Court Opinion

ID: 9721225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:52:41.19342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:24.119044
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE LEIGHTON specially concurring: This case involves the most common kind of police-citizen confrontation in our motorized society: the occasion when a peace officer has reason to believe that a motorist has committed a minor traffic violation. Statistics tell us that minor traffic violations occur millions of times each year in our community. And when they do, they bring the police arid the citizen into contact in a way that increases the importance of constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures. Therefore, 1 concur in all that' has been said by Mr. Justice Hayes for the court, but add these words of my own to emphasize what, to me, is the guiding rule of our decision. - The traffic violation which Officer Vuko thought defendant was committing on October 12, 1971, was punishable by a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment for not more than 10 days. (Ill. Rev. 1969, ch. 95%, par. 3-833.) If was an offense for which the law did not require custodial arrest; and in this community, by a practice of long standing, Officer Vuko would have given defendant a traffic ticket, fhe equivalent of a civil summons. What is more important, however, is that according to Officer Vuko, he had no intention of making an arrest; nothing had been done by defendant to cause Vuko alarm or make him fear for his safety. Notwithstandirig, Vuko decided to “pat-down” defendant’s person. This, or fhe “frisk,” as it is sometimes called, was a search. (Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 1868.) And, since by Vuko’s own testimony it was without justification, it was illegal. “Under our system suspicion is not enough for an officer to lay hands on a citizen.” (Henry v. United States (1959), 361 U.S. 98, 104, 4 L.Ed.2d 134, 80 S.Ct. 168.) Therefore, fhe gun which Officer Vuko said he found on defendant’s person was not admissible in evidence; it should have been suppressed by the trial court. ~ For these reasons, I would emphasize that when a peace officer stops a motorist for a traffic violation which does not require custodial arrest and fhe peace officer does not intend to make one, the “pat-down,” “frisk,” search or touching of the motorist by the officer is illegal, unless there is,some act or conduct, or some fact or circumstance which causes the peace officer reasonably to believe it necessary to “pat-down,” “frisk,” search or touch the motorist in order to protect himself or those around him. People v. Watson, (1972), 9 Ill.App.3d 397, 292 N.E.2d 457; compare People v. Evans (1973), 13 Ill.App.3d 588, 301 N.E.2d 106.