Opinion ID: 3135575
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: analysis

Text: Scope of Review Before considering the propriety of the suppression order, we address an argument defendant raised in his reply brief concerning the scope of our review. As noted above, underlying the appellate court’s opinion was its analysis of section 6–303 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/6–303 (West 2006)). Defendant contends that the parties never raised a statutory construction issue involving section 6–303 and that the appellate court erred by raising this issue sua sponte. See People v. Hunt, 234 Ill. 2d 49, 56 (2009) (appellate court’s sua sponte consideration of issues not considered by the trial court and never argued by the parties constituted error). Defendant further argues that because the theory under which a case is tried cannot be changed on review (Hunt, 234 Ill. 2d at 56), the State cannot raise before this court an issue improperly considered by the appellate court. For these reasons, defendant contends that we should not consider the meaning of section 6–303. We disagree. In the trial court, the State argued, inter alia, that the vehicle stop was lawful, despite the existence of the RDP. On appeal, the State developed this argument, maintaining that the statutory scheme governing the issuance of RDPs places the burden on the revoked driver to produce the RDP issued to him, but does not dissipate the officer’s reasonable articulable suspicion that the license of the driver has been revoked. The appellate court agreed with the State when it concluded that “the mere existence of an RDP does not extinguish an officer’s reasonable and articulable basis to believe the officer has witnessed a revoked driver traveling on a highway of this state.” 389 Ill. App. 3d at 233. Though the appellate court relied on section 6–303, a section of the Illinois Vehicle Code to which the State did not expressly refer in its appellate brief, section 6–303 is part and parcel of the RDP statutory scheme on which the State generally relied. Moreover, section 6–303 defines the offense at the heart of this case–driving while license revoked–and any holding in this case must be consistent with the statute. Thus, the appellate court did not err in considering this section of the Illinois Vehicle Code and the statutory construction issue, which the parties have fully briefed, is properly before us. -4- Motion to Suppress When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we will accord great deference to the trial court’s factual findings and will reverse those findings only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence; but we will review de novo the court’s ultimate decision to grant or deny the motion. People v. Richardson, 234 Ill. 2d 233, 251 (2009); People v. Sutherland, 223 Ill. 2d 187, 196-97 (2006). Defendant here does not challenge Officer Belski’s testimony regarding the circumstances leading up to the vehicle stop. Where no dispute exists as to the underlying facts, our task is to determine the legal effect of those facts, i.e., whether the trial court’s ultimate ruling that suppression was warranted was correct. Accordingly, our review proceeds de novo. People v. Bunch, 207 Ill. 2d 7, 13 (2003). To the extent disposition of this case turns on our review of the appellate court’s construction of section 6–303 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/6–303 (West 2006)), review of that issue also proceeds de novo. People v. Jones, 214 Ill. 2d 187, 193 (2005). The law is settled that a vehicle stop constitutes a “seizure” of “persons” within the meaning of the fourth amendment. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 255, 168 L. Ed. 2d 132, 138-39, 127 S. Ct. 2400, 2406 (2007); Bunch, 207 Ill. 2d at 13. Accordingly, vehicle stops are subject to the fourth amendment’s reasonableness requirement (Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 135 L. Ed. 2d 89, 95, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1772 (1996)), which we analyze under the principles set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968) (People v. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d 262, 274 (2008); People v. Moss, 217 Ill. 2d 511, 526 (2005)). Under Terry, a police officer may conduct a brief, investigatory stop of a person where the officer reasonably believes that the person has committed, or is about to, commit a crime. Terry, 392 U.S. at 22, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 906-07, 88 S. Ct. at 1880; People v. Gherna, 203 Ill. 2d 165, 177 (2003); People v. Thomas, 198 Ill. 2d 103, 109 (2001). The investigatory stop must be justified at its inception. Terry, 392 U.S. at 19-20, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 905, 88 S. Ct. at 1879. “[T]he police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 21, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 906, 88 S. Ct. at 1880. The officer’s suspicion must amount to more than an -5- inarticulate hunch (Terry, 392 U.S. at 22, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 906, 88 S. Ct. at 1880; Gherna, 203 Ill. 2d at 177), but need not rise to the level of suspicion required for probable cause (United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 104 L. Ed. 2d 1, 10, 109 S. Ct. 1581, 1585 (1989)). In judging the police officer’s conduct, we apply an objective standard: “would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure  ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the action taken was appropriate?” Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 906, 88 S. Ct. at 1880; accord Thomas, 198 Ill. 2d at 109. The Terry standards have been codified in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/107–14 (West 2006)), and we apply the same standards in determining the propriety of investigatory stops under article I, section 6, of our state constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §6). Thomas, 198 Ill. 2d at 109; see also People v. Caballes, 221 Ill. 2d 282, 313-14 (2006) (reaffirming court’s position that the search and seizure clause of our state constitution should be interpreted in limited lockstep with the search and seizure clause of the federal constitution). Defendant does not dispute that where a police officer has a reasonable, articulable basis to believe that a driver is unlicensed, the officer may lawfully conduct a vehicle stop. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663, 59 L. Ed. 2d 660, 673, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 1401 (1979). Defendant argues, however, that where, as here, the officer is aware that the driver has been issued an RDP, the officer must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the driver is driving outside the terms of his or her RDP in order to effect a lawful vehicle stop under Terry. Relying on the Johnson opinion, defendant maintains that “[w]hile Officer Belski may have guessed that Sunday afternoons are times when many RDPs prohibit driving, that hunch alone is not enough to give rise to reasonable suspicion.” In Johnson, the appellate court held, under facts virtually identical to the present case, that the police officer lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the defendant’s vehicle on a Sunday afternoon based on the officer’s suspicion that the RDP did not permit the defendant to drive on Sundays. Though recognizing that the officer was likely correct in believing that Sunday afternoons are times when many RDPs prohibit driving, the Johnson court determined “that insight was not enough to give rise to reasonable suspicion.” Johnson, -6- 379 Ill. App. 3d at 712. The appellate court observed that while the limited purposes for which an RDP may be issued make it “less likely” that a person with an RDP will be driving within its terms on a Sunday afternoon, they do not make it “improbable.” Johnson, 379 Ill. App. 3d at 713. Thus, the Johnson court affirmed the trial court’s order quashing the defendant’s arrest and suppressing the evidence. Johnson, 379 Ill. App. 3d at 716. The State responds that Johnson was wrongly decided. Echoing the view of the appellate majority here, the State maintains that if, under section 6–303 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/6–303 (West 2006)), the State is not required to prove that a defendant was driving outside the terms of his or her RDP in order to prove the offense of driving while license revoked, a fortiori, the officer need not suspect that the person was driving outside the terms of his or her RDP in order to effect a lawful vehicle stop where the officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion that the driver’s license has been revoked. We agree with the State and overrule Johnson. Section 6–303 of the Illinois Vehicle Code defines the offense of driving while license revoked: “(a) Any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on any highway of this State at a time when such person’s driver’s license, permit or privilege to do so or the privilege to obtain a driver’s license or permit is revoked or suspended as provided by this Code or the law of another state, except as may be specifically allowed by a judicial driving permit, family financial responsibility driving permit, probationary license to drive, or a restricted driving permit issued pursuant to this Code or under the law of another state, shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.” 625 ILCS 5/6–303 (West 2006).2 In People v. Turner, 64 Ill. 2d 183, 185 (1976), this court held that under section 6–303, the elements of the offense are “(1) the act 2 Although driving while license revoked is generally a Class A misdemeanor, the presence of other circumstances, including prior violations (as is the case here), could result in a felony conviction. See 625 ILCS 5/6–303(d), (d–2), (d–3), (d–4), (d–5) (West 2006). -7- of driving a motor vehicle on the highways of this State, and (2) the fact of the revocation of the driver’s license or privilege.” Though Turner involved a much earlier version of section 6–303, that version, like the one applicable here, contained an RDP exception. