*1 statutes. v. the obvious or literal such meaning (People Kirkrand, Lund, 588; 397 Ill. v. People 213.)” Centers, Food Inc. 31 Ill. People Eagle 539. rules of construc statutory
Applying foregoing tion, we hold that indictment, count II of the purporting under section charge aggravated battery 4(b)(6), 12 — caused failing charge battery alleged “bodily harm” officer, failed to the nature and charge elements of the offense as section required 3(a)(3) 111 — of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
For the reasons stated judgment court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. (No. 49985.
THE PEOPLE OF THE ILLINOIS, STATE OF Appellant, al.,
v. LEONARD HOLDMAN et Appellees. Opinion October 1978. filed *3 Scott, General, William Attorney Springfield, J. *4 Bernard State’s Carey, B. Attorney, Chicago (Donald Noel, and Melbourne A. Assistant Mackay Jr., Attorneys General, and Lee T. and Chicago, Hettinger Myra J. Brown, for the Assistant State’s Attorneys, counsel), People. Ruebner, Defender, and Andrew Ber-
Ralph Deputy man, Defender, Assistant of the Office of State Appellate Defender, of Chicago, appellees.
MR. UNDERWOOD delivered the opinion JUSTICE of the court:
Defendants Leonard Holdman and Williams DeWayne were convicted of armed in a trial in the robbery jury circuit court of Cook and each was sentenced to a County term of 4 to 6 On years’ imprisonment. appeal, Court for the First District reversed on Appellate the basis the defendants’ arrests were made without probable cause, and their identifications as subsequent armed robbers should have been as fruit of the suppressed arrests. improper We (51 allowed the State’s for leave to petition appeal.
The facts of this case are detailed in the opinion court and will be reiterated here so far isas only to our necessary At a.m. on opinion. 12:30 approximately 4, 1973, Willie February Ross was at robbed gunpoint by two men. Ross called the at about police, 12:50 Officers Colton and Stien of the Police Chicago Depart- ment arrived and him. interviewed Ross told the officers what had and described the happened robbers as two teens, in their late between 5 feet Negroes 8 inches and 5 feet tall, 10 inches dark Ross further wearing jackets. informed the that the men had two fled in an older police model Buick driven a third person. minutes,
After 15 to 20 Ross’ interview with the officers radio call interrupted by requesting assistance with a chase in thereto, progress. Responding the officers drove to the scene of the chase with Ross still in the back seat. When scene, arrived on the *5 alia, had into a
observed, a which crashed inter Buick of their car to viaduct. officers out investigate, got Ross, Buick in the to remain it. But Ross believing telling robbers, the car and car used the left was the same by the back were seated in the officers. Three'men followed visible to of the and were clearly seat one of cars squad of the car was on. Ross because the interior Upon car, the and voluntarily Ross immediately approaching here, the men men, the defendants as identified two of who him. had robbed and the fortuity of the defendants
The apprehension car constitute in the back seat squad their held being in their a routine While on patrol the crux this case. and Hofer of the car, Officers Hamel Chicago marked squad which Skylark they had a Buick Police noticed Department believed to be associated Orlando for whom with Page, arrest for The officers had an warrant armed robbery. they street, the Buick it traveled down as pulled alongside and officers shined their into vehicle. The spotlight the driver as saw and later identified of the Buick clearly Robert a not co-defendant who found Toney, guilty armed trial. a second at saw robbery charge They not on the side whom could person passenger they over In looked identify. response spotlight, Toney at the car then accelerated marked and squad rapidly. chase
A ensued with the high-speed police utilizing their and siren. At one after Mars light point, failing turn, the Buick negotiate Using spotlight, stopped. saw the front-seat whom police clearly they passenger later As officers left identified as defendant Williams. reverse; car, accelerated the Buick squad Toney and, chase, car, officers after a brief reentered the squad officers, into a Buick crashed viaduct. The temporarily blinded the crashed one man flee car’s saw lights, bright assistance, the car run into a and field. After calling officers all commenced on foot three men whom chasing then saw the field. The three ran running through around a and were out of the corner officers’ temporarily but were who at had arrived sight, stopped by investigators the scene in to the call for assistance. Officers response Hamel and Hofer later arrived moments and told men three were the investigators The three were searched and in the chasing. placed car, scene, driven back to the crash then investigators’ thereafter, transferred the marked car. Shortly squad *6 Ross, Officers and Colton Stien arrived with the armed victim, and the identification robbery described already was made.
