No. 2-- 08--0171 Fil ed: 2-11-09

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f Win ne ba go Co un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 06-- CF--2082 ) JOHN D. LINLEY, ) Ho no r ab le ) Ronald J. Wh

ite, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

________________________________________ _____ ___________________________________ _ JU STI CESC HO STO K

de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Fo llowing a s ti

pul ate d b en ch tri al i n th e c i rcu i t cou rt of W i n n eb ag o Co un

ty , de f en da n t, Jo hn D. Li nley , was found gui

lty of possessi

on of cocai

ne wi th in tent t o deli

ver (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2) (West 2006)) and was sen tenced to a seven-y

ear prison term . On

app eal, defend ant ar gue s t hat t he trial co ur t er r ed in

denying his pr et rial mot ion t o q uas h his arr est and suppress ev ide nce. We reverse. At t he heari

ng on hi s m ot ion, def endan t t estif ie d that, on J

une 5, 2006 , at ab out 1:25 a.m ., he wasstan

di ng outs i de h

i s home , tal

ki ng to two i

ndi vi dual s wh o weresi tt in g in si de a truck parked at t he end of his driv

eway . The hom

e was l ocated at the corner of North Day A v en ue an d L i b er ty Street i n R ockf ord . At th at ti

me, se ver al po lice car s pu lled up. Po lice officer s emer ged fro m the veh ic le s and c onfr ont ed d efenda nt . T he o ffice r s g r ab be d d efe nd an t an d p lac ed him agai nst the truck. One o f the officer s held d efenda nt agai nst the truck. Another offi cer conducteda pat-down search and removed various items f rom defendant's pan

ts po ckets.No. 2-- 08--0171

-2-

A aron Booker t estif

ie d that he was a s e rg eant wit h t he Winnebag o C ou nt y sheriff's de pa rtm en t. He had worked

for the departmen

t for 131⁄2 years , ha

vi ng previ ousl

y serv ed f or 71⁄2 years as a p atrol

of f i cer w i th the Loves Park poli

ce departmen

t. Bo oker t estif

ie d that he had b een train

ed i n h ow to perf

orm a pat-down search and that he conducted such search

es f requently . On June 5, 2006, at about 1: 25 a. m. , Bo o ke rwa s d isp at ch ed t o inve st iga t e a r ep o r t o f sh o t s fir ed in th e v i ci n i ty of an estab l i sh men t kn own as th e T wo W

h ee l In n . B ooke r had b een di sp atch ed

to t he sa me ar ea in t he past to in

vestigate repor ts of shots fi red, fi ghts, domesti c vi

olen ce, and dr ug ac t iv ity . Boo ker testifi ed that gunshots were frequen tly report ed i

n the area. Af

ter t urni ng onto Nor th Day

Avenue, Booker obs er ved a picku p t ru ck w ith it s eng ine ru nning, s itt ingin t he st r ee t at t he en d o f adr ive wa y. De fen da nt an d a no t he rind ividua l we r e s t an din g o ut sid e t he t ruc k, t alk ing t o so meo ne in the truck. Booker testi f

i ed th at " i t ap pe ared as i f [d ef en da n t] w as con si deri n g to run, so I

ha d t o ap pr o ac h him ratherquick ly, andhe did no t run , so I ad vise d h im to keep his han

ds on the truck where I could see them and started a patdown search." A sked why he b elie ved that defe

ndan t might run, Booker responded, "[t] he

mere ac ti on of back ing awa y from t he truck, t he b ody l anguage, suggestive body la nguage, th at m

ade- -H e too k a

qui ck gl an ce i n th e op pos i te direction of where I was , and then when I say that he decided not to , it's l ike hi s body re l axed as i f to compl y w ith *** wh

at I was doing, wha

t my action was." Wh

il e patting down def

endan t's outer clothing, Bo ok er felt a lump in defend ant 's pocket. Booker ini

tial ly testifi ed onl y tha t the lum p was unusual . He later testif ie d that he bel

ie ved t he lump was "an illegal dr ug o r su bst ance ." Bo ok er re moved t he co nt ent s o f the poc ke t and dis covered