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 95½ , par. 6–303 (“[a]ny person who drives a motor vehicle on any highway of this State at a time when his drivers license  is revoked , except as may be allowed by a restricted driving permit , shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor”). Turner did not, however, expressly determine whether the RDP exception constitutes an additional element of the offense of driving while license revoked, or is a matter of defense. The rule applicable to such determinations is well established: “[I]t is the rule in this State that where an act is made criminal, with exceptions embraced in the enacting clause creating the offense, so as to be descriptive of it, the People must allege and prove that the defendant is not within the exceptions so as to show that the precise crime has been committed. In other words, where the exception is descriptive of the offense it must be negatived in order to charge the defendant with the offense. On the other hand, if the exception, instead of being a part of the description of the offense, merely withdraws certain acts or certain persons from the operation of the statute it need not be negatived, and its position in the act, whether in the same section or another part of the act, is of no consequence. (People v. Saltis, 328 Ill. 494; People v. Callicott, 322 id. 390; People v. Talbot, 322 id. 416; People v. Butler, 268 id. 635; Sokel v. People, 212 id. 238.) Exceptions are generally mere matters of defense. (Sokel v. People, supra; Beasley v. People, 89 Ill. 571; Lequat v. People, 11 id. 330.)” People ex rel. Courtney v. Prystalski, 358 Ill. 198, 203-04 (1934). Accord People v. Green, 362 Ill. 171, 175-76 (1935); People v. Handzik, 410 Ill. 295, 306 (1951); People v. Laubscher, 183 Ill. 2d 330, 335 (1998). Applying this rule, our appellate court in People v. Ellis, 71 Ill. App. 3d 719, 720-21 (1979), held that the exception in section 6–303 “merely withdraws persons with restricted driving permits from the operation of the statute and in no sense is descriptive of the offense.” -8- In 2001, the appellate court revisited Ellis, and again held that the exceptions in section 6–303, including the RDP exception, are not part of the substantive offense of driving while license revoked, and rejected the defendant’s argument that the State must prove that the defendant did not have an RDP issued by another state. People v. Rodgers, 322 Ill. App. 3d 199, 201-03 (2001). The Rodgers court reasoned: “[I]f a defendant merely drives on a public highway while his license is revoked, he commits what is generally a criminal act. That is, in the typical case, the commission of the crime does not depend on the inapplicability of the exceptions. Thus, the exceptions do not bear on the elements of the offense; instead, they state only that particular defendants (those with, e.g., restricted driving permits) are protected from liability. Because the exceptions merely withdraw certain persons from the scope of the statute, the State has no burden to disprove them.” (Emphasis in original.) Rodgers, 322 Ill. App. 3d at 203. We agree with Ellis and Rodgers that the RDP exception in section 6–303 is not an element of the offense of driving while license revoked. Thus, we reaffirm our holding in Turner that the elements of the offense are “(1) the act of driving a motor vehicle on the highways of this State, and (2) the fact of the revocation of the driver’s license or privilege.” Turner, 64 Ill. 2d at 185. Defendant conceded at oral argument that the RDP exception is not an element of the offense, but contends that the elements of the offense are only relevant at trial and do not bear on whether the vehicle stop was lawful under Terry principles. We disagree. If, under Terry, we must consider whether, based on the facts available to him, Officer Belski had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant committed or was about to commit a crime, then the conduct that constitutes the crime is relevant. Accordingly, to effect a lawful Terry stop of defendant on suspicion of driving while license revoked, Officer Belski was required to have a reasonable articulable suspicion that defendant was “driving a motor vehicle on the highways of this State” and that defendant’s license was revoked. Turner, 64 Ill. 2d at 185. Officer Belski was not required to have a reasonable articulable suspicion that defendant was not in compliance with the terms of his -9- RDP, as that is not an element of the offense. We do not imply, however, that a police officer cannot effect a lawful Terry stop without first identifying a particular crime or considering whether the circumstances he or she observed would satisfy each element of a particular offense. Terry does not require that level of specificity or suspicion. An officer, of