People v. Bozarth
2015 IL App (5th) 130147
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- At ~1:22 a.m. in rural Wayne County, an Illinois State Trooper in an unmarked car followed Bozarth’s lone vehicle after seeing it at a four-way stop; he testified he was “looking for violations.”
- The trooper followed about 1/2 mile; the Pontiac turned north onto a long private driveway and parked behind a pole barn with lights off; the house was ~100–175 yards away.
- The trooper pulled his unmarked car behind the Pontiac (about 1½ car lengths), exited with his flashlight and gun drawn, and approached the driver’s window; Bozarth rolled the window down.
- The trooper asked whether the property belonged to her; he smelled a strong odor of alcohol, returned to his vehicle, activated emergency lights, then asked her to exit and perform field sobriety tests; she was arrested for DUI.
- At the suppression hearing the trooper admitted he had “no real suspicion” when he began following her and that he followed to see if anything “might happen”; he also testified he thought she may be hiding, involved in theft, or making methamphetamine.
- The trial court denied the motion to quash/suppress; defendant stipulated to the evidence at a bench trial, was convicted on one DUI count and placed on one year of court supervision. The appellate court reversed suppression denial, conviction, and supervision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial encounter was a seizure implicating the Fourth Amendment | Encounter began consensual; trooper smelled alcohol only after approach | Trooper’s draw of gun and positioning behind car effected a seizure | Seizure occurred when officer parked behind car and exited with gun drawn; objective show of authority |
| Whether officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify investigative stop | Late-night secluded parking behind barn, lights off, abrupt turn into long private lane justified Terry stop | Officer admitted no suspicion when he began following; followed to see if anything might happen, so no articulable facts justified stop | No reasonable suspicion; officer could not point to specific facts justifying investigatory stop |
| Whether officer acted in community caretaking role | State argued community caretaking could justify following onto private drive | Officer’s testimony showed investigatory suspicions (hiding, theft, meth), not caretaking | Not community caretaking; officer’s thoughts were investigatory and related to crime |
| Remedy for suppression ruling error | Evidence supported conviction; suppression denial should stand | Suppress evidence obtained after illegal seizure; conviction must be reversed | Suppression should have been granted; conviction and supervision reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530 (2006) (three-tier framework for police-citizen encounters and test for seizure in vehicle stops)
- People v. Gherna, 203 Ill. 2d 165 (2003) (seizure analysis is an objective evaluation of police conduct)
- People v. Carrera, 321 Ill. App. 3d 582 (2001) (show of authority can constitute seizure)
- People v. Close, 238 Ill. 2d 497 (2010) (investigatory stop must be justified at inception by specific, articulable facts)
- People v. McDonough, 239 Ill. 2d 260 (2010) (definition and limits of community caretaking doctrine)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (officer may conduct a brief investigatory stop based on reasonable, articulable suspicion)