*1 tell. The Commission was entitled to find that petitioner was not coerced into signing the settlement contract. regard
With to petitioner’s argumént about the absence of a medical report, Commission could did, as it properly accept, the arbitrator’s testimony that he would not have the settlement approved contract with- out a medical report attached to being and order petition and that he followed the proper procedure. In that regard, we note that petitioner has never challenged the fact that he had been examined Dr. Smith and Dr. In event, Busch. any us, under the circumstances before even the absence of an attachment of a medical would report not void the set- tlement contract on the basis fraud. There anwas inaccuracy sеttlement contract which recited that petitioner had returned to work. misstatement, however, That does not suggest even the existence of fraud. The Commission’s decision that petitioner failed to establish fraud in the execution of the settlement contract is not to the mani- contrary weight fest of the evidence.
Accordingly, judgment circuit court of Cook con- County affirmed. firming the decision of the Commission is Judgment affirmed.
WEBBER, P.J., LEMDBERG, KASSERMAN, JJ., BARRY and concur. ILLINOIS,
THE PEOPLE THE Plaintiff-Appellee, OF STATE OF DYER, CLIFFORD A. “TONY” Defendant-Appellant. Fifth District No. 5 — 85—0050 5, 1986. Opinion filed March *2 HARRISON, J., dissenting. Wells, of Defender’s Appellate State Larry E. Blue and R. both
Randy Office, Vernon, appellant. of Mt. for (Kenneth Boyle, R. Adams, of Hillsboro Attorney, State’s
Barbara Torricelli, Appellate Ser- Norris, Attorneys Ken all of State’s Stephen E. and Commission, counsel), People. of for the vice of the court: opinion
JUSTICE WELCH delivered armed rob- charged with A. Defendant, “Tony” Dyer, Clifford and of bery Following armed violence. trial circuit court jury Montgomery County, was found guilty sentenced concurrent terms of 15 for armed years robbery and 30 years armed violence. Defendant appeals. affirm.
The pertinent facts trial adduced at are as follows: Sheriff Tom testified at ap- that he notified prоximately 10:23 on p.m., that a clerk at Broth- July Fuller ers Liquor Store had been He re- gunpoint. robbed sponded the call and arrived there by 10:25 was told that p.m. white two males wearing masks had entered store from the back door, threatened the clerk shotgun, with a taken from cash money register, and fled out back door. He that testified he remained at the store less than a minute to hear the version of the сrime. victim’s He then immediately proceeded to patrol directly road the store —the Fillmore Road. miles Blacktop Approximately two store, south he saw a vehicle’s The vehicle head- taillights. south, ing only from the crime scene. This was the vehi- away vehicle cle he saw in the of the crime. He the area was vicinity explained virtually stores, other undeveloped there were no restau- rants, or bars in the area. traveling testified that the vehicle was on
that intersected with the E. Blacktop, Fillmore 1500 When he arrived *3 at 1500 E’s intersection with onto Blacktop, the Fillmore he turned E and drove toward the other vehicle rate of excessive speed. He lost of the it He momentarily sight vehicle as crested a hill. continued south to and was met what he be the same ve- by percеived he hicle had been following, traveling at an slow rate excessively he and speed. Deputy Unser stated that continued down the road the private turned west onto a order to and follow up drive back vehicle. He into driveway further testified that when he turned a out, recent backed observed track marks where vehicle had confirm- ing original his conclusion that the had him had passed vehiсle which turned around. He the car’s license number radio relayed by check because he direction a reversing considered the car’s suspicious He his squad lights move. turned on car’s red and the car. Deputy and approached testified that he the vehicle on foot three observed white males in the car. He he did not his stated gun drawn but the to vehicle his requested place driver exit the and on the the Smith recognized hands roof of car. He the driver as Jeff the Dyer. and other occupants Seago “Tony” as Paul and Clifford it in. Smith and Deputy asked for his driver’s license called Moore, Kim- Deputy Unser also called for assistance. Sheriff Deputy re- him. Sheriff Moore arrived assist bro, and Hamrock to then drove car He nothing. the found ceived to search permission clerk, stop. returnеd to the store, to the and liquor spoke to three men and drove clothing notes on the worn the took might store, informed him that she where one of the clerks liquor the re- The sheriff to one of the be able robbers. identify togo men if they and the would to the scene of the asked turned at them. to clerk have a look Store let the the Fuller Brothers The go?” can we identify anybody, “If clerk doesn’t queried, Dyеr car. squad and led the the store agreed way sheriff The sheriff then showed followed the Smith car. Kimbro behind as the clerks, to one identified Mr. Smith three men and she during his face nylon stocking man who had worn a dark over as Mr. had the same build police Dyer She also told the robbery. during the ski carried gun the man who worn mask and 2, 1984, men and on jail July three were taken robbery. of armed and armed were charges robbery violence filed. 12, 1984,
Bills of indictment on those were charges July returned the defense motion to the arrest for quash probable and filed a lack of August 3, cause and on A hear- suppress resulting evidence 1984. 13,1984, ing was held on the motion was denied. September and 7, 1984, December a jury On and defendant was tried before guilty and found of armed robbery and armed violence.
