " Pitm

an , 211 Ill . 2d at 513, quo t ingU.S . Con st., am en d IV . "S i m i l arl y , ar ti cl e I, se cti on 6, of t he I lli

nois C ons t itu t ion p ro vides t hat t he 'p eo ple sha ll hav e t he r igh t t o be se cu r e in t he ir persons, hous es, p apers

and other po sses sions aga inst u nre aso nable sea rc hes [ and] seizu re s.' " Pitm an , 211 Ill . 2d at 513, quo ting Il l. Const. 1970, art. I , §6. 1 The State 's

f i rs t arg um en t on ap pe al is t hat defend ant was not seized at any time befo re he granted th e of f i cerscon se n t to se ar ch him, and, t her efo re , t heir ac t ions d id no t impli cat e de fendant 's fourth amendm

ent rights. See Pitm

an , 211 Ill. 2d at 523 ("A w ell-set t led, spe cific excep t ion t o t he f our th am endm en t's warran t requi rem en t is a se arch cond ucted p ursuan t to consen

t"). "For purposes of t he fo ur t h a men dme nt , an ind ividua l is 's eiz ed ' w he n a n o ffice r' " by mea ns o f ph ysic al force o r sh owof a ut hor ity, ha s in so me way re st ra ined t he li berty of a ci

tizen." ' " Peo ple v. Gher na , 20 3 I ll. 2d 165, 177-78 (2003), quo ting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434, 115 L. Ed. 2d 389, 398, 111 S. Ct. 2382 , 2386 ( 1991) , quot in g T er ry v. Oh io , 392 U.S. 1, 19 n.16, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 905 n.16, 88 S. Ct. 18 68 , 18 79 n. 16 ( 19 68 )
. "I t is w ell s et t led t ha t a s eiz ur e d o es no t o cc ur simp ly because a la wenf orc ement off

i cer ap pr o ac he s a n ind ividua l an d p ut s q ue st io ns t o t ha t pe r so n if he o rshe is willi ng to listen." Gher na , 203 Ill . 2d at 17 8. So lo ng as a r ea so nable inno ce nt pe r so n w o uld feel free to disregard the po li

ce and go about hi s or her business, t he enc ou nt er is co nsensu al and t he f our th amendment i s n

ot im pli cated. Gher na , 203 I ll. 2 d a t 17 8. "H o we ve r , wh en , t ak ing int o ac co un t ' " allNo. 2-- 06--0556

2 In its b rief , the Stat e notes that t here are three levels of police-ci

tizen encounters: arr ests, sto ps, and encounters t hat inv olve no coercion or detent ion. The Stat e then cites Lue demann for t he prop osi ti on th at "[t]h e third ty

pe of enc ounters are 'consensual encounters,' an

d have al so been -9- t he ci rcumstances sur ro unding t he inc ide nt " ' [ cit at io ns] , t he [ po lice co nd uc t ] wo uld lea d a r ea so nable innoce nt per so n unde r ide nt ical circu msta nces t o be lieve tha t he or she w as no t 'free t o d ecline t he of f i cers ' r eq ue sts orot herwi se termi

nate the encounter' [ci

tation]," the person is

considered sei

zed under t he f ourth am endm en t. Gher na , 2 03 I ll. 2d a t 178 . As t he ana lysis pr esu mes a r eas ona bl e innoce nt per so n, it hinges o n t he o bject iveeval uation of the pol

ic e co nduc t and no t on t he su bject ive perce pti on of the i ndi vi dual approac he d. Gher na , 203 Ill . 2d at 178. Our suprem e court has adopt ed the four- factor t est ar t iculat ed in Un it ed St at es v. Me nd en ha ll , 446 U. S. 5 44 , 64

