People v. Timmsen
2014 IL App (3d) 120481
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Timmsen was convicted after a stipulated bench trial of driving with a suspended license.
- He was stopped after making a legal U-turn 50 feet before a roadside safety check near a railroad crossing.
- The roadblock was at a railroad crossing; the crossing could not be barricaded due to train use.
- The stop occurred at about 1:15 a.m. while Timmsen was eastbound to Illinois on U.S. Highway 136.
- Timmsen moved to suppress evidence, arguing the deputy lacked cause to stop him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was predicated on reasonable suspicion | Timmsen argues no articulable facts supported suspicion. | People contends avoidance of roadblock may justify a stop. | Stop not justified; suppression warranted |
| Whether avoidance of a roadblock can, by itself, justify a stop | Avoidance alone cannot establish reasonable suspicion. | Avoidance, combined with context, can justify a stop. | Avoidance alone insufficient; no reasonable suspicion |
| Role of totality-of-circumstances in determining reasonable suspicion | Totality supports suspicion due to proximity to checkpoint. | Totality does not yield suspicion from a legal U-turn alone. | Totality did not create reasonable suspicion here |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Scott, 277 Ill. App. 3d 579 (1996) (avoidance of roadblock may justify stop only with other articulable facts)
- Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (flight in high-crime area is one factor among totality; not alone)
- Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (2003) (reasonable suspicion requires articulable facts)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (case-by-case totality of circumstances standard)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (reasonable suspicion must be based on objective manifestations)
- Long, 124 Ill. App. 3d 1030 (1984) (checkpoint area analyzed; proximity matters)