Defendant also moved to suppress all of the evidence that flowed from the seizure, arguing that the troopers did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify seizing him. The State countered that no seizure had taken place, and therefore, the troopers were not required to have a reasonable and articulable suspicion. The State further argued that, even if the court concluded that a seizure had taken place, the seizure was justified based on the community caretaking doctrine. The court denied the motion, concluding that a seizure had taken place, and that, under the community caretaking doctrine, the troopers were justified in seizing defendant. The court entered judgment for the State and suspended defendant's driver's license.
Defendant appeals the suspension.
Based on these additional facts, defendant argued that a seizure had occurred. Further, he contended that there were no facts to justify the seizure. Thus, according to defendant, because the troopers had no reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify seizing him, and because the seizure could not be justified under the community caretaking doctrine, the resulting evidence had to be suppressed. The State did not respond to this motion. Defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal or for a new trial, alleging that the State's evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.