L. Ed. 2d

49 7, 1 00S. Ct. 1 87 0 ( 19 80 ), f or dete rm i n i n g w h eth er pol i ce activ it y sho uld be ch

aracterized

as a sei zure. Peo ple v. Lue demann , 222 Il l . 2d 530 , 555 (2 006); see Pe o ple
v. Murray , 137 Il

l . 2d 382 , 388-9 1 (199 0) (adopt in g Me nd en ha ll

f actors). Me nd en ha ll

li sts four
exam ple s of ci rcumstances that may

be ind ica t ive o f a s eiz ur e, ev en wh er e t he pe r so n d id not att em pt to le ave: (1) the threateni ng presen ce of several of

fi cers; (2) the di splay

of a weapon b

y a n off i cer; (3) so me ph

y si cal touc hi ng of the pers on of the ci tizen;an d (4 ) th e u se

of l an gua georto ne of v

oice indicat ing t hat co mpliance wit h t he off i cer' s req ues t mi ght b e com

pel l ed. Me nd en ha ll , 446 U.S. at 554, 64 L. Ed. 2d a t 509 , 100 S. Ct. at 1877. " 'In the absence of some such ev iden ce, o therwise inoffensive con

tac t be twe en a m em be r of the publ ic and the polic e cann

ot , as a mat t er of law , a mou nt to a seizure of that perso n.' " Murray , 137 Il l . 2d at 39 0-91, abr oga

te d o n ot her gr ou nds by Lue demann , 222 Ill . 2d 530, quot in g Me nd en ha ll , 446 U.S. at 555, 64 L. Ed. 2d at 509-10, 100 S. Ct. at 1877 ). 2No. 2-- 06--0556

referred to as the 'comm

uni ty caretaking function.' " Wh il e Lue demann doe s state

that t he thi

rd type of encounter

has been referred t o as "co mm

uni ty caretaking" in

such cases as Murray , it does so o nly to ex pl ai n th at the l ab el i s i nc orre ct. The

State 's ref ere nc e to Lue demann inc o rr ec t ly imp lies t he opposite. -10- Reg ar ding t he fi rs t Me nd en ha ll factor, although there was n o evi dence that

the of ficer s threatened

defen dant, the testimony

was undi sputedthat se

veral off i cers conf ronted d ef endan t bef ore he con se n ted to a s ea rc h . Th e S tate atte m ptsto di m i nish the i m portanc e of

the f act tha t other of f i cers joined R og er s in que st ioning d efenda nt shortly after Rogers i

ni tial ly confronted

hi m, b y n ot in g that "t he off i cers ar rived at different t imes and*** only t wo or t hre e o ffi cer s st oo d nea r d efenda nt at one tim e." How ev

er , e v en i f th e addi ti on al of f i cersdi d n ot a rriv e si m ul tan eou sl y an d r em ai n wi th defen dant, the record establi shes the presence

of more than one officer, and at times three o ff icers, duri ng th e en coun ter wi th de f endan t. The Stat e cites Pe o ple v. Ollie , 33 3 I l l . A pp . 3d 97 1, 9 82 (2 00 2) , f

or th e prop osi ti on th at a sei zure willnot al

way s occu r even where s ev eral

off i cers are pr ese nt. In Ollie , f

our of f i cerswen t to t he last known address of a person of i nterest in a m urder in vestigation an

d obtaine d consent to enter the h ome to fi nd th e pers on of

i ntere st. Ollie , 333 Ill . App. 3d at 975. Tw o of th e of f i cerswen t to t he basemen

t, wh ere the y en cou nte red threemen , i

nc l udi ng the de f en da nt, an d, u pon bei ng asked, t he t hr ee men allagreed to acco mpa ny police to t he polic e station to be i nterv i ewed
. Ollie , 33 3 I ll. App. 3d at 975-76. T he def endan t later argued that he had b ee n sei zed at the ti

me the off i cers transport ed

hi m to the station, b eca

use he waspatted down

be f ore be i ng tra ns ported, he wa s n

ot giv en t he o pt ion o f tr ansp or t ing hi m sel f , and up to si

x of f i cers were pres en t at the sc ene. Ollie , 333 I ll. App. 3d at 981-82. Th e appella te court noted that t here was " no evi dence that the addi

tionalNo. 2-- 06--0556

3 The co ur t in Ollie did n

ot directl y ref er to the Me nd en ha ll

factors. -11- off i cers calle d to the scene

had an y i nteraction wha

tsoever with the def

endan t" and that no force was used. O llie , 333 Ill . App. 3d a t 982 . I t t her efo re held t hat t her e had not been a seizu re when t he d efenda nt was transported. T he current case i s easi ly dis tingui shab le on the ground that th e addi tional offi cers did have int er act ion wit h defend ant , t he o nl y suspec t in thei

