Court Opinion

ID: 9529676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:53:15.78743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:53.420787
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The majority finds that the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence because his consent to a search of his home was the fruit of an illegal detention. To reverse the trial court’s ruling, it appears the majority disagrees with the trial court on credibility issues. State Trooper Roll testified that he was a member of the Response Team. The team first took Simmons into custody and noticed another subject, defendant, in the porch area. Police ordered defendant to the ground and, according to Roll, he was on the ground just long enough to put the handcuffs on him and to check defendant’s pockets, “a couple minutes.” Defendant was then walked over to and sat upon a stump, which, according to the trooper, was for defendant’s comfort. Defendant was in handcuffs for about 15 minutes for the reason that “the house had not been cleared yet. The intelligence that had been gathered was that there was some possibly [sic] booby-traps in the yard, in the shed, in the residence. So at that time we just had the subject secured for their [sic] safety as well as our own, until the house was totally cleared and the yard was cleared.” The team leader makes the determination that the house is cleared, “usually made over our radio.” “At that point I unhandcuffed Mr. Hess, and I advised him that other officers would be taking care of him.” Officer Todd, of the Edgar County sheriff’s department, testified that he talked to defendant and told defendant that he would like to talk to him “after the response team had finished their work and after he was unhandcuffed.” Todd further testified that he had no intention of arresting defendant, defendant never indicated that he was in discomfort, and defendant rode in the front seat with Officer Wilson to defendant’s residence some three miles away. Officer Wilson testified that, if defendant were in custody, he would have been in handcuffs and been in the backseat. Officer Wilson did not smell urine as they rode in the car. Defendant testified that he lived approximately four to five miles south of Kansas, he was handcuffed while the house was being secured and searched, and that he was handcuffed “[f]or [his] own protection.” I agree with the majority that “[a]n investigatory detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the detention.” 314 Ill. App. 3d at 310. In Heitschmidt, the detention was 4V2 hours. As stated, in the interest of safety and pursuant to section 108 — 9 of the Code, the police have the authority to use appropriate force to safely secure the premises, including detaining defendant. The trial court heard the testimony of all the witnesses, had the benefit of written authority, and entered a- five-page letter setting out its findings and decision. I suggest that Brownlee, Summers, Heitschmidt, and section 108 — 9 of the Code support the ruling of the trial court. I would affirm the trial court in its rulings.