The crucial issue in this case is whether the had police cause to arrest probable Holdman and Williams. The contend, defendants and the court that agreed, there no arrest, was for cause the crash-scene and subsequent in-court identifications should therefore have been Defendants the that suppressed. argue of Orlando which the investigation caused Page, initially Buick, to shine their police into the was spotlight perhaps for an v. Ohio under Terry grounds stop investigatory 1, 889, U.S. L. Ed. 88 S. 1868, 392 20 Ct. but (1968), was defendants, insufficient to arrest had who no known association with Further, defendants that as Page. argue are not for the traffic viola passengers responsible driver; tions of the under doctrine of and that the Wong Sun v. United States 471, 371 U.S. L. Ed. 2d 83 S. Ct. the crash is mere from scene to insufficient for constitute a warrantless arrest. grounds defendants contend the are not arrests Finally, supportable to by reference Illinois’ statute or prohibiting resisting the duties of a officer Rev. Stat. obstructing police (Ill. ch. because the acts par. 1), policemen’s 31 — were not authorized and the did defendants not that know others, or were they, the being investigated. Accordingly, ultimate conclusion of. defendants’ that the logic police
should have released them after it was immediately of ascertained that neither of them was the driver not chased and that Orlando was vehicle Page present. State, hand, on the the detention The other believes of was and that defendants lawful subsequent crash-scene admitted identification properly trial The the initial court. State views shining as into the car in which defendants were on riding justified connection with a the car’s believed fugitive grounds also the officers had a warrant. State whom urges in the car on the officers were justified pursuing any it accelerated in an of several when rapidly grounds continue their obvious effort to flee them: investigation had identified all the of Orlando because not Page yet car, why persons investigate occupants to enforce the traffic laws which were or police, fleeing contends the State violated. Additionally, being defendants, in officers were arresting parti justified for a of section their on-foot violation after cularly flight, Rev. of the Criminal Code of Stat. 31 — 1 (Ill. obstructing ch. resisting par. 1), relating 31 — reasons, of these State argues, officer. For any the defendants and the officers were justified detaining *7 Thus, scene. the to the crash them back urges transporting defendants, of al State, crash-scene identification the fortuitous, therefore was somewhat legal though at trial. admitted properly of for a number reasons. We with the State
We agree the determina- see to overturn trial court’s no valid reason a believed connection with tion that Buick’s fugitive for of the reasonable grounds shining light provided There is into the car in which defendants were riding. that this initial to authority proposition support a to constitute because was insufficient “stop” inquiry officers; of there no threat coercion by was coercion their official and thus were they duty. simply performing
221 660; v. 43 Ill. 3d People (E.g., People (1976), App. Jordan v. 10 Ill. 3d Even if the McGarry App. 570.) (1973), to a is sufficient constitute it light shining “stop,” for the permissible investigating purpose possibly criminal behavior even there was no cause though 1973, an make Stat. ch. arrest. Rev. (Ill. par. 14; see also v. Ohio U.S. L. Terry 20 392 (1968), 107 — Ed. 88 determination S. Ct. The 2d objective 1868.) to be is made whether “the facts available officer at *** the moment of the seizure a ‘warrant man caution reasonable belief’ that the action taken was Ohio, v. 1, 21-22, U.S. 392 L. Ed. appropriate.” (Terry 20 889, 906, 88 Ct. 2d S. 1880.) Certainly police officers must be to shine a into a car permitted light believe to be a associated with in an reasonably fugitive effort to determine if that is in the vehicle. present fugitive the officers’ flight immediately following shining was a there was indication criminal strong afoot, and, in our activity judgment, required police The defendants were pursuit. directly implicated on-foot the field the crash of the flight through following vehicle in which There riding. persuasive from that support proposition clearly flight identifiable officer may, dependent upon circumstances, be sufficient cause for provide probable an arrest. Sibron v. New York U.S. (See 392 (1968), 66-67, 917, 936-37, L. 1904-05; Ed. 88 S. Ct. 2d 92; Addison v. v. People 56 Ill. 3d People (1977), App. 298; 53 Ill. 3d v. Beall Montgomery People (1977), App. Ill. v. 3d 452; People App. Staples (1971), Moreover, it is clear to us App. 922.) defendants’ on-foot from officers provided facts articulable an necessary justify investigatory stop under doctrine embodied in Terry our statute. (See Thus, 53 Ill. People Montgomery (1977), even defendants, had these once been captured, merely
222 nevertheless have would detained, officers
temporarily scene to to the crash them to return entitled been identification by and their investigation complete ensued. would have Ross on were based believe, too, the arrests proper
We in violation of the defendants’ to elude the police attempt a or. our statute obstructing police restricting prohibiting officer: or obstructs person knowingly
“A resists who peace to be a by person one known to the performance capacity his official any authorized act within officer (III. Rev. Stat. a Class A misdemeanor.” commits 1.) par. ch. 31— court this
This has been defined by section broadly an obstacle which act which include imposes any “physical hinder, or delay may interrupt, prevent impede, v. Raby the officer’s duties.” (People performance denied cert. 392, 399, 393 U.S. 40 Ill. (1969), 2d (1968), as in the L. Ed. 89 S. Ct. Flight, 2d case, act within instant is purview definitely physical v. Carroll 133 Ill. of this statute. See People (1971), 78. act within the authorized A arrest is an warrantless officer has reasonable if the officer’s official capacity has believe that grounds person committing ch. committed an offense. Rev. Stat. par. (Ill. Here, and Hofer Officers Hamel personally 2(c).) 107 — in violation witnessed the defendants’ are resistance statute and the “reasonable thus grounds” uniform, both in The officers were undeniably present. car, and, the chase a marked as began, and siren. It is activated the car’s squad emergency were by obvious the defendants knew they being pursued under a duty accordingly police, statute not the resistance oppose imposed v. Locken efforts. People officers’ (See. *9 Thus, believe the defendants’ arrests were we
459.) their based circumstances justified upon surrounding that a formal violation of statute. The fact charge officer never made a resisting obstructing in of the does not detract from our conclusion events the armed robbery supervening concerning charge. Sun We believe the defendants’ reliance upon Wong United States 9 L. 371 U.S. Ed. 83 S. Ct. of obvious factual because distinc misplaced Sun establishes that tions. Defendants contend Wong flight does an to not inference of sufficient justify guilt generate cause an arrest. That case involved agents, a who a acting upon tip concerning drugs, approached business and home of building containing laundry defendant Wah When an answered Toy. Toy agent’s James door, knock at the the officer identified himself ostensibly as a customer. that his establishment was Toy responded not and started to close the door. As the open agent began officer, as a himself law-enforcement identify Toy slammed the door and retreated down the hallway through and into the laundry quarters. living Supreme Court, failure to citing agent’s adequately identify himself, determined the defendant’s into his own flight no apartment more “signified guilty knowledge clearly than it did a natural desire an repel apparently 471, 483, unauthorized intrustion.” U.S. Ed. L. (371 83 S. The facts and Ct. circumstances of the of defendants here transcend the Sun Wong rationale, with our resistance especially conjunction statute.