r im me dia te area. Fur t her , in Ollie , t he pr es en ce o f man y o ffice r s w as t he o nly one of the Me nd en ha ll

factors alle ged to be pr es en

t, 3 whi le h

ere, defendant all

eges the presence o f addi tional f acto rs, which we discuss be l ow. Li kewi se, in People v . Hicks , 183 I ll . App. 3d 63 6 (1989) , anot her case upon wh i ch th e S tate relies, the court hel

d that t here was n

o seizure, b ecause "onl

y one off ic er que st ioned defend ant wh ile another st oo d nea rby, bo th offi cers we r e d r es se d in pla in c lo t he s, ne it he ro ffice rdis pla yed his weapon, nei

ther offi cer touched the defen

dant, and nei

ther offi cer rai se d h i s v oi ceorin dic ated that t he de fen da nt ha d n o ch o ice bu t t o co mply wi th them." Hic

ks , 1 83 I ll. App. 3d a t 643 . H er e, aga in, t he evi dence sh owed that t he addi

tional off ic ers di d in

teract with de f

en dan t, an d the p res en

ceof mult iple officer s is no t t he o nly f act or upo n which d efen

dant reli es i n argui ng that he was s eized. Hic ks , t he n, is a lso dis t ing uis hable fr o m the pres en t case . Tha

t sai d, though the State 's

cas es a re dis tingui shab le , we t ak e t he St at e' s p o int t o be t ha t t he pr es en ce o f mult iple off i cers doe s n ot per se conv ertan en cou n ter i n to a s ei zu re . Th oug h we ag re e wi th that pri nc i ple, the pres ence of

the of f i cers here doe s est ablish at least one fact or indicat ive of co er cion, and w e co nsider it amo ng all t he remai ni ng ci rcumstances. Bef ore moving t o t he se co nd

factor, we note that t he Stat e also ci tes Hic ks f orthe prop osi ti on that the officers' bei

ng i n plain clothes, rat her than in

police un

if orms, was a n in dicium t hat t heNo. 2-- 06--0556

-12-

encounter was no t a s eiz ur e. T he ex ce r pt fr o m Hic

ks quoted ab ov e dem

on strate s th

at, indeed , t he court con sidered the fac

t t hat the off

ic ers were i

n pl ai n cl ot hes i n rul in g that no seizure h

ad tak e n pla ce. Other court s hav

e fol lowed thi s ap p r o ac h by imp lying t ha t t he fac t t ha t po lice we r e n o t in uni f orm made a n encounter le ss coerciv e. See People v . Wicks , 236 Ill . App. 3d 97, 105 (1992) ("D efenda nt was met in t he ves t ibule of his ap ar t ment bytw o pl ai nc l othe s dete cti

ve s a nd not overwhel me d by a num ber of arm

ed uniform

ed poli ce off ic e r s"); Uni

ted St ates v. Nobl es , 69 F.3d 172, 181 (7th Cir. 1995) (" A re as on ab l e p er son

, w h o wa s e n gagi n g i n a ' n orm al ' con v er sa ti on wi th pla in cl ot hed, una rme d o ffi cers, in a crowded airport, whose path was not im peded, and wh

o was sp ec ifica lly

advised that he was f

ree to leave an

d not under

arrest, wo uld f

eel that he was f

ree t o lea ve th e scene") ; Pe ople v . Gil la m , 479 Mich . 253, 263, 734 N.W.2d 585, 591 (2007) ("Of the three off i cers at his do or , o nl

y two we r e in un ifo rm")
. I nd ee d, at lea st o ne fed er al c irc uit ex pr es sly
cons i ders whether poli

ce were i n uni form as a fac t o r indetermi

ni ng the coerci

ven ess of a pol

ic eci tizen encounter. See Un

i ted Sta te s v. Za pa

ta , 997 F .2d 751 , 756 (1 0th C i r. 1993 ). Howev

er, thoughthese c ases see m to rel y a t least i n part on the idea

that police

were not wearin

g police uni forms, the parties h

ave n ot directed us t o a ny aut hor ity discu ssing t he r at ionale fo r c ons ider ing pol i ce a ttire as a re l evan

