*1 ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF HENDERSON,Defendant-Appellee. KENNY Division) (2nd No. First District 1—92—4111 September Opinion filed McCORMICK,J., dissenting. (Renee Goldfarb, Attorney, Chicago Donald T. O’Malley, State’s Jack counsel), Mitchell, Attorneys, of
Lyman, M. Assistant State’s and Robin People. (cid:127)the appellee. filed
No brief the court: opinion of DiVITO delivered JUSTICE PRESIDING robbery, charged with Kenny Henderson was re aggravated unlawful two counts attempted armed the circuit a felon. After straint, of a firearm and unlawful use arrest quash motion to granted defendant’s pursuant thereafter, appealed the State obtained the evidence 604(a)(1).) 604(a)(1). (134 The State Ill. 2d R. Rule Supreme Court quashed improperly contends that the circuit *2 had sufficient because suppressed the evidence agree. defendant. We probable cause to arrest brief, appellee’s not filed an Although defendant has simple and the record is appeal since the decide the merits of the appel the aid of easily adjudicated without State’s claim can be Construction Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis brief. First lee’s 493. Corp. quash his hearing his motion to at the on testified a.m., 18,1991, parking he was 8:30 and 9
arrest that on June between police Chicago Avenue when Regal at 5600 West his 1976 Buick used in an armed had been arrived. An officer said defendant’s vehicle defendant, step him to out of the gun and told robbery, pointed his at car, to the officer explained stepped he out of the car. As gotten it started that just that the car had been steering col- yet registered. The car’s morning, and that "punched.” The lock had been "peeled” umn had been and its trunk police car. Thereaf- him in the put defendant and officer handcuffed Johnson, police were taken to the ter, Byron passenger, he and his charged robbery. with armed station and June Callaghan testified that on
Chicago police officer message while he was a radio approximately p.m., 1:50 he received district where message originated from another patrol. looking and Grand Avenues were in the area of Kostner officers plate JL Regal with license Cutlass or Buick 1977 Oldsmobile men in their contained three black reportedly The vehicle the time, effort to find ve- he made an unsuccessful At that twenties. coming day, he was out the a.m. the next hicle. At about 8:35 Cutlass or call, a 1977 Oldsmobile roll he saw police station after by two black occupied which was Regal plate JU 2502 Buick with the over, passenger it the pulled and when he men. He followed the going to thought he was Although Callaghan get out. attempted to twenties, his complied with run, in who was passenger, the trunk Callaghan noticed that request get back into vehicle. defendant, he noticed When he "punched.” lid had been hanging out of and wires were steering "peeled” was column and asked him who the dashboard. He had defendant exit the vehicle Callaghan with the it. Defendant it was his. checked owned said radio and the vehi- operations communications section over his found cle was not to defendant. cross-examination,
During not recall defendant could key ignition, seeing the saying the to the vehicle was in the or recall key ignition, get but the not the car restarted could violating laws, any but the car was towed. Defendant and model of the proper apparently proper color and make being sought robbery; number was car the armed given in the radio five-sixths identical to the license number day; "punched,” the column previous call the and the trunk lid was it, giving "peeled,” and the out of rise dash had wires placed probability that the car had stolen. Defendant was investigations of both and the under arrest not, however, any information stolen vehicle. did have time, being matching description stolen at about vehicle seeing "punched” he admitted that deck lid necessarily mean that the car had been stolen. argues stopped met the de- State the vehicle robbery and that the officer scription of the vehicle used in the armed he investigate cause to the matter. When then assumed run, going lock was passenger the trunk men "peeled,” that the two "punched,” that the column *3 robbers, general description and he found that defen- met the of vehicle, the officer dant was not the owner arresting charges armed probable cause for and of a stolen motor vehicle. and circumstances for arrest exists when the facts
