Court Opinion

ID: 9521988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:16:22.153031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:09.791361
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FITZGERALD, dissenting: The facts of this case establish that defendant was walking near a playground on housing authority property known as a “high drug” and “high crime” area at 8:30 p.m. on October 1, 2002, when he was spotted by two police officers on routine foot patrol. The streetlights were on, and the officers agreed that it was “dark enough that there were light and shadow areas.” The officers, who were standing some 50 to 60 feet away from defendant, testified that he was “juggling” an object while he walked; he “had something in his hands and he was switching it back and forth between the two hands.” The object was so small it was concealed in the palm of defendant’s hand and the officers could not see it. The officers observed defendant and then “stepped out of a shadowy area” to reveal their presence. They stated that defendant appeared to be “startled” by them, and upon seeing them, turned his back, placed the item in his pocket, and then turned around and proceeded to walk toward some apartment buildings. Defendant did not alter his original course to avert the officers. Nevertheless, defendant’s act of turning his back, placing the unidentified object in his pocket, and resuming his walk aroused their suspicion, and they decided to intercept defendant at the apartment building and conduct a Terry stop. The officers approached defendant, spoke with him, and eventually advised him that they were going to conduct a pat-down search. Defendant ran, and was ultimately arrested for possession with intent to deliver. The majority holds that defendant was not prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress on grounds of an illegal seizure because such a motion would not have been successful. I disagree. In my opinion, trial counsel’s decision to forgo the suppression motion fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and resulted in prejudice to defendant. The suppression motion should have been successful in light of the facts presented. While it is true that the officers in question only seized defendant and recovered the narcotics he possessed after he attempted to run from them, that fact is of no consequence because the police officers did not, at the outset, possess a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop defendant under Terry. This court has defined the reasonableness standard for police conduct in the context of a Terry stop. In People v. Thomas, 198 Ill. 2d 103 (2001), we stated that a Terry stop was properly based on reasonable suspicion when: “Viewed as a whole, the situation confronting the police officer must be so far from the ordinary that any competent officer would be expected to act quickly. The facts supporting the officer’s suspicions need not meet probable cause requirements, but they must justify more than a mere hunch. The facts should not be viewed with analytical hindsight, but instead should he considered from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the time that the situation confronted him or her.” (Emphases added.) Thomas, 198 Ill. 2d at 110. Applying this standard to the case at bar, I cannot conclude that defendant’s conduct was “so far from the ordinary that any competent officer would be expected to act quickly.” (Emphasis added.) Thomas, 198 Ill. 2d at 110. At the time the officers spotted defendant, he was simply a person walking towards an apartment building holding something very small and unidentifiable in his hand who stopped, turned around, placed the item in his pocket, and continued walking in the same direction. Defendant’s conduct was not sufficiently suspicious to justify a Terry stop under any circumstances, even in a high-crime, high-drug area. An individual’s protection under the fourth amendment is not dissipated simply because he or she enters an area known for criminal activity and a bustling drug trade. It seems unlikely that defendant would have been detained under Terry for such innocuous conduct if he were in a different location. I recognize that reasonable suspicion sufficient to support a Terry stop may emerge from seemingly innocent, noncriminal conduct. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125, 145 L. Ed. 2d 570, 577, 120 S. Ct. 673, 677 (2000). However, “[t]he facts used to support an investigatory detention are insufficient when they describe ‘a very large category of presumably innocent travelers, who would be subject to virtually random seizures.’ ” People v. Anaya, 279 Ill. App. 3d 940, 946 (1996), quoting Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 441, 65 L. Ed. 2d 890, 894, 100 S. Ct. 2752, 2754 (1980). This analysis does not change depending on the individual’s location. Here, the officers acted on a hunch that defendant was up to something more than innocent activity. However, an officer’s hunch, even when borne out, is insufficient to justify a stop under Terry (Thomas, 198 Ill. 2d at 110) and, in this case, resulted in a “random seizure” in violation of defendant’s fourth amendment rights (Anaya, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 946). Accordingly, trial counsel was deficient for failing to file a motion to suppress. JUSTICE KILBRIDE joins in this dissent.