t factor. We n ot e that the

pri mary ef f ec t of a poli ce uni form is that it iden

tif ie s i ts wearer as a poli

ce off i cer, and, i n that sens e, where an

o ffice rin p lain c lo t he s s ho ws his or her po li ce badge or o therwise ide ntif ie s hi m or hers elf as a pol i ce of f i cer, wedo n

ot dis cern an

y c oercive

dif feren ce from an off ic er in un ifo rm, ba se d o n a t t ir e. Ho we ve r , an o ffic er we ar ing a p o lice un ifo rm may c r ea t e a n a ir of f orm al i ty or m ay proj ect grea

ter au th ori ty than woul d an

of f i cer i n p l ai n c l othe s. Thus, we a

re n ot pr ep ar ed t o ho ld, as a ma t t er o f law , t ha t t he r e is no diffe r en ce be t we en t he co er civ e e ffec t o f fullyNo. 2-- 06--0556

-13-

uniform ed police an d that of plai

nclot hes poli

ce, because police wear uniforms at least pa rt ly for t he purpo se of creati

ng a n a tmos phe re of comf ort fo rt he inn o ce nt an d t r ep id at io n fo rt he gu ilt y. In a ny ev en t, t o t he ext e nt the o ff

icers' attire in

this case rendered the encounter with defen dant any l ess coercive, we hold that t hi s was overborne by the offi cers' ot her, coer civ

e actions. The second and thi

rd Me nd en ha ll

f actors we re not pr ese nt dur ing t he enc ou nt er her e, as t he t es t imo ny ind ica t ed t ha t t he o ffice r s d id not displ ay their wea pons, and there was n

o evi dencethat t he off ic ers phy sically to uched defend ant befo re t he se ar ch. Defend ant does n ot rel y on the se f actors in asser t ing t hat he wa s seize d befo re he co nsent ed t o t he se ar ch. Reg ar ding th e l

ast Me nd en ha ll

factor, Rogers t estif

ie d that he told defen

dant that he "nee ded to talk" with def

endant. The St ate ar gues that a person's in dicatin g that he "needs t o t alk " w it h
so meone is

"i n everyday

l an gua ge*** mere l

y an openi ng to acon v er sa ti on ," an d th eref oreth e S tate urges that a r eas ona ble per so n in defenda nt 's po sitio n wo uld no t have int er pr et ed R og er s's st at ement as a comm

and. We dis agree. Fi

rst, t he word "need" in

dic ates a requirem

ent, and Rogers testif

ie d that he info rmed de fen da nt t ha t he "n ee de d" t o t alk wit h him, no t t ha t he as ke d d efe nd an t if he co uld t alk wit h him. Sec ond , a nd r elat edly, Ro ger s did no t t est ify t hat he wai

ted for def

endan t's assen t after approac hi ng h i m i ndi cati ng a ne ed to tal

k. The Stat e em

phasi zes that the

re is no evi dence that Rogers used a f orceful to ne of v oice wh en he to ld de fen

dant that he "nee ded to t al k to hi m." Th e record establishes

nei ther t ha t Ro ge r s d id

or did no t us e a fo r ce ful t o ne in co nfro nt ing defend ant , a nd t he t rial co ur t made no f i n di n g on th at p oi n t.No. 2-- 06--0556

4 Defend ant argues t hat the St ate has waived an y rel ia nce on the tone of Rogers's voic e because it fai

le d to elic it any

testim ony on tha

t point. Because we

agree wi th defen dant that he was sei zed even assum in g that Rogers's tone was not forceful , we need n ot reach thi s i ssue. -14- Theref ore, weagree

wi th th e Sta te that the c oerc i

ve na ture of the in itial encounter

wit h defend ant was not in

creased by

the tone of Rogers's voice. 4 Howev er, we do not e t hat t he co nt ext of Ro ger s's int ro duc t or y comment s t o d efenda nt in creasestheir coercive nature. Ro gers t es t ifie d that he pulle d hi s car i n f ront o f def

endan t (far enough ahead so as

not to dire ctl y bl ock def endan t's p ath) b ehi

nd th e gas station, the

n exi ted the car, showed hi s badge, an

d to ld de fen

dant t he y ne eded to tal k. Th i s c ond uc t woul d c onv ey to a
r ea so nable pers on

in the sam e position that t he ap pr o ac hing po lice o ffice rha d a rr ive d t o qu es t io n him spe cifically