Probable cause arresting knowledge are sufficient to warrant within officer’s has to believe that an offense person of reasonable caution committed, person has committed the offense. and that arrested 356.) (1976), 273, 276, Ill. 2d 342 N.E.2d Such (People v. Robinson 62 practical consider based on the factual and determination should be prudent people, everyday upon which reasonable and ations of life (1983), 1, technicians, 2d 445 Moody 94 Ill. legal (People act. v. 275.) admissible necessary It that such information be is N.E.2d trial, prove suspect the information be sufficient to nor must (1988), (People Pierson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. v. 1185, (1988), 2d 558, 562, 121 Ill. appeal denied 3d 519 N.E.2d App. 925, 837, (1988), 102 L. Ed. 581, 488 U.S. 526 N.E.2d cert. denied 307.) a circuit court’s 326,109 A court will not disturb Ct. S. manifestly erroneous. suppress unless is ruling on a motion to (1989), N.E.2d 561. 131 Ill. 2d v. Adams People the informa center on must probable The determination arrest, relevant and the preceding to the officer tion available position in that officer’s person a reasonable question is whether (People been committed. being or had a crime was would believe that 398.) there was court found Adams, The circuit 131 Ill. 2d at defen arrest cause to probable information to establish insufficient received officer had message the with the radio dant in connection message radio in the mentioned day, because the vehicle previous including license driving, and the defendant was vehicle three description of the numbers, correspond, and because did not gen vague and males in their twenties” individuals as "black vehicle, near the loca Also, Callaghan saw the eral. when since passed of time had period tion of the substantial message. first heard the flash the officer an individual detain may stop temporarily
A officer cause to investigation absent of a limited purpose for the facts specific and articulable point if the officer is able to from the which, together inferences drawn taken with reasonable investigative reasonably warrant experience, officer’s 889, (1968), 1, 88 S. Ct. 20 L. Ed. 2d (Terry intrusion. v. Ohio 392 U.S. 145, (1984), App. 3d 472 N.E.2d Martinez 129 Ill. People v. reasonable, objective standard determining stop In whether a warrant a police officer used: whether the facts available to the the action taken to believe that person of reasonable caution (1989), appropriate. People v. Galvin if he or investigatory stop make an of vehicle
An officer that an offense has reasonably infers from the circumstances she v. Walter be committed. been committed or is about to v. Rowe example, People For where, 322,450 held that the court N.E.2d car with the yellow knew that a police report, from a pattern was involved question of the vehicle in stop. robberies, to warrant the initial such information was sufficient case, making clearly justified In this developed the information investigatory stop of defendant’s gave him cause to arrest defendant. stop after the message that three day, Callaghan a flash previous had received robbery. wanted for black men in their twenties were *4 Regal, or Buick driving gold Oldsmobile Cutlass men were neighboring he was in a number JL 2502. Because with license On the district, unsuccessfully for that car. Callaghan looked when he arrest, station day pulling he was out of of the Cutlass appeared saw a to be 1977 Oldsmobile inside, young the license Regal, with two black males and with Buick only Callaghan think these plate number JU 2502. The reason for to one might in the was the fact that suspects not be digit out in number was not exact reported of six to him him match. All of the information available told additional vehicle, His suspects. this could be the and these could be the investigatory justified. stop completely of the vehicle was stopped, a black male who passenger,
When the vehicle was twenties, be got appeared out the car and to appeared to be in his of get Callaghan passenger to to back into away. about run told the trunk lid was approached car and then the vehicle. He saw that punched; peeled; column was and that the dash been signs out of it. These are all that a car have wires signs. such When had been trained to observe vehicle, Callaghan owner of the defendant stated that he registration was not the checked the and discovered that defendant information, entirely upon Based all of it was owner. this that defendant had committed reasonable for to believe the offense of of stolen motor vehicle. assessing "probability
