2011 IL App (4th) 100542
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- April 2010 suppression ruling: trial court suppressed cannabis evidence in Leach's case; State appeals under Rule 604(a)(1).
- Brad DeMoss and Fitzpatrick testified about an investigatory stop of Leach on Jan 14, 2010 for possible curfew violation; Leach was 19.
- Identification check showed no warrants; card reportedly returned after warrant check.
- DeMoss asked for consent to search; Leach allegedly consented by saying, “go ahead.”
- Question at issue: whether Leach’s consent to search was voluntary or tainted by an unlawful seizure; whether the stop ended before consent; court reverses and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent to search was voluntary after the stop ended | State argues stop ended when ID returned; consent valid | Leach argues continued seizure tainted consent | Consent was voluntary; no second seizure; suppression reversed. |
| Whether the initial stop was unlawfully prolonged | State maintains stop ended after warrant check | Defendant asserts continued seizure during consent request | Stop ended when ID returned; no seizure at consent request. |
| Whether Mendenhall factors support a seizure | Absent coercive factors, no seizure | Circumstances suggest seizure via coercive tone/detention | Mendenhall factors largely absent; no seizure. |
| Whether Chestnut controls this case | Chestnut supports taint from illegality | Chestnut distinguishes this scenario | Chestnut inapposite; no taint from initial stop. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Oliver, 236 Ill.2d 448 (2010) (deference to factual findings; de novo for suppression legal ruling)
- People v. Roberts, 374 Ill.App.3d 490 (2007) (de novo review where facts not in dispute)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (seizure and consent after unlawful seizure taint)
- People v. Cosby, 231 Ill.2d 262 (2008) (after stop, consent requires no ongoing seizure; factors considered)
- People v. Brownlee, 186 Ill.2d 501 (1999) (consent possible after stop; limits of seizure and processing)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (defining seizure; presence of Mendenhall factors)
- People v. Chestnut, 398 Ill.App.3d 1043 (2010) (taint analysis; distinguishable facts; not controlling here)
- Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) (fourth amendment not require informing free to go before consent)