Court Opinion

ID: 9861061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:40:18.584108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:09.577387
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COUSINS, dissenting: The majority reverses and remands this case because the majority believes the defendant was illegally seized at the time he was driven from Lakeview High School to the Area 4 police station to answer questions about a murder. The State contends and the common law record in the case sub judice confirms that the defendant failed to include this issue in his post-trial motion. Accordingly, defendant has waived this issue. (People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 176, 522 N.E.2d 1124, cert. denied (1988), 488 U.S. 917, 102 L. Ed. 2d 263, 109 S. Ct. 274.) Perforce, I dissent. However, even were this issue properly before us on appeal, the decision of the trial court denying defendant’s motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because sufficient evidence was adduced at the hearing on the motion to establish that defendant voluntarily accompanied the detectives to the Area 4 police station. The evidence also established that the arrest was made about 8 p.m. after the police had received incriminating evidence against the defendant from other witnesses. When one voluntarily accompanies police officers, he has not been arrested and has not been "seized” in the fourth amendment sense. See United States v. Mendenhall (1980), 446 U.S. 544, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497, 100 S. Ct. 1870; People v. Neal (1985), 111 Ill. 2d 180, 193-94, 489 N.E.2d 845. The majority writes that this case is indistinguishable from Dunaway v. New York (1979), 442 U.S. 200, 60 L. Ed. 2d 824, 99 S. Ct. 2248. I disagree. In Dunaway, the United States Supreme Court wrote: "Petitioner was taken into custody; although he was not told he was under arrest, he would have been physically restrained if he had attempted to leave.” Dunaway, 442 U.S. at 203, 60 L. Ed. 2d at 830, 99 S. Ct. at 2252. In Dunaway, the United States Supreme Court also wrote: "There can be little doubt that petitioner was 'seized’ in the Fourth Amendment sense when he was taken involuntarily to the police station.” Dunaway, 442 U.S. at 207, 60 L. Ed. 2d at 832, 99 S. a. at 2253. In the instant case, however, there was neither testimony nor a court finding that the defendant would have been physically restrained if he had attempted to leave. Also, in the instant case, Detective Rybicki testified and the trial court found that defendant went to the police station voluntarily. The credibility of the witnesses was crucial to the trial court’s ruling and the credibility of the witnesses is the province of the trial court. See People v. Bobe (1992), 227 Ill. App. 3d 681, 705, 592 N.E.2d 301. We should affirm because the trial court in this case considered the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that the defendant was 15 years of age and that a witness had testified that defendant’s intelligence quotient was "below eighty” and that he was "severely emotionally handicapped.” Specifically, in ruling on the motion, the trial court declared: "As a matter of fact, after considering and observing the witnesses who testified and considering their testimony, I find that the defendant, notwithstanding his age, did consent to accompany the officers to the Fourth District. And no seizure occurred. And once the defendant was at the Fourth District, the officers then had an opportunity to speak to one Tina Crawford, and one Tawana Oliver. And they told R[y]bicki *** that they saw the defendant in the lobby of the building prior to the death of the decedent. And the defendant, in fact, had a gun. And he was accompanied by Wayne Appleton and the Codefendant, Silas Sneed; and that the defendant Tony Sneed, had a gun. *** And I further find that while he was at the station, he was not cuffed. He was not in any locked room. And I find that he was free to leave. Accordingly, I find then R[y]bicki had probable cause to effectuate the arrest of the defendant. The arrest of the defendant then took place at the station.” In disagreeing with the trial court, the majority in this case writes: "Defendant was transported to the police station in the back of a squad car and was not given the option of obtaining alternative transportation. Defendant’s DCFS caseworker, who accompanied him to the high school, did not also accompany him to the police station.” 274 Ill. App. 3d at 281. But, should police place persons in the front rather than in the back of a squad car? Also, in this case, what is the relevance of not advising the defendant that he had the option of obtaining alternate transportation? Further, does the record indicate the whereabouts of the caseworker? A salient reason why this court on appeal should not second-guess the trial court is that we might not have access to facts which either were available or could have been made available in the trial court. The record clearly evinces that the trial court had knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances. The testimony at the motion to quash the arrest established that before Detective Rybicki contacted Tony, the detective had received information from Lynette Tiney that, just prior to the victim being found dead, a black male known to her as Tony came to her house asking for the victim. The detective had also learned that Tony was a cousin of "Boo Boo” or Silas Sneed. Also, Silas had told the detective that he had a cousin named Tony Sneed. Detective Rybicki then learned that Tony Sneed was attending Lakeview High School. When Detective Rybicki went to the school, he saw Tony Sneed in the front office. Detective Rybicki testified that he asked Tony Sneed to come to Area 4 and speak to him about a murder investigation, and Tony agreed to do so. Detective Rybicki also testified that, upon arriving at Lakeview High School, he did notify the members of DCFS where he was taking Tony Sneed. Tony Sneed was not handcuffed while being transported to Area 4 police station in the squad car. It was after the interviews of Dwayne Appleton, Tina Crawford, Richard Vortez, and Tawana Oliver that Detective Rybicki, at approximately 8 p.m., arrested Tony Sneed. The appellee contends on appeal that defendant misplaces relianee upon cases like Dunaway v. New York (1979), 442 U.S. 200, 60 L. Ed. 2d 824, 98 S. Ct. 2248, People v. Travis (1984), 122 Ill. App. 3d 671, 462 N.E.2d 654, and People v. McGhee (1987), 154 Ill. App. 3d 232, 507 N.E.2d 33. The appellee states that, in all of these cases, the defendant was either "picked up” by the police as in Dunaway or accompanied the police involuntarily and that this court should, therefore, affirm the trial court’s denial of Tony Sneed’s motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. I agree.