wha t appe ared to b e coca i ne . Booker al

so rem oved , int er alia , a d

i gi tal sc al e f rom de f en da n t' s p ock et.No. 2-- 08--0171

-3-

The trial court 's ruli

ng on the motion to quash an d suppr es s pre se

n ts mi xed questions of l

aw and f act. People v . Lee , 214 Ill. 2d 476 , 4 83 ( 200 5) . " The circu it co ur t 's fi ndi ngs of hi storical fact will be uph

el d on reviewunless t hey are aga inst t he manifest weight of t he evide nce, but 'a r eviewing courtre mai

n s f re e to undertake its own

asse ssment of t he fact s in relat ion t o t he issue s pr ese nt ed a nd may dr aw i ts ownconclusions when decidin g what relief

should be granted.' " Pe opl e v . N i tz , 371 I ll. App. 3d 747, 750 (2007), quo ting Lee , 214 Ill . 2d at 484. The ul tim ate iss ue of whether to quash an d suppres s is s

ub j ec t to de no vo revi ew. Ni tz , 371 Ill . App. 3d at 750. On a motion to quash and suppress, the de f en da nt b ea rs the bu rde n of establ is hi ng a pr ima fac ie case that he was doi

ng nothi ng unus ual to jus tif y the in trusion of a warran

tless s earch or sei

zure. Pe o ple v. Be ve r ly , 364 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 36 1, 369 ( 2006) . If the def endan t makesthe required s

howin g, t he bur den s hifts t o t he St at e t o p re sent evi dence to justi fy

the search

or sei zure. Be ve r ly , 36 4 I ll. App. 3d a t 369 . T her e ap pea rs t o be no dis pute that defendan

t made a pr ima fa cie cas e, t hus o bliging the State to es tab l i sh

i ts j us ti f i ca ti on f ordet aining and s ear ching de fen da nt . T he pa r t ies ar e a lso in agr eement th at T er ry v. Oh io , 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 , 8 8 S . C t . 1 868 (1 968 ), and it s pr og eny su pp ly th e l eg al f ra mew ork f or d ete rm i n i n g th e v al i di ty of th e det ent ion and sea rc h. I n Terry , t he Uni ted States Su

prem e Court held tha

t the publ i c i

ntere st i n e f f ecti ve l aw en f orc em en t mak es it r ea so na ble i

n s ome s i

tua ti ons f or law en f orce men t of f i cers to t emp o r ar ily

de tai n a nd que sti on in div idual s even though pro babl e cause f or an a rrest is lacki

ng. Terry authorizes a pol

ic e of f i cer to eff ect a lim ited invest igat or y sto p whe re t her e exist s a r eas ona ble susp icion, base d up on s pec ifi c and ar t icu lab le facts, tha

t the pe rs on detai ne d has com

m i tted or is ab out to comm

i t a cri me. Terry

, 392 U.S. at 21-22, 20 L. E d. 2dat 906, 88 S. Ct. at 1880. Durin g a Terry stop, an off

ic er may frisk a pe rs onfor weapo ns whe re t he o ffi cer re aso nably beli

eves t hat he is de aling wit h an ar med andNo. 2-- 08--0171

-4-

dangerous i

ndi vi dual . Pe o ple v. Da vis , 352 Ill . App. 3d 576, 58 0 ( 20 04 ) . "T his r ea so na ble be lief is me t if a rea so nably pru dent person, when face d with the c ircum

stances that the poli

ce conf ronted, would ha ve b elie ved tha t hi s s af ety orthe safety of others was in danger." Da vis , 352 Ill . App. 3d at 580. T his co ur t ha s no t ed t ha t "[ w] he t he ran inve st iga t o ry st o p is r ea so na ble is determi ned b y a n obje ctive standard, and onl

y f acts known to t he off

ic er at the ti me of the stop ma

y be cons i dered ." N it z , 371 Ill . App. 3d at 751. In this regard, however, in form ation known

to all of fi cers act in g i n conc ert i s i

m puted to the

off i cer c onduc

tin g the i nv esti gatory stop. Peo ple v. Ew ing , 377 Ill . App. 3d 585, 593 (2007). Where the o ff icer c ond uct ing t he st op act s o n informat ion o r inst ru ct ions recei ved from another off

