Court Opinion

ID: 9541087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:22:37.813928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:52.091413
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, dissenting: I agree with the proposition that “[mjerely approaching a parked vehicle and asking questions of the occupants does not constitute a seizure.” Erby, 213 Ill. App. 3d at 662, 572 N.E.2d at 348. However, where the officer approaches the vehicle because he has concerns about criminal activity, the officer is not “merely approaching the vehicle.” “The ‘communityt-jcaretaking’ function must be completely divorced from any initial suspicion of criminal activity.” People v. Simac, 321 Ill. App. 3d 1001, 1004, 748 N.E.2d 798, 800 (2001). The community-caretaking function is “ ‘totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.’ ” Murray, 137 Ill. 2d at 388, 560 N.E.2d at 312, quoting Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 37 L. Ed. 2d 706, 715, 93 S. Ct. 2523, 2528 (1973). Did the officers in this case approach the vehicle to admire its tires, to ask directions, or to make small talk with the occupants? No. The trial court made a finding of fact: “the officers approached specifically as a result of their observation of the youth of the passenger and the suspicion that underage drinking was taking place. This does not appear to be in the nature of a community[-]caretaking function; clearly the officers intended to investigate and determine whether underage drinking was occurring.” The community-caretaking function is not a fall-back position when the evidence is insufficient to sustain a Terry stop. Rather, the concept recognizes that just as ordinary citizens sometimes make contact with individuals who turn out to be violating the law, police officers may do the same. Police officers have duties other than criminal investigation, and sometimes the performance of those duties will lead to a chance encounter with a potential criminal. The fact that the officer did not have probable cause or reasonably articulable suspicion to justify the encounter is not a problem, because the encounter was a chance encounter. That argument does not work in this case.