In re Elijah W.
2017 IL App (1st) 162648
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- 13-year-old Elijah was approached late at night (around 11:00 p.m.) by four plainclothes Chicago officers in an unmarked SUV in a high-narcotics area. Officers displayed badges and wore bulletproof vests.
- Officers twice called to Elijah to “come here”; Elijah walked to the vehicle and, after being asked what he was doing out, blurted, “I got a couple rocks on me.”
- Officer Meeks handcuffed Elijah and searched him, finding multiple ziplock bags of suspected crack cocaine and heroin in his pockets and inner jogging pants.
- Elijah moved to quash his arrest and suppress the drugs, arguing he was seized without probable cause or reasonable, articulable suspicion and that officers did not have a warrant or known warrant-based authority.
- The trial court found the encounter was not consensual for a 13-year-old but held the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Elijah based on a curfew violation and that the drugs were admissible; Elijah was adjudicated delinquent and placed on intensive probation.
- On appeal the court affirmed, holding (1) a juvenile’s age is relevant to whether an encounter is consensual, and (2) the curfew violation provided sufficient reasonable, articulable suspicion for a Terry stop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer’s commands (“come here”) and conduct created a seizure (i.e., encounter was not consensual) | Elijah: The officer’s repeated calls and approach effectively seized him without consent; a 13‑year‑old would not feel free to leave. | State: The encounter was consensual; Elijah could have walked away until he admitted possession. | The court: Juvenile age matters; under the totality of circumstances a reasonable 13‑year‑old would not feel free to refuse — not consensual. |
| Whether the stop exceeded Terry limits absent reasonable suspicion | Elijah: Officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity; mere presence in a high‑narcotics area and recognition by officers is insufficient. | State: Even if not consensual, officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Elijah for violating Chicago’s curfew ordinance. | The court: Curfew violation provided specific and articulable facts supporting a Terry stop; suppression properly denied. |
| Relevance of juvenile age to Fourth Amendment consensual‑encounter analysis | Elijah: Age makes the encounter coercive; juveniles are more susceptible to authority. | State: Relied on adult‑focused consensual‑encounter cases; did not treat age as dispositive. | The court: Applies J.D.B. reasoning — age is relevant; the reasonable‑person inquiry is modified for juveniles. |
| Whether an outstanding warrant (unknown to officers) could justify the arrest/search | Elijah: Officers did not know of the warrant at time of stop, so it cannot retroactively justify seizure. | State: Trial court noted an outstanding warrant existed and may independently justify arrest. | The court: Did not need to decide because it upheld the stop/search on curfew‑based reasonable suspicion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes constitutionality and limits of investigative stops)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (consensual encounters do not implicate Fourth Amendment if a reasonable person feels free to decline)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (definition of seizure and when Fourth Amendment is implicated)
- J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (a child’s age is relevant to custody/Miranda analysis and informs the reasonable‑person inquiry)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (factors indicating a seizure: number of officers, display of weapon, physical touching, tone/language)
- People v. Gherna, 203 Ill. 2d 165 (distinguishes consensual encounters from Terry stops under Illinois law)
- In re D.L.H., 2015 IL 117341 (Illinois Supreme Court adopting J.D.B. reasoning and modifying the reasonable‑person standard for juveniles)