and at that momen

t. See Uni

ted States v . Wa

rd , 961 F.2d 1526, 1532 (10th Cir. 1992) ( "w e b elie ve t ha t a r ea so nable inno ce nt pe r so n w ho is al one when approached

by law enfor cement off i cers i s m orel i ke l y to feel t hat he or she was

the s peci f i c obj ect of

the of f i cers ' i nqu i ry "), overruled
on ot her gr ou nds by Un it ed St at es v. Lit t le , 18 F.3d 1499, 1504 (10th C i r. 1994 ). Thus, we concl

ude t ha t t he fina l Me nd en ha ll

in dic ium of coercion was al so present in this case. Though we fi nd two of the Mend enha llf actors to i n di ca te a se izu rei n th i s c as e, th e S tate reli es on s ever al add itio nal char act er istics of t he en cou n ter h ere f or i ts argumen

t t hat the encounter did not constitute a seizure. The St at e no t es t hat Ro ger s wa s no t in uniform, app ro ache d de fendant in apu blic a r ea , did no t pa rk h is ca r to b l ock de f en da nt' s p ath , an

d di d n ot info rm de fen da nt o f his Mi randa ri ghts
. Howev

er, as di scu sse d ab ove, there w ere a l so several

i ndi cia of a se izurepr es en t in t his ca se , i

n cl udi n g th e f i rs t an d l ast Me nd en ha ll

factors. The State urges that each of the i ndi vi dualNo. 2-- 06--0556

-15-

in dic ia in this case has b een

h el d e l se wh ere n ot to amou nt t o a seizu re , bu t ou r t est "foc use s o n t he
co er cive eff

ect of police conduct taken as a whole , and not on each particul ar detail of poli ce conduct in isolation." People v . Sto fer , 180 Il l . Ap p. 3d 15 8, 166 ( 1989)
. Our review of al l the c ircum

stances of t his enco unt er , in t heir t ot ality, c onv inces u s t hat a r eas ona ble, inno cent per so n in defenda nt 's po sitio n, conf

ronted b ehi

nd a gasstation by

an off i cer, who was soo n j oined by three o ther o ff

icers, and to ld that

t he o ffi cer "nee ded t o t alk t o him" und er circu msta nces t hat indicat ed t he officer so ught him ou t spe cifically

, w ou ld no t have f

el t f re e to le ave. Ac cordingl

y, we agree w

ith the tri al

court that defend ant was seized befo re he ga ve any co nsent t o s ear ch. The State 's

se con d a rgu men t on appea l is that , e ven if defend ant was seized at so me po int be f ore he granted poli

ce consen

t t o search hi

m, the se iz

ur e di d n ot vi ol ate

de f en da n t' s f our th amendment right s. As not ed, t he fo ur t h amendment and t he Ill in ois Constitution prohibit search es and se iz ur es o nly where t hey are unr eas ona ble. "R eas ona bleness u nder t he fo ur t h amendment ge ne r ally requ iresa war rant suppo rted by pro babl e cause ." Peop l e v . Cox, 202 Ill . 2d 462, 466 (2002 ). Ho we ve r , un de rt he ex ce pt io n c r ea t ed by t he Un it ed St at es Su pr eme Co ur t in Terry v. Oh io , 392 U.S. 1, 20 L . E d. 2d 8 89, 88 S . C t . 1 868 (1 968 ), if a po lice officer "has 'k now ledge of su ffi cient
ar t icu la ble f ac ts 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 nable su sp icio n t ha t t he pe r so n in que sti on ha s com m i tted, or i s abo ut t o c ommit a cr ime' the o ffi cer may briefly

st op and d et ain the pers on to ma ke reasonable i

nquiri es." Pe o ple v. Lo ve , 199 Ill . 2d 269, 275 (2002), quot in g Pe o ple
v. Sm i thers , 83 Ill . 2d430, 434 (1980). Whether a Terry stopi s s upp orted by a re as ona bl e suspici on depends on th e f ac ts k now n to th e of f i cer at th e ti me of t he stop. People v . DiPace , 354 Ill . App. 3d 104, 10 8 ( 20 04 ). " W