ic er, the focus is on w het her t he o ffi cer co mmunicating t he i

nf orm ati on or instr uct ions had reas onab l e su spi cion. Ew ing , 3 77 Ill. App . 3 d a t 59 3. If, as i n thi s case, the off

ic er init iating t he stop reli

es on a di spatch, the off

ic er who directed the di spatch m ust have posses sed suf f i cien t facts to estab l i sh

reas onab l e su spi

cion f or the s top. Ew ing , 377 Ill . App. 3d at 594. An in vestigator y s

to p need n

ot be b ased

on p er so nal obs er vat ions by t he o ffi cer co nduc t ing t he stop (or by

those of f i cers whose knowledge i s i

mputed to the off ic er conducting the

stop). See Ni tz , 371 Ill . App. 3d at 751 . A stopmay also b e b as ed

on i nf orm ati on r ec ei ve d f rom mem be rs of t he pub l i c. Ni

tz , 371 Ill . App. 3d at 751. Ho we ve r , t he info rman t 's t ip m us t be ar " 's ome i

nd i ci a of r elia bilit y' " i

n orde r to jus tif y the stop. Ni

tz , 371 Ill . App. 3d

at 751, quo ting Villa ge o f Mu nd ele in
v. Thom ps on , 34 1 I ll. App. 3d 8 42, 850 (2 003 ). "[A] re viewing co ur t sho uld co nsider t he infor mant's ve r ac it y, reliabili

ty, and basi s of knowledge." People v . Sparks , 315 Il l . Ap p. 3d 78 6, 792 ( 2000) . Wh ether a tip i s suf

fi ci ent to suppo rt a sto p is

not deter mi

ned accordi

ng to any rigi d test, but rather depe nds on the totali ty of the c i rcum stan ces . Ni tz , 371 Ill . App. 3d at 751.No. 2-- 08--0171

-5-

The na t ur e o f t he info rman t is r ele va nt . All o t he rt hin gs be in g e qu al, info rmat io n fr o m a co nc er ne d c it ize n is o r din ar ily co nsid er ed mo r e c r ed ible t han a t ip fro m an informant who provides in form ation f or paym ent or o ther

per so nal gain. Ni

tz , 3 71 I ll. App. 3d a t 752 . Ano t her significant f ac torin d et er mining t he r elia bilit y o f a t ip r ec eiv ed fr o m a me mbe ro f t he pu blic is wh eth er , pr i or to conductin g a Terry st o p, t he o ffice ris awar

e of f acts tendin

g to corro borate t he tip. See Ni tz , 371 I ll. App. 3d

at 75 1. T his c o ur t ha s o bse rve d t ha t "[ c] o rr o bo r at io n is esp ecially i mpo rt ant when t he informant is ano nymous [ cita t ion] and is even more i mportant when the a

nony mous ti p is giv en by t elepho ne rather t han i

n person." Ni

tz , 371 Ill . App. 3d at 75 1. Th ere is a uth ori ty , howev er , that a ti p convey ed vi a an em ergency t elepho ne num

ber--a 911 cal

l f or instan ce--should n

ot be consi

dered "t ru ly anonymous ," even if t he calle r does not specif

ic ally ide ntif y h im self or hersel

f. See Pe o ple v. Schaf er , 372 Il l . Ap p. 3d 10 44, 105 0-51 (2 007). Th e rational e i s tha t such a cal l er i s l

i kel y awar e th at, beca use t he au t hor ities o fte n re co rd emerg ency ca lls and have t he mea n s to insta nt ly dete rmine t he teleph one num ber f rom whi ch a c all was p laced , t hey may ther efo re be able t o d et er mine the caller's i de nti

ty . That a

n i nf orm an t has p l ac ed

hi s or he r an on ymit y at r isk may be co nsid er ed in asse ssing t he reli

abi li ty of the ti p. See Schaf

er , 372 Ill . App. 3d at 1050-51, citin g Florida v. J.L. , 529 U.S. 266, 276, 146 L. Ed. 2d 254, 263-64, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 1381 (2000) (Kenn edy , J., concurring, joi ned by Rehn qui st, C .J. ); se e al so Uni