We are unable to defendants’ contention that accept chase in the automobile and the following high-speed field, on-foot chase left the officers were with through no alternative but to release the defendants when it was ascertained that were not the chased vehicle driving whose search initiated the was not fugitive inquiry At the least we believe it imperative
present. very defendants officers be able to back transport the officers could crash scene where complete it is the automobile. by Ironically, examining investigation crash this back to the scene which specific transporting the armed facilitated the identification of defendants by now victim and which defendants robbery protest. decision renders it review Our unnecessary determination that Ross’ in-court identi- court’s was not established clear and fication defendants crash-scene evidence to be independent convincing identification.
We hold the circuit court admitted therefore properly into evidence. *10 the crash-scene identification defendants that the The court’s erroneous determination appellate identifications arrests were and the subsequent improper for that therefore rendered it inadmissible unnecessary the defend- contentions raised by court to consider other for the Court ants. Appellate Accordingly, judgment is to the is reversed and the cause remanded First District of those other contentions. that court for a consideration remanded,
Reversed and directions. with GOLDENHERSH, MR. dissenting: JUSTICE of the I affirm the dissent would judgment court that these court. I with the appellate agree arrested. flee or “did not stopped defendants being after a car chased were the of by They merely being passengers 484, reason stated Ill. 3d The police.” 489.) (51 in which automobile into shining defendants was that the officers believed the riding vehicle to be one used on occasions Orlando by prior Page, for whom had a warrant. they Obviously pursuing officers knew police immediately upon apprehending defendants that was not and I fail to Orlando present, Page
225 the officers be able it that what made “imperative perceive scene where to the crash back the defendants transport examin could the officers complete investigation they Ill. at Obviously automobile” 224). 2d (73 ing without have examined the automobile presence could defendants. of these two New York cites 392
The Sibron (1968), majority 1889, of S. Ct. support L. Ed. 88 U.S. 20 2d identifiable from clearly the proposition “flight circumstances, be officer may, upon dependent cause for an arrest.” sufficient provide probable (73 Sibron, said, Court In at Supreme “deliberately 221.) 2d furtive actions and at the of approach flight strangers law officers are indicia of mens rea and when strong with on of the officer coupled specific knowledge part crime, evidence are suspect relating factors to be in the considered decision to make an proper 40, 66-67, arrest.” 917, 937, U.S. L. Ed. 88 S. (392 Ct. This record is devoid utterly any evidence that officers were pursuing police possessed which could “specific with knowledge” couple defendant’s in order to the decision to make justify the arrest. reliance v. Ohio majority’s Terry upon U.S. L. Ed. 88 S. Ct. find cause for arrest is misplaced. Terry authority
for the that the fourth amendment authorizes proposition intrusions less than upon constitutionally guaranteed rights *11 arrests, and the circumstances which under rise Terry give to a search fall far short of cause for permissible an arrest. The action permissible scope authorized have inter- by Terry might arguably permitted at the scene but cannot be stretched to include rogation these defendants where Ross returning place identified them. court out on appellate correctly pointed “Ross could
night question only give general descrip tion of his robbers as two male in their teens, late Negroes between 5 feet 8 inches and feet tall, 10 inches wearing dark jackets.” (51 App. contrast, In his at trial was description much more detailed, and I agree with the court that his “in-court identification affected his directly the defendants viewing just after their arrest.” 51 Ill. illegal 484, 491.
(Nos. 49645 cons. WELLS COMPANY, MANUFACTURING Appellee,
THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD et al.—(The Environmental Protection Agency, Appellant.) Opinion Oct. denied Rehearing Dec. 1978. filed 1978.