People v. Lake
28 N.E.3d 1036
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- In June 2012 police officer Terry McCord, patrolling a public-housing complex after reports of gunshots, observed defendant Trevon Lake acting as a perceived "lookout." McCord followed, tapped Lake on the shoulder, identified himself, and asked his purpose and name.
- After Lake identified himself, McCord recalled information that Lake was known to carry guns and saw a bulge at Lake's waist; McCord conducted a pat-down and seized a handgun with defaced serial number.
- Lake (then 17) was charged with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (multiple counts) and defacing firearm identification marks; he moved to suppress the gun arguing the stop/search violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The trial court denied suppression; at a stipulated bench trial Lake was convicted of one count of aggravated use of a weapon (under §24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(I)) and of defacing identification marks; he was sentenced to time served and probation.
- On appeal Lake argued (1) the initial encounter and subsequent pat-down were an unconstitutional seizure and (2) §24-1.6(a)(1),(a)(3)(I) is unconstitutional and inseverable from portions invalidated in People v. Aguilar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police conduct (tap, blocking path, questioning) and subsequent pat-down constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure requiring suppression | Police: encounter was consensual; tap was a minimal, socially accepted method to gain attention; after ID and viewing a bulge, officer had reasonable basis to pat down for weapons | Lake: tap and blocking his path turned encounter into a seizure; his compliance was submission to police authority, making the pat-down and seizure unlawful | Court: encounter was consensual until ID; tap and questioning not coercive; once officer learned ID and saw bulge, he had reasonable basis to conduct a pat-down; suppression denied |
| Whether pat-down was reasonable to check for weapons | Police: officer had objective facts (high-crime area, conduct, prior info he carried guns, visible bulge) supporting belief Lake might be armed | Lake: pat-down followed an unlawful seizure so was invalid | Court: pat-down permissible under Terry doctrine once officer had reason to believe detainee was armed and dangerous |
| Whether §24-1.6(a)(1),(a)(3)(I) is unconstitutional because inseverable from portions invalidated in Aguilar | State: Aguilar invalidated only the Class 4 flat ban §24-1.6(a)(1),(a)(3)(A) form; prohibitions on minors possessing handguns remain historically rooted and constitutional | Lake: Aguilar’s invalidation of the outdoor-carry prohibition undermines the statute as a whole; provisions are intertwined and inseverable | Court: Aguilar left minors-exception intact; possession of handguns by minors falls outside Second Amendment protection; §24-1.6(a)(1),(a)(3)(I) is constitutional |
| Whether Aguilar requires extension of Second Amendment protection to under-21 possessors | State: Aguilar limited to the specific Class 4 form; courts have historically excluded minors from Second Amendment protection | Lake: Aguilar’s holding about outdoor carry undermines conviction element that he carried outside the home | Court: rejects extension; follows Aguilar and later Mosley—possession/carry by minors is outside Second Amendment scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (found Illinois' flat ban on carrying ready-to-use guns outside the home unconstitutional)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized individual right to bear arms for lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (held Second Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (set out factors for determining whether a police-citizen encounter is a seizure)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (consensual encounters do not become seizures unless police convey a message that compliance is required)
- People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 (Ill. 2013) (invalidated the Class 4 form of §24-1.6 as a flat outdoor-carry ban but did not extend Second Amendment protection to minors)
- People v. Mosley, 2015 IL 115872 (Ill. 2015) (confirmed that subsections prohibiting firearm possession or carrying by persons under 21 do not violate the Second Amendment)