ted S tat es v . Ruidiaz , 529 F.3d 25, 30-32 (1st Cir. 2008) (r eject ing defend ant 's ar gument t hat 911 call rep or t ing gu nfire wa s ent itled t o no weight , w her e t he calle rco nfirmed his t elepho ne number and as su r ed t he 91 1 o pe r at o rt ha t po lice co uld return his ca l l); Pe o ple v. Polan

der , 41 P.3 d 69 8, 7 04 ( Col o. 20 01 ) (" i

t h as b een n oted th at p l ac i n g on e' s a n on y m i ty at ri sk i s a f ac torto be co nsidered in weighin g re li abili ty"); Sta te v . G ol otta , 178 N.J. 205, 219, 837 A.2d 35 9, 3 67 (2 00 3) (" th e S tate st ands on firm co nst itu t ional gr ou nd whe n it t re at s t he anony mousNo. 2-- 08--0171

-6-

9-1-1 ca ller in

t he sa me fa shio n a s it wo uld an i dentif ie d ci tizen in form ant who al erts the poli ce to an em ergen t si tuati on"). Even when info rmat ion co mes fro m an ide ntif ie d i n f orm an t, " i t re mai n s th e c as e th at a mi ni mum of corrobor ation or ot her veri fi cation of the rel

ia b i l i ty of the i nf orma tion i s req ui red." Thom ps on , 34 1 I l l . A

pp . 3d at 8 51 . Th

ere is s om

e a uth ori ty for the vi

ew that "les s rigorous co rr o bo r at io n" is required when the tip concern s an i

mm in ent threat t o publi

c saf ety. See Schaf

er , 372 I ll. App. 3d at 1052-53 (and cases ci ted therein); accord Co mmo nw ea lt h v. Ca mpb ell , 69 Mass. App. 212, 217, 867 N.E. 2d 759, 763 (2007) (" ' "Particularl y w hen a poli ce off ic er receiv

es i nf orm ati on co nc er ning an ind ividua l wit h a gu n, t he t es t fo rde t er mining r ea so na ble su sp icio n sh o uld in cl ude consideration of the possi bi li ty of the posses si on of a gun, an d the government's ne ed

f or prompt in vestigation" '

"). But see Ri

v era v . Sta

te , 771 So. 2d

1246, 1248 (Fla. A

pp. 200 0) (r eject ing t he St at e's a rg ument t hat "t he dan ger al l eged i n the ti p [tha t two veh i cles w ereex changi

ng g unf i re on a pub l i c road] w as

so g re at th at i t j us ti fi ed the stop even

wi thout a sh

owi ng of rel i ab i l i ty" ); Ba ptiste v . Sta te , 995 So. 2d 285, 303 (Fla. 2008) (speci fi cally endorsi ng Ri vera 's reas oni ng) . Mi ndf ul of th es e p ri n ci pl es , w e c on si

der the c i rc um sta n ce s of th e p re se n t ca se . Th

e S tate seeks to jus

tif y the in vestigator y s

to p and f risk f or weapons on the basis of a com bi nation of (1) i nf orm ati on that wa s rel

ay ed to the a

rresti ng of f i cer b y a di spa tche r and (2) ma

t t er s p er so na lly observed b y or k n own to Booker. It i s u se f

ul to sort ou

t the f orm er f rom t he lat t er . B oo ker had no personal kn o wle dg e t ha t sho t s ha d b ee n fir ed in the v i ci ni ty w here he en co un t er ed de fen da nt . I n t his r eg ar d, t his c as e is di sti

n gui sh ab l e f rom th e two ca se s on

wh i ch th e S tate pri nci pal l y reli es: Pe o ple v. Men dez , 371 Ill . App. 3d 773 (2007), and People v . Del awar e , 314 Ill . App. 3d 363 (2000 ). In Mendez and Del awar e , the a rresti ng of f i cers actual l y he ard gu nshots. Mendez , 371 Ill . App. 3d atNo. 2-- 08--0171

