People v. Tyreke H. (In Re Tyreke H.)
89 N.E.3d 914
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Aug. 10, 2016 two plain‑clothes Chicago officers in an unmarked car sought a 17‑year‑old (Tyreke H.) as a potential witness in a homicide; they had his photo and address.
- Officers drove past a bicyclist who matched the photo, stopped their car in front of his path so he would "ride directly to us," and exited wearing vests with badges.
- Officer Ludwich approached within ~4 feet, observed a bulge he described as the silhouette of a handgun in the right front pocket, tapped the pocket, felt a hard metallic object, and asked "What’s this?" Respondent replied "It’s a gun. I need it for protection."
- Officer Ludwich conducted a protective pat‑down, recovered a .22 caliber semiautomatic handgun, inventoried it and arrested respondent; respondent moved to suppress arguing an unlawful seizure and search.
- The trial court initially granted suppression but, after viewing the gun and reconsidering credibility, reversed and admitted the gun; respondent was adjudicated delinquent on AUUW and UPF counts and sentenced to probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officers’ stopping of the bicyclist was a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment | State: encounter was consensual, not a seizure | Tyreke: car blocked his path and forced him to stop; seizure without reasonable suspicion | Court: the stop was a seizure (blocking path + officers exiting car) but reasonable because it was a suspicionless, information‑seeking detention of a potential witness (Lidster reasonableness test) |
| Whether, after the seizure, the protective pat‑down/frisk was lawful without preexisting reasonable suspicion of criminal activity | State: officer saw silhouette of gun and tapped pocket; reasonable suspicion that respondent was armed justified frisk | Tyreke: bulge alone insufficient and frisk required reasonable suspicion of criminal activity | Court: frisk lawful — officer had specific, articulable facts (silhouette + tactile confirmation) giving reasonable suspicion respondent was armed; Johnson supports frisk during suspicionless seizure when officer reasonably suspects weapon |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by sua sponte reopening the suppression hearing and inspecting the gun (and asking for pants) | Tyreke: court became advocate, relied on facts not in evidence (skinny jeans) | State: court properly exercised authority to test credibility and facts | Held: no abuse of discretion; court may reopen and examine evidence to resolve credibility; viewing gun supported officer credibility |
| Whether multiple adjudications for possession should stand (one‑act/one‑crime) | Tyreke: multiple adjudications impermissible for single act | State: initially secured three adjudications | Held: apply one‑act/one‑crime — vacate and merge UPF and one AUUW into remaining AUUW adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (established investigatory stop/frisk standard requiring reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (suspicionless, information‑seeking roadway stops judged by a reasonableness test considering public interest, fit, and intrusion)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (passenger in a traffic stop may be frisked if officer reasonably suspects passenger is armed even absent suspicion of criminal activity)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (factors indicating seizure: multiple officers, display of weapon, physical touching, language/tone compelling compliance)
- People v. Thomas, 198 Ill. 2d 103 (blocking bicyclist’s path with squad car can constitute a seizure)
- People v. Colyar, 2013 IL 111835 (Terry stop may ripen into frisk when officers observe indicia of weapons during a lawful investigatory detention)
- People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530 (distinguishes consensual encounters from seizures; Mendenhall factors are highly instructive)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (passengers are seized during traffic stops)