course, may not ignore facts which would dispel suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. To illustrate, “if the officer knows that the owner of a vehicle has a revoked license and further, that the owner is a 22-year-old male, and the officer observes that the person driving the vehicle is a 50- or 60-year-old woman, any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity evaporates.” Minnesota v. Pike, 551 N.W.2d 919, 922 (Minn. 1996). Accord Armfield v. State, 918 N.E.2d 316, 321 n.7 (Ind. 2009); People v. Jones, 260 Mich. App. 424, 430 n.4, 678 N.W.2d 627, 631 n.4 (2004). To further illustrate, if the officer is aware that the terms of the driver’s RDP allow him to drive at the time and place in question, then no basis exists for executing a Terry stop, in the absence of any traffic violation or suspicion of other criminal wrongdoing. Defendant directs our attention to section 6–205 of the Illinois Vehicle Code, which sets forth the purposes for which an RDP may be issued. Section 6–205 provides: “[T]he court may recommend and the Secretary of State in his discretion  may  issue  a restricted driving permit granting the privilege of driving a motor vehicle between the petitioner’s residence and petitioner’s place of employment or within the scope of the petitioner’s employment related duties, or to allow transportation for the petitioner or a household member of the petitioner’s family for the receipt of necessary medical care or, if the professional evaluation indicates, provide transportation for the petitioner for alcohol remedial or rehabilitation activity, or for the petitioner to attend classes, as a student, in an accredited educational institution .” 625 ILCS 5/6–205(c) (West 2006). Defendant maintains that in light of these established purposes for the issuance of an RDP, unless Officer Belski was aware of the terms of the RDP at the time of the vehicle stop, the officer “could not know -10- whether or not the defendant was committing a crime.” Terry, however, does not require that the officer “know” that the driver is committing a crime. As the Supreme Court explained: “The Fourth Amendment requires ‘some minimal level of objective justification’ for making the stop. [Citation.] That level of suspicion is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence. We have held that probable cause means ‘a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found,’ [citation] and the level of suspicion required for a Terry stop is obviously less demanding than that for probable cause [citation].” United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 104 L. Ed. 2d 1, 10, 109 S. Ct. 1581, 1585 (1989). See also Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301, 309, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 2416 (1990) (recognizing that reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause with respect to the quantity, content and reliability of the underlying information). Moreover, the mere possibility that the RDP issued to defendant allowed him to drive at the time and place that Officer Belski observed him does not negate the officer’s reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving on a revoked license. Police officers are “ ‘not required to rule out all possibility of innocent behavior’ ” before initiating a Terry stop. 4 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure §9.5(b), at 481 (4th ed. 2004), quoting United States v. Holland, 510 F.2d 453, 455 (9th Cir. 1975). As our own appellate court has aptly observed: “The purpose of a Terry stop is to allow a police officer to investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion and either confirm or dispel his suspicions.” People v. Ross, 317 Ill. App. 3d 26, 31 (2000). See also Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229, 238, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 1325-26 (1983) (plurality op.) (“investigative methods employed should be the least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the officer’s suspicion in a short period of time”); accord United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686, 84 L. Ed. 2d 605, 615-16, 105 S. Ct. 1568, 1575 (1985). Here, Officer Belski was aware that the license of the registered owner of the vehicle had been revoked and the person driving the vehicle strongly resembled the photograph of the owner. Viewed -11- objectively, the facts available to Officer Belski were sufficient to create the reasonable, articulable suspicion necessary to effect a Terry stop. Although Officer Belski was also aware that defendant had been issued an RDP, that fact alone would not cause reasonable suspicion to evaporate, and Officer Belski could conduct a brief investigatory stop to verify or dispel his suspicion that defendant was driving on a revoked license. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court reversing the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence and remanding for further proceedings. Affirmed.