-7-

774; Del awar e , 314 Ill . App. 3d at 365 ; s eealso People v . Rojas , 359 Ill . App. 3d 392, 408-09 (2005). Because Booker was mere l y res pon di ng to a dis patch, the Stat e was obl

ige d to show that whoever ordered t he di spatch acted base d on reli abl e i nf ormation. See Ew ing , 377 Ill . App. 3d at 593 -94. T he St at e fa iled t o mee t t ha t bu r de n; it o ffer ed no ev ide nc e w ha t so ev er co nc er nin g th e source or nature

of the i nf orma tion und erl y i ng th e di spa tch. We are l

eft to speculate why

the dis patch wa s b roadc ast. Perh

apsanother of

f i cer h eard gu nfir e, bu t wa s a t t en din g t o o t he rdu t ies an d c o uld not inve sti gate. M ore li

kel y, perh aps, the i nf ormation cam

e from a ci vi li an. If tha

t is the cas e, however, his or h er iden tity and the ci rcum stan ces und er wh i ch the i nf orma tion wasgi ven a re unkno wn. We do not kno w whe ther th e i nf orm ant was a co ncer ned c itizen o r a member o f the crim in al mi li eu; wh ether the report was m

ade i n person or by

teleph one; wh et he r t he infor mant ide ntif ie d hi ms el f or hersel

f; whether the i nf orma nt had a h i story of prov i di ng rel i ab l e i nf orm ati on or a reputat ion f

or givi ng f al se reports; whether the report, if ma de by teleph one, was m ade to an em ergency t ele pho ne number ; whet her t he infor mant p er so nally heard g unsho t s o r w as r elaying secondhan

d in form ation; a nd whether the report was contemporaneous wi th the gunf

ire. Per Schaf er , t he threat t o publi

c saf ety i mpl ic ated by a report of gunf

ire m igh t relax the n

eed f orcorro boration, but, in

our view, i

t do es not permi

t reliance on a report lac kin g any i nd i ci a of re l i ab i l i ty wh atsoever. T hus , t he

mere f ac t tha t Booker wasdi sp atc he d to i nv es ti ga te a rep ort of gu n f i reca rri es l i ttl e or n o we i gh t i n th e a pp l i ca ti on of th e tota l i ty-of -the- ci rc um sta n ce s te st. The qu es t io n t he n be co mes wh et he rwh at Bo o ke rpe r so na lly ob se rved an d oth er f ac ts pers on al l y kn own to Booker g ave ri

se to: (1) a reasonabl

e suspi ci on that defenda

nt had com

mi tt ed orwa s a bo ut t o co mmit a c r ime (just ify ingan i nve stigatory stop) and (2) a reasonabl e i nf erence that de fendan t was arm

ed and dan

gerous (justi fy

in g a lim ited search

for weapons). Al

though BookerNo. 2-- 08--0171

-8-

encountered

defen dant in a hi gh cri me area at a lat e ho ur , d efenda nt wa s d o ing no t hing pa r t icu lar ly un us ua l. He was m

erely standi ng out side a p ri

v ate home- -his o wn plac e o f resid ence , a s it t ur ns ou t -- t alking to ot her people . Presencein a res ident ial area
-- even o ne kno wn as t he sit e o f frequ ent crim in al activ ity --at a l ate hour is n ot enough to warrant an in vestigator y s

to p. See People v . Ki

pfer , 356 Il l . Ap p. 3d 13 2, 138 ( 2005) . In de ci di ng to stop def

en da n t, Booker r elie d on defen

dant's b ody l

anguage, whi

ch sugges ted to Bo o ke rt ha t de fe nd an t mig ht t ry t o flee. Fl ight fro m an officer is a significant fact or t o be considered

as pa rt o f t he t o t alit y o f t he cir cu mst an ce s, alt ho ug h it is no t su fficie nt in an d of i tse l f to supp ort an inve stigatory

stop. People v . Ray , 3 27 I ll. App. 3d 9 04, 910 (2 002 ). Her e, how eve r , de f en da n t di d n ot actual l y f l ee or ev en atte m pt to do so. T he m