Defendant trial appeals, contеnding deny- court erred lack cause ing defendant’s motion to the arrest for quash probable asserts suppress and evidence that resulted therefrom. Defendant arresting that the officer car in which the defendant stopped the fur- on with no passenger suspicion bare arrested defendant to form ther facts cause. must that the the time note trial court’s as to initially findings ambiguous. actual arrest are Therefore we occurred somewhat provide now the court’s in their and examine findings entirety
will them. on
“Having considered the evidence at the presented motion to the memo- arrest evidence and quash suppress fol- randum in of said the court makes the support motions 2) arrest and lowing 1) the defendants were under findings: *4 Deputy cause for arrest. probable there was defendants’ which, under the оn a pursuit county took route of rural circumstances, likely suspects the route most taken Deputy within minutes of occurrence. took pursuit followed it. familiar Being very Unser saw one vehicle and only area, with the rural when the around in a vehicle turned coun- lane, try Deputy judgment made a vehicle was tak- ing evasive action and In the vehicle. vehicle were the three charged defendants in this cause. court concludes Unser had probable cause to the vehicle. Did the stop officer probable cause to hold the defendants for further investigation? The court concludes the officer had reasonable suspicion that these defendants had committed a crime. An armed robbery had occurred in a small rural unu- county—an sual occurrance for this county. Found neаr the Hillsboro [sic] scene were three Litchfield residents familiar to enforce- law ment officers. Each of the three defendants history has criminal One has a activity. previous conviction for armed rob- These bery. defendants and their criminal propensities are well among fact, known law enforcement in the county. This com- bined with traveling defendants on a rural road at that time of evening from their away communities of residence and all other circumstances, can lead to no other conclusion that the offi- but cer had cause to probable detain these defendants. are not considering proof beyond a reasonable doubt simply proba- ble cause. The court finds the officers conduct constitutionally acceptable and denies the motions. Clerk tо notify counsel.” We note that the initial broad of the court indicate that findings defendants were under arrest and that probable there was indeed cause for the However, eventual arrest. the court exactly fails state when the arrest occurred. In the explanation given by detailed court, the court stated that Unser had cause to probable the vehicle. This indicates that the cоurt referring to an investi- gatory stop, asks, not an arrest. Next the court rhetorically “Did officer have probable cause to hold the defendants for further investi- gation?” again This statement indicates that the court at this point still considered detainment to be an not an ar- investigatory stop, rest. The court concluded that eventually police probable cause to detain the for further find susрects questioning. Thus we we must address (1) two issues: whether arrest, and, if proper, (2) whether there was cause for probable so, when it occurred.