h i l e th e f acts s uppor ti n g th e officer's susp i ci

ons ne ed not r i se to the l evel of pro babl e cause, t hey

must be based on m

ore t han a m

ere hunch." Cox , 202 Ill . 2dat 4 67. For t heNo. 2-- 06--0556

-16-

re aso ns bel

ow, we conclude that poli ce here l acked a reasonab le

suspici on of cri

mi nal acti v i ty at t he out set of the stop. At th e ti me th e of f i cerssto pp ed

de f en da n t, To er t e ha d s ee n t he d rive r o f a ca rt alk ing o n his cellul ar tel eph one b ef ore pull in g cl oser to a gas station an d had seen defend ant co me ou t fro m behind t he gas station, wal

k around the veh

ic le , tap o n the trunk, get inside, excha ng e a l ook and a sh ort con ve rs ati on wi th the dri ver, and mov e a s i

f h e w ere ta

ki n g s om eth i n g ou t of h i s p ock et. Toerte testifi ed t hat he co uld no t hear t he co nver sat ion o r se e t he su bject s' hand s du ring the encounter. He did no t t es t ify

that t he area i

n question was a hi

gh-cri me area or t hat police had any incriminating pri orkn owl edgeab out e i

the r s ub j ec t. The Sta

te a rguestha t, gi ve n T oerte 's

tes ti mon y that defend ant 's mov em

en ts were th e s am e a s m ov em en ts Toerte had seen

in previous drug t ransactions, police had am

ple ca use to stop def

endan t. We d i sag ree. Tho ugh d efenda nt 's movement s may have been consi stent with a drug

transact ion, they were al so consistent with any num ber of ot her scenarios. Fu rther , the te sti

mon y h ere d i d n ot i n di ca te t hat po lice had a ny reas on, indepe ndent of d efenda nt 's observed ac t io ns, t o su sp ec t t ha t cr imi na l ac t iv i ty m i gh t ha ve occurred . Pol

i cehe re c am e u pon defend ant pur ely by

coin ci dence, n ot as part of a stakeout of a known drug-tr aff

ic kin g area. In our view, the art icul

able facts provided by

Toer te in this

case gave rise o nly to a hunc h, a nd no more, that defend ant was enga

ged i n cri mi nal acti vi ty. Defe ndan t's observed

actions, e ven w hen tak en together,
aresi m pl y f ar too c om mon , w i th out m ore , to g i v e ri se to a re as ona

bl e suspici on versus onl

y a hunc h
o f c r imina l ac t ivit y. The State rel

i es on two case s, In

re F.R. , 209 Ill . App. 3d 274 (1991) and Pe o ple v. Morales , 221 Ill. App . 3 d 13 (1 991 ), for t he pr op os itio n t hat t he abo ve fact s ca n s upp or t a f i nd i ng of
r ea so nable su sp icio n, bu t bo t h c as es ac t ua lly su pp o rt o ur ho ldin g th at the sto p here was i mproperNo. 2-- 06--0556

-17-

f rom the outset
. In F.R . , a police off ic er testifi

ed that he had obse

rved approxi

ma tely 25 drug transa ct ions at a p ar t icu lar int er se ct io n a nd ha d ma de "a bo ut a d o ze n" ar r es t s t he r e in t he pa st six months. F.R. , 209 Ill . App. 3d at 276. In the offi

cer's ex perien ce, these transactions

in volv ed a car that would pull

up to a corner before t he driv er wou ld m

ot ion to a per so nstan

di ng on the c orner, who woul d a pproach

the c ar an

d i ni tia te a drug trans action. F.R. , 2 09 I ll. App. 3d a t 276 . T he off ic er testi f i ed th at, wh i l e h e w as on du ty at th e i n ter se cti on , he s aw

th e res pon den t wa l k ov er to a car aft er t he dri

ver wav ed to the re spon

den t. F.R. , 209 Ill . App. 3d at 276. The offi cer did n ot see t he respondent and the dri ver exc han ge any thin g and di d not hear an y of thei r conv ersa tion
. F.R. , 209 Ill. App . 3 d at 276 , 2 80. The re spo ndent "imm ediat ely" moved awa y from t he car upo n see ing t he uniform

