In re Jarrell C.
2017 IL App (1st) 170932
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- On July 22, 2016, police in an unmarked car observed 18-year-old Jarrell C. near a known gang hangout; they followed him into a currency exchange where he was waiting to buy a bus card.
- Officers told Jarrell to come over, to lift his shirt, and to place his hands on a railing; they then searched him and recovered a handgun and cocaine.
- Officers testified they stopped Jarrell because he was "holding" his waistband/crotch area in a manner they associated with concealing a gun; Jarrell denied putting his hand in his waistband.
- There was an outstanding juvenile arrest warrant for Jarrell from a prior matter, but no evidence the officers knew of that warrant before or during the stop and search.
- The trial court found the stop lacked reasonable suspicion but denied the motion to suppress under the attenuation doctrine because of the existing arrest warrant; Jarrell was adjudicated delinquent.
- The appellate court reviewed the suppression ruling and reversed, holding the warrant did not attenuate the taint because it was not known to officers before the discovery of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jarrell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to effect an investigatory stop based on Jarrell holding his waistband/crotch area in a high-crime area | Officer observations and experience gave reasonable suspicion that Jarrell was concealing a gun | Mere clutching of waistband/crotch or hands in pockets is innocent conduct; no particularized suspicion | Court: stop lacked reasonable suspicion; trial court’s factual finding upheld |
| Whether an existing but unknown arrest warrant attenuated the unlawful stop and justified admission of the gun and drugs | The valid arrest warrant severs causal chain and permits admission of evidence (relying on Strieff reasoning) | Warrant did not attenuate because officers were unaware of it before or during the search; no intervening circumstance | Court: warrant did not attenuate because it was not discovered or known to officers prior to discovery of evidence; suppression required |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (attenuation factors for breaking causal chain)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (investigatory stop standard)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (warrantless search presumptively unreasonable)
- Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (discovery of outstanding warrant may be an intervening circumstance)
- People v. Pitman, 211 Ill. 2d 502 (standard of review for suppression rulings)