We first consider the permissibility investigatory stop. Terry Ohio L. With 392 U.S. Ed. 2d S. Ct. 1868, recognized excep United States Court limited Supreme tion to the cause which was intended to allow requirement, lili- purposes. detain a Under police briefly person investigatory *5 331 1983, 38, ch. (Ill. par. nois codification of the rule Rev. Stat. Terry himself, officer after a 14), police may, identifying person 107— in a for a of time if the officer reasona public place period reasonable infers from all of the that a is to com bly person circumstances about mit or an A mere or is not has committed offense. hunch suspicion sufficient to an justify investigatory stop. People (1983), v. Waln 120 73, 76, 979, Ill. 3d 457 N.E.2d 980. App. Sheriff Tоm Unser testified both at trial and at a
on defendant’s motion to arrest for lack of cause and quash 1, 1984, suppress July evidence. On 10:20 approximately p.m., he was notified that a clerk at Fuller Brothers Store had been robbed at He gunpoint. responded to call and was immediately to reach the store in able about “one or two minutes.” He heard the victim telling other officer at the scene that two white males had entered the door of the store and were a shotgun. armed with left the store to check for any suspicious vehicles in the area. He began to patrol in front of the directly defend- ant’s departure point Fillmore Blacktop Road. After traveling —the down the road for a minutes, few Deputy Unser noticed vehicle that was heading south on a side road of the Fillmore from Blacktop, away the scene of the crime. The vehicle was only two miles from the scene of the crime and was the he only car observed in the vicinity. Deputy Unser further stated that there stores, restaurants, were no or bars area, just farms and farmland. He stated got that when he the intersection of 1500 E—the road he had spotted other car on—he went south onto it. He then momentarily sight lost of the vehi- cle after it crested a hill. He proceeded south and met the vehicle coming very slowly back toward him. He realized that it was the same vehicle he had been following because he had visibility of a quarter one-half a mile before reaching the hill and observed no other cars in the area. He got the license plate number of the vehicle and turned around in a driveway and proceeded north. When turned into the he noticed driveway, that there track were marks where a vehicle had recently backed out of the same Given the driveway. circumstances— the recent the absence robbery, road, of other cars on the and the ru- setting ral considered the change car’s of direction suspicious —he stopped the vehicle in which defendant was The аfore- passenger. facts, mentioned particularly spatial the extreme and temporal prox- crime, imity establish reasonable cause for the initial stop the car in which defendant riding.
Defendant argues that there was no evidence that more than two people were involved in the and that robbery there was no evidence 332 However, an committing robbery. was used
that an autоmobile infer through the use of rational may justified be 1, 21, 392 U.S. 20 (Terry (1968), ences from the facts. v. Ohio derived it reasonable 889, 906, 1868, 1880.) 88 S. Ct. We find was L. Ed. 2d and driver had been Unser to believe automobile liquor People for the who entered the store. See waiting two robbers 310, 314. v. 81 Ill. 3d 402 N.E.2d (1980), App. Carlton Defendant also contends that the car’s reversal of direction v. Fox 3d suspicious. (See People App. was not 1082; Ill. N.E.2d People Deppert However, case, 1279.) Deppert, N.E.2d the instant unlike Fox did not reported knew of a crime and deputy specific recently general in a area where crimes merely “suspicious” activity observe *6 Thus, ample we find that there were been committed. previously the of the support and actionable facts to specific vehicle. find that there cause to arrest defend рrobable
We also that defend ant, findings infer from the trial court’s but because we during time the initial we must stop, ant’s arrest occurred some event, In the disagree findings. controlling question those any with conclusion, trial not a court is correctness of court’s reviewing before 538, 547, (1971), of its rationale. v. Tobe 49 Ill. 2d validity (People 294, affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s 300.) 276 N.E.2d However, to after exam quash suppress closely motion evidence. facts, not ining suspects we find that an arrest did occur until Store and were identified. returned to Fuller Brothers the au (1) to constitute an arrest are: necessary elements intent to ef arrest; to assertion of that with the thority (2) authority v. arrest; (People an restraint of the to be arrested. (3) person fect 577, 579.) In de 54 Ill. 3d 369 N.E.2d (1977), App. Robbins to make is a custodial detention sufficient termining whether there cause, factors are of numerous requirement applicable officer, of a display of the to, including police the demeanor looked and the use of officer, touching person, of physical weapon by considerations include whether or tone of voice. Other language car, as the dura or in a as well placed squad defendant is handcuffed 154, 3d v. Vena (Sеe People (1984), tion of detention. However, a detention 886, assessing whether 162, 892.) 460 N.E.2d we stop, investigatory as an justified duration to be long is too means inves diligently pursued the police must consider whether quickly. suspicions their dispel or to confirm likely that was tigation Ed. 2d 675, 686-87, 84 L. 470 U.S. Sharpe (1985), v. States United 1568,1575-76. 615-16,106 S. Ct. the stop Moore and Unser both testified
Sheriff However, defendant time, 20 minutes. approximately lasted brief ap at the motion were at the initial they stated to one this time Sheriff proximately During period, 45 minutes hour. Moore went and forth where defendants were between gain and the scene of the crime in an to further information. attempt There no police unnecessarily prolonged indication that the detention. As soon as he told one of the that she could by victims robbers, asked the identify suspects they sheriff whеther to him to the scene of the crime. Defendant agree would accompany “If the clerk doesn’t can and the inquired, identify anybody, go?” we sheriff “Yes.” Thus it that defendant to ac replied, appears agreed Furthermore, company police back the scene the crime. then Li defendants drove their own vehicle back to Fuller Brothers Store. quor nothing We find unreasonable in if asking defendants they willing crime, would go be scene nor do we find any indication that the less than police (See acted diligently. People cert, Lippert 171, 605, 89 Ill. 2d 432 N.E.2d denied 459 U.S. 74 L. Ed. 92.) 193 S. Ct. At Fuller Li Brothers Store, the quor defendant was generally identified the victim and arrested.