ed off ic er and hi s pa rtner n earb y . F.R. , 20 9 I ll. Ap p. 3d at 27 6. T he ap pe llat e c o ur t he ld t hat , " [i]n light of t he fact t hat , fr om [ t he officer 's] e xper ience, he kne w dr ug t ra nsac t ions occurred at t his c o rn er wit h juv enile s w alk ing u p t o pa rk ed ca rs , t he e ven t s o f [ F.R. ] co uld le ad h im t o re aso nably suspe ct fro m all the ci rcumstances th at th

e res pon den t wa s c om

m i tti n g or wa s a b out to co mmit a crim

e." F.R. , 209 Ill . App. 3d at 280. T he Stat e contends t hat here, just as in F.R. , poli ce could n ot see any actual excha nge be t wee n defend ant and t he othe r s ub j ec t an d c oul d hea r none of t he ir co nvers ati on . H ow ever , t he co ur t in F.R. em phasi zed that the offi

cer in that case knew that many drug transactions h

ad taken place at the particular in tersection he was

surveilli ng, in t he particular ma nne r in whi ch h e saw t he respondent beh

ave. Here, by

contrast, there was no evi dence ei ther t hat t he ar ea in qu est ion wa s a high- cr ime area or t hat defend ant 's acti ons were con

siste n t wi th
a particular man

ner in which dr ug t ra nsac t ions took p l ac e i n th e a re a. In sh ort, t h e a rti cul ab l e f acts t hat t he ap pellat e co ur t re lied on mo st heavily i n F.R. are noticeab ly

la cki ng i n thi s case.No. 2-- 06--0556

-18-

In Morales , a police officer saw , fr om a d ista nce o f app ro ximately 20 fe et , t he defend ant and another man

approach each other and appe ar to exch ange s ome

thi ng. Morales , 221 Ill . App. 3d at 15. The men's beh

avi or appeared to be a " ' drug type action,' " but the off

ic er did n ot see any drugs
ormoney du ring the excha nge . Morales , 221 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 15. Afte r t he o ffi

cer shined a spo t light
on the two men, they

both wal ked away, and the def

endan t walked "wi

th hi s han ds i n a cupped f ash i on." Morales , 221 Ill . App. 3d at 15. The officer pulled his c ar up ne xt t o t he de fen da nt , ag ain shi ned t he sp ot light o n him, and a ske d t he de fendant wha t had be en ex changed. Morales , 22 1 I ll. App. 3d at 15
. The def

en da n t sh ru gg ed h i s s h oul ders , but, upon subse quently bei ng asked wh

at was in hi s han ds, he di splay

ed a butane l

igh ter fl ui d box
. Morales , 2 21 I ll. App. 3d a t 15. While the defend ant was di splay

in g the box, the off

ic er noticed that the defe

ndan t " 'had a b

ulge in his pocket.'

" Morales , 221 Ill . App. 3d at 15. Thinking t he bulge t o be a firea rm, t he o ffi cer t old t he defend ant to put his han ds on the squad

ca ran d, up o n fe eling t he bu lge an d s ub se qu en t ly re mov i n g th e c on ten ts of the def endan t's p ocket, discovered i

l l egal drugs
. Morales , 221 Ill . App. 3d at 15 -1 6. S i n ce b oth parties on appeal

"se em [ed] to ass

um e" that the s ei

zure occurred when the off

ic er exi ted the squad
car an d a pp roach ed th e def en da n t, t he ap pellat e co ur t add re ssed t he pr op riet y of t he st op at t hat po int in tim e. Morales , 221 Il

l . Ap p. 3d at 17. The c ou rt held t hat t he st op was pr op er , ba sed on t he follow ingar t iculable fact s: " defend ant was hol di ng h i s hands i n a cupp ed m

an ner, clo se t o his bo dy; defend ant had

appe ared to ex ch an ge som eth i n g wi th another man

whi ch [the off

ic er] characterized
as a 'dr ug- t ype ac t ion'; and defen dan t and the othe r m an i m medi atel y sep arated

when the of f i cers arrived." Morales , 221 Ill . App. 3d at 17. The Sta te n otes th at p olice i

n this cas e, just as in Morales , "saw what appeared to be an exch angeb etw een

de f en da n t an d a n oth er i n di v i du al " a n d " di d n ot see wha t wa s e xc ha ng ed , bu t itNo. 2-- 06--0556