ost t hat can b e said is

that Booker in ferred that defenda

nt bri efl y c ontempl

at ed flee ing . T he o nly sp ec ific fa ct s t ha t Bo o ke rco uld ide nt ify in supp or t of t he infere nce w er e t hat defend ant st epp ed ba ck fr om t he t ru ck a nd ma de a qui ck gla ncein the d irect ion o ppo site Bo ok er . Alt hou gh an e xper ienced po lice officer mightbe better equi pped than a ci vi l i an to recogni

ze the prec

ursorsof f

l i ght, b y an y stan dard t he pr edict iveva

l ueof defend ant 's behavio r is meag er at best . P er haps defend ant t hou ght abo ut ru nning awa y. Pe rha ps he mer ely co nsid er ed wa lkin g a wa y. I t is a lso po ss ible that he was si mpl y a tt em pting to determi

ne wh at had b rought t he polic e to his h

ome. We note that an encounter bet wee n a po lice officer and a pr ivate citize n t hat involves no de ten ti on or co ercion does n

ot im pli cate the constitutional

righ t t o be free f

rom un re as o na ble seizures. Peo ple v. Lue demann , 22 2 I l l . 2d 53 0, 5 44 (2 00 6) . H owev er , the c i tizen i s f re e to t er min ate t he enc ou nt er and go about his or her busi

ness . See Ki

pfer , 356 Ill . App. 3d at 140. Ob vio us ly, one 's unw ill

ingne ss to con sen

t to an en coun ter wi th pol i ce c an not, i ps o f ac to , create aNo. 2-- 08--0171

-9-

le vel of suspi ci on that would jus

tif y a Terry st o p; we r e it ot her wise, t he co nsensu al element of t he encounter would b e m

eani ngless. Acc ord Ki

pfer , 356 Ill . App. 3d at 140. Ult imat ely, however, the propriety of the stopis o f pu r ely a ca de mic int er es t in this case; e ven if the stop co uld b e uphel

d, the prot ective search

o f d ef en da n t' s c l othi n g c oul d n ot. A uth ori ty to eff ect a Terry

stop do es not auto ma

tical ly confer authori

ty to fris k an i ndi vi dual . Da vis , 352 Ill . App. 3d at 580. As no t ed, t he officer must have r eas on t o be lieve tha t t he de t ained individua l is armed a nd d angerous. Moreover, t he off ic er must be abl

e to po in t t o part ic ula r facts that jus

tif y the s earch . Si br on v. N ew York , 392 U.S. 40, 64, 20 L. Ed. 2d 917, 9 35, 88 S . Ct. 1889, 19 03 (1968 ). Thus, even if we assum

e, fo r t he s ak e o f ar gu ment , t hat t he la t ene ss o f t he h o ur , t he c har ac t er o f t h e ne i gh bor hood , an d B o o ke r 's b elie f t ha t de fen da nt co nsid er ed flee ing co uld giv e r ise t o r ea so na ble su sp i ci on of cri m i n al ac ti v i ty , without rel i ab l e i

n f orm ati on th at s h ots h ad b een f i re d i n th e v i ci n i ty there cert ain ly were no particul ar facts that would h

ave l ed Booker t o reasonabl

y b elie ve that defend ant was arm

ed and dan gerous . Accordin

gly , the fri sk was i

mproper and the ev

ide nce retriev

ed as a resul t o f the s earch m

ust be suppressed. For t he fo re go ing

re as on s, we

re v er se th e j udgm

en t of th e c i rc ui t cou rt of W i n n eb ag o Co un

ty denying defen

dant's m ot ion to quash an

d suppress. W i

th out th e s uppr es se d ev i den ce , the S tate ca nn ot pr o ve bey ond a reas onab l e doubt that def endan t posses sed

cocai ne wi th i nten t to deli ver. Ac co r di ng ly, werev

ers e d ef en da nt' s c onv i cti on w i thou t rem an d f ora new tria

l. See Ki pfer , 35 6 I ll. App. 3d at 143. Reversed. McL AR EN an d BUR KE, J J., con cur.