For reasons, the foregoing judgment of the circuit court of is Montgomery County affirmed.
Affirmed.
JONES, J., concurs. *7 dissenting:
JUSTICE HARRISON I respectfully dissent. As the majority acknowledges, a mere hunch or is not suspiсion justify sufficient to a motor (People vehicle v. Waln 120 Ill. App. 3d 979, 980), N.E.2d that yet precisely is the basis which upon Unser decided to the in pas automobile which defendant was a Unser set out on the senger. patrol, When his knew that only Fuller Brothers Store by had been robbed two white males wearing masks and armed with a who fled the door. shotgun by back vehicle, given no of the was not description suspects’ getaway and, indeed, advised as to its direction of travel was not even told that car. suspects escaped by scene, the crime south
Upon leaving proceeded Unser down Fillmore There no indication that this Blacktop only Road. is running past store. Unser seems to have chosen it liquor it in front of the simply directly point suspects because was where were to have from the store. Unser decided to reported departed Why is drive south never articulated. riding approxi-
Unser auto which defendant was there mately two miles from the crime scene. Unser testified that stores, area, were no restaurants or in the precluding possi- bars bility occupants had been such establishments patronizing prior being showed, however, to Other evidence that there stopped. awas house behind the store and a tire store across the street. liquor In addition, there were farms in the from which traffic vicinity may of the originated. Unser’s assessment situation failed to take into these factors account. begun car,
After Unser had first to it apparently follow turned around and headed the same direction from it had which come, i.e., According State, toward the crime scene. to the Unser be lieved this maneuver to or of the “at “suspicious light be evasive” dark, tendant circumstances.” To who has on a rural anyone been lost frightening. this conclusion is Under the night, road late somewhat here, stopped ap it also strains The auto was present credulity. facts after the two reported, only seven minutes crime was proximately Indeed, after turning miles from the scene. This was no hasty escape. аround, to rate of The speed. the auto continued travel at a slow auto laws, car, violated no traffic made no to elude Unser’s attempt patrol when activated his pulled over Unser car’s overhead gestures did not furtive of the lights. report seeing any by any Unser and, not know their identities or occupants prior stop, car’s did of the realize their “criminal conduct defendant prоpensities.” car, thus objectively, and the other when viewed persons People v. De legal, day-to-day activity. consistent with See entirely 381, 1279, 1283. N.E.2d ppert he had seen on that the auto was the vehicle only Unser stated might A characterization be that night. this road that more accurate to dur- the first encounter happened it was automobile simply Considering of the the to- learning robbery. his after ing patrol brief circumstances, I not that the actions of the oc- do believe tality suspect the car reasonable basis gave any cupants commit, or had committed committing, any were about were they counsel following between colloquy offense. This is confirmed Unser, himself, September at a held in this cause on 1984:
“Q. car, At the time the defendants’ did you stopped you robbery the armed аny reason to believe had committed they question? A. Not at that time.” based riding
Because of the car which defendant was stop grounded facts, not on suspicion, reasonable on articulable specific v. illegal. (People Deppert hunch, on a mere Fox People 1279; App. Ill. 3d N.E.2d resulting 421 N.E.2d The evidence from defendant’s subse 1082.) arrest should therefore and his motion quent suppressed, have been granted. should have been I reverse. Accordingly, would MEADOWS, Plaintiff-Appellee, U-46, GEORGE v. SCHOOL DISTRICT KANE, al., COOK, COUNTIES OF Defendants-Appellants. DuPAGE and et
Second District No. 85 — 0039 Opinion 27, 1986. filed February