The standard for activity, proof beyond criminal and not reasonable doubt.” added.) (Pierson, totality of 166 Ill. 3d at (Emphasis Callaghan’s knowledge was facts and circumstances within belief that person warrant a of reasonable caution sufficient to it. committed and that defendant had committed an offense (People v. Rimmer cause to arrest defendant. There part application on the The circuit court based App. 3d People v. Garmon however, Garmon, distinguish it The facts of facts this case. Garmon, a application. In invalidate the sufficiently from this case to Hospital. Memorial responded a call at Northwestern police officer to security arrived, hospital the defendant was When the officer de security guards. The officer was told that the room with several and offered hospital property fendant individual the value The officer estimated equipment sell him $100. camera new, appeared but be equipment, packaged which was not bought $1,500. officer that The defendant told the earlier, but that two weeks person from another equipment $50 drug support sell receipt. trying He not have a he did with the serial police station officer called the habit. When the reported as it was equipment, he discovered from the numbers *5 was although defendant the The Garmon court indicated that in order to less that its value trying equipment to sell the for much habit, nothing that drug to indicate support his there was Although it. there defendant stole equipment was stolen or stolen, probable equipment was suspicion have been cause probable in that case suspicion, cause is more than mere bur- offenses of theft or did not exist to arrest the defendant for the arrest. glary. quashed the court the defendant’s Consequently, having been case, indicia of In this the car at issue had clear peeled; punched; the column stolen. The trunk lid was that the from it. Defendant even stated dash had wires Although that he owned the car had been stolen.1 he also stated registered to him. investigation further the car was not revealed that Further, Callaghan had be on the look-out for been told to car; gold. for was a 1977 Oldsmo- defendant’s car was The car to look Regal. Regal; bile a 1976 Buick Cutlass or Buick defendant’s car was Finally, reported license JL the license on digits, easy enough defendant’s car to matched five of six and it reading plate. confuse a an "L” in a quick "U” and Therefore, despite holding contrary, the circuit there probable was also cause to believe was the vehicle and these that this day were the in an individuals wanted before. appeared recognize probability Even the circuit activity hearing, criminal At part. the court *** stated, it, though *** I "as understand even the Officer did make certainly any good normally observations which lead *** apparently way officer to believe the car was there was no though that he was able to confirm that the car was stolen above, this the standard for individual.”2 As stated assessing activity, probable "probability cause is the of criminal 1Although "[d]efendant the dissent states that also testified that he added) (emphasis informed Officer that his car had been stolen” (266 889), 3d at the record establishes that defendant never testified direct, cross, redirect, contrary, on that his car had been stolen. On the (e.g, defendant testified that he told the officers that the car had been stolen stolen”). Thus, "All I said was the car defendant’s own as to Nevertheless, ambiguous. what he told if even appeared told as it did was that it had been reason the another, by present po stolen here no reasonable the circumstances required accept explanation. lice officer was 2Although premised upon the dissent the need for deference to the (a concur), wholeheartedly principle circuit no with which case, holding court erred in deference is due in this for our is that the circuit (Pierson, 3d at proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” search for Reviewing repeatedly stated courts have legal rules, governed by but rather cause is not technical practical. that are factual and commonsense determinations The circuit v. Tisler court, higher effect, proof than held a standard of "probability activity” by requiring criminal verification car was cause to arrest. stolen to establish quashing find order Consequently, we the circuit court’s suppressing the obtained a result defendant’s arrest and evidence manifestly or- of the arrest was erroneous. therefore reverse the der and remand this for trial.
Reversed and remanded.