-19-

looked like a n ar co t ics t r an sa ct io n. " We dis ag r ee wit h t he St at e' s c ha r ac t er iza t io n o f t he fac t s o f t his
case. Toer

te te sti f i ed not t hat he sa w an e xchang e, but t hat he sa w de fendant and the dri ver m ake
m ov em en ts as i f they

were ma kin g an ex ch an ge . I n fa ct , T o er t e s pe cific ally t es t ified t ha t he co uld not see the two me

n's han ds an d c o uld no t se e t he m ex ch an ge an yt hing
. T his fact dist inguishes t he
cu rr en t ca se fr o m Morales
. The State also argues that "[w]h e re as t he po lice saw t he de fendant in Morales cu pp ing his han ds cl ose to hi s body

after the tran sa cti on , Terranova saw def endan t usin g hi s han ds to co nceal
so mething in

hi s shi rt. " However, Terrano va saw defen dant make these motions after defen dant had been se ize d, n

ot b ef ore , a s was

th e case i

n Morales . Eve

n i f def endan t's f urti ve actions were anal ogous t o t he de fendant 's in Morales , t hos e ac t ions c ou ld no t be usedas a bas is for a stop t hat preceded them. Furth

er, i n th i s ca se, Toert e a ct ua lly t est ifi ed t hat defend ant was not car rying
an y thi ng i n h i s hands up on leav

i ng th e v ehi cle. Fina lly, t he St at e no t es t hat defend ant her e, just like t he de fendant in Morales , " ac te d
ne rvo us ly when approached

by police. " Aga in, unlike in Morales , t he de fen da nt did no t ac t ne rvo us ly
un t il aft er he wa s seize d. Also, in Morales , t he de fen da nt an d h is a ss o cia t e a pp ea r ed t o en d t he ir encounter to try to evade pol

i ce , wh i l e, h ere , de f en da nt d i d n ot beco me evasive a t t he clo se o f the alle ged transaction. As

the trial court noted in i

ts ruli ng, def endan t "exi ted the car and wal

ked away in a normal ma nne r." In short, we belie

ve that al l of th e g rou n dsth e S tate

ci tes to anal ogize Morales actuall y s erve to disti

ngui sh i t from the current case. The cr it ica l diffe r en ce be t we en t his case an d F.R. is that F.R. invo lve d p o lice o bse rva t io ns in
a known h igh -crim e area, whi l e the

pol i ce h erecam e upon defe

ndan t purely by coin ci dence. Outside of t he ir obs erv ati ons of defend ant just befo re his seizur e, po lice had no re aso n t o s usp ect defend antNo. 2-- 06--0556

5 The St at e d o es no t ar gu e t ha t , if de fen da nt wa s s eiz ed wit ho ut r ea so nable su sp icio n, his subse quent consent was n ot tainted b

y the il le gal sei zure. -20- of comm ittin g a crim e. The cri

tical dif feren ce between thi

s case an d Morales

is t ha t t he po li c e in Morales observed m

uch m ore sus pic ious activ

ity by the defe ndan t t han did the pol

ic e i n thi s case. Wi thout t he t ype o f independ ent sus picion in F.R. o rt he t ype o f ad dit io na l su sp icio us be ha vio rin Morales , t he ar t icu lab le fa ct s k no wn t o po lice in this case were i

nsuf fi cien t t o est abl ish a r ea so nable suspici on rather than onl

y a hunc h that defen

dant had com

mi tt ed a cri me . Bec aus e we hold t hat defend ant was sei zed i n vi olation of the fourth am

endm ent, we agree wi th th e tr i al cou rt' s dec i si on to suppress ev

ide nce polic e obtain

ed after sea rc hing defend ant pur sua nt t o his consent. See People v . Brownlee , 1 86 I ll. 2d 5 01, 519 (1 999 ) ( subs equ ent consent to search
ma y be t ainte d whe re poli ce ex ceed Terry ). 5 Accordin

gly , we do not reach th e S tate ' s a rgum en ts regardin g whether the off

ic ers' actions af

ter t he sei zure were j ustif

ie d. For the forego in

g reasons, we affir m t he jud gme nt o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f D u P ag e C o un t y. Af fi rmed. GROM ETER, P.J ., and CA

LL UM, J ., conc

ur.