In re D.L.
2017 IL App (1st) 171764
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Respondent D.L., a 16-year-old, was charged in juvenile court with firearm offenses after police recovered a .380 semiautomatic handgun from his jacket following a foot pursuit and pat-down.
- Officers in plain clothes responded to multiple 911 calls of shots fired on the 117th block of Loomis; dispatch supplied only the location, no suspect description.
- While en route, officers observed D.L. and another male walking quickly about one to two blocks from the reported location; the officer watched D.L. for about five seconds.
- Officer Scaduto ordered D.L. to stop; D.L. ran into an alley, was pursued, detained, handcuffed, and patted down, producing the gun (which showed a ‘‘stovepipe’’ malfunction).
- D.L. moved to quash arrest and suppress the gun as the product of an unreasonable seizure and search; the circuit court granted suppression and the State appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed factual findings for manifest error, legal rulings de novo, and affirmed suppression, holding the stop/frisk were unjustified from inception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (D.L.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officers’ contact was a lawful Terry stop justified at its inception | Totality (shots-fired calls, D.L. and companion walking quickly away, few people present, D.L. fled) supplied reasonable, articulable suspicion | Officer only observed D.L. for ~5 seconds walking away from scene with no description, no bulge, no witness tie; ordering to stop was a seizure without reasonable suspicion | Stop was not justified at inception; officer lacked reasonable suspicion |
| Whether D.L.’s flight converted the encounter into a lawful seizure when he was chased and captured | A seizure occurred only when D.L. was apprehended; flight provided reasonable suspicion to detain and investigate | Flight alone (without other suspicious factors) cannot establish reasonable suspicion; prior show of authority made the initial encounter a seizure | Flight alone did not supply reasonable suspicion here; capture did not cure the initial illegality |
| Whether the pat-down/frisk was lawful (officer reasonably believed D.L. armed & dangerous) | Given shots-fired call and flight, officer reasonably believed suspect might be armed and dangerous, justifying a frisk | Because the stop was unjustified, any frisk was unlawful; officer had no prior indicia D.L. was armed | Frisk was unlawful because the stop was not justified; protective search presupposes a valid stop |
| Whether suppression of the handgun was required | The gun was lawfully discovered during a justified frisk and should not be suppressed | The gun was discovered during an unconstitutional seizure and search and must be suppressed | Suppression affirmed; evidence excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes investigatory stop and reasonable suspicion standard)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (flight as one factor in totality for reasonable suspicion)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (seizure occurs only upon submission to show of authority)
- Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (protective frisk permitted when officer reasonably believes suspect armed and dangerous)
- People v. Thomas, 198 Ill. 2d 103 (Illinois discussion of stop/seizure and submission rule)
- People v. Moore, 286 Ill. App. 3d 649 (officer lacked articulable facts; flight alone insufficient)
- People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530 (factors indicative of a seizure such as presence of multiple officers and commanding language)