HARTMAN, J., concurs. McCORMICK, dissenting:
JUSTICE reviewing a The under which a court will overturn circumstances ruling suppress and evi quash trial court’s on a motion to the arrest ruling "manifestly trial is dence are limited where the court’s 387, 400, (1989), N.E.2d v. 131 Ill. 2d 546 erroneous.” Adams 561.) weight "against or "Manifestly erroneous” manifest " ruling 'palpably evidence” occurs where the trial court’s unreasonable, wholly 'arbitrary, and unwarranted’ or erroneous ” (1993), App. Ill. upon (People v. Leach 245 not based the evidence.’ Shelby (1991), 825, quoting People N.E.2d 3d 612 (1992), 1028, 1281, Ill. 1039, appeal denied 143 N.E.2d 582 646, acknowledges of review This standard 587 N.E.2d rulings on a mo we the trial court’s of deference must accord level majority fails The evidence. quash tion to historically that has to the trial court’s accord that deference process. of due a tenet fundamental defendant, ruling in favor of trial court’s Because posi defendant’s testimony which favors the as true must consider (People v. Graham tion, clearly unreasonable. that unless 1346, 798, 805-06, appeal N.E.2d denied (1991), 124, citing People v. Holloman 141 Ill. 2d gun his drawn police officer had not the application of law. Whether cites) (the significance in this case. no only is of disputed fact that the dissent court, legal and it has no circuit was never referred to That fact analysis in this case. to the relevance in this trial that Officer testimony. testified contradictory Defendant
case heard Callaghan Callaghan, on Officer gun him with his drawn. hand, gun. trial court the other stated that he never drew stopped light fact that viewed this statement used an suspicion defendant’s car on that it was and his told defendant up that he called for back and that he companion up.” car "with hands to remain in the their circumstances, conduct may, officer under certain
Indeed investigative stop gun an in hand. Common unholstered However, the of this fact sense this caution. denial will often dictate credibility. The adversely impact upon the officer’s oath could slight and of no impact credibility have been upon the officer’s could hand, impact the officer’s consequence. upon On the other explore cannot the inner credibility devastating. could have been objectively trial mind determine recesses of the testimony. of this credibility accorded the officer’s Because limitation, relying transcript a written upon cannot credibility give assess must of witnesses. We deference findings difficulty. trial of this because inherent also that he testified informed Officer started, just gotten his car had been he and that yet registered the car. Defendant’s statement ve- admission, suggests, hicle majority was stolen not an as the merely he vehi- stole the vehicle. It is indication cle stolen. whether de- had been Officer "couldn’t recall” actually fendant said this. He no information that the car defen- driving only dant His stolen. vehicle check revealed was not to defendant and at time there no report of the car
Officer also testified that the vehicle had wires "punched.” from lid the dashboard and that the of the trunk had been re-cross-examination, however, On he testified that a car such is, fact, necessarily” "does not the car indications mean that Callaghan’s In appearance view of Officer admission that necessarily not mean that the vehicle was vehicle did clearly testimony which was not unrea- position favors defendant’s Notwithstanding a sufficient sonable. that Officer Ohio, possess not investigatory stop Terry basis for an he did possession sufficient facts for cause to arrest defendant for of a motor stolen vehicle. will contradictory, reviewing a
Where the evidence is judgment (People that of trial court. v. Benoit substitute its Graham, findings fact. express at App. The trial court did not make The trial court evidence did not establish ruled cause to arrest defendant of a stolen automobile. and arrives majority’s opinion contradictory evidence reassesses arbitrary or contrary trial conclusion. The ruling was reasonable palpably erroneous. In fact the trial court’s why supported majority advances no reason evidence. stated, "[i]t it enlightened opinion abandons its heretofore which hearing the function of the circuit court on motion credibility to determine the of the witnesses and resolve [citation], any in their conflict weight judgment disputed evidence not substitute credibility [Citation.]” v. Walker witnesses. 93, 103-04, take care not We should principle. the trial abandon such treasured should affirm rulings. CHICAGO, Chicago-Garfield Ridge, Bank of Plaintiff- BANK OF f/k/a BANK, Appellee Cross-Appellant, Defendant- v. PARK NATIONAL (Sheldon Bernstein, Cross-Appellee). Cross-Appellee Appellant and (2nd Division) No. First District 1—93—1594 27, 1994. September Opinion filed