People v. Qurash
2017 IL App (1st) 143412
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Ramsey Qurash was charged with possession of diazepam and possession of cannabis (after prior conviction); trial court convicted and sentenced him to concurrent 3‑year terms.
- Officers in an unmarked car saw Qurash walking at night; officer rolled down window and said “come here.” Qurash then dropped a white bottle into snow; officers recovered that bottle and two others from his person containing cannabis and diazepam.
- Defense counsel moved to suppress after Qurash testified (surprising his counsel); he argued the officer’s “come here” amounted to a seizure without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
- Before trial the court ordered two BCX evaluations (psychologist and psychiatrist). Both examiners found Qurash fit to stand trial (one opined fitness with continued medication). Court received the reports and set trial shortly thereafter.
- Trial court credited officers’ testimony, denied the suppression motion, found Qurash guilty, and denied motions for new trial and reconsideration. Qurash appealed, challenging the denial of suppression and the absence of a fitness hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an officer saying “come here” from a seated patrol car constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure requiring reasonable suspicion | The State argued the encounter was consensual — the words were a request, not a command, and no Mendenhall factors (weapons, multiple officers exiting, physical contact, compelling tone) supported a seizure | Qurash argued the words “come here” were a show of authority that restrained his movement and thus constituted a seizure unsupported by reasonable suspicion | Court held this was a fact question; trial court reasonably found the words were a request and the encounter consensual; suppression denial affirmed |
| Whether trial court erred by not holding a fitness hearing despite earlier BCX activity and courtroom behavior | State pointed to BCX reports finding fitness (one with meds) and the court’s prompt setting of trial as indicating no bona fide doubt | Qurash argued the court’s prior concern about his courtroom outbursts and ordering of BCXs created bona fide doubt triggering a fitness hearing | Court held ordering BCXs and obtaining summaries did not itself create bona fide doubt; examiners found him fit and the court implicitly found no bona fide doubt by setting imminent trial; no error in failing to hold further fitness hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (Plurality opinion discussing factors indicating a seizure)
- Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (Fourth Amendment "free to leave" test and role in policing expectations)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (encouraging compliance with police orders; flight and seizure analysis)
- People v. Tilden, 70 Ill. App. 3d 859 (request to approach did not automatically constitute a Terry stop)
- People v. Dall, 207 Ill. App. 3d 508 (officer command to “stop” during pursuit constituted a seizure)
- United States v. Simmons, 560 F.3d 98 (2d Cir.) (officer orders and when they effect a seizure)
- Strange v. Commonwealth, 269 S.W.3d 847 (Ky. 2008) (directing defendant to move to police cruiser constituted seizure)
- Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App.) (officer’s command‑like request and spotlighting supported finding of seizure)