THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS v. STEPHON PARKER
No. 1-23-2164B
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division
February 2, 2024
2024 IL App (1st) 232164
JUSTICE COBBS delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Howse concurred in the judgment and opinion. Justice Ellis specially concurred, with opinion.
JUSTICE COBBS delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Howse concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Justice Ellis specially concurred, with opinion.
OPINION
¶ 1 On October 3, 2023, defendant-appellant, Stephon Parker, was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, a Class 3 felony, pursuant to
¶ 2 On October 4, 2023, the State filed a verified petition for a pretrial detention hearing pursuant to
¶ 3 On appeal, defendant argues that the court‘s denial of pretrial release was in error for two reasons. First, defendant contends that the court abused its discretion in failing to consider that evidence of the charged crime may have been obtained as the result of an unlawful search and seizure. Second, defendant maintains that the State failed to meet its burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that he posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 5 A. Pretrial Detention Petition
¶ 6 On October 4, 2023, the State filed its verified petition for pretrial detention. Therein, the State argued that defendant‘s charged offense of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon was an eligible offense for pretrial detainment pursuant to
¶ 7 Although it is not clear as to whether the following items were attached to the State‘s petition, the record reflects that a supplemental “Public Safety Assessment” conducted by “pretrial services” indicated that defendant‘s “criminal activity” score was a “4” out of “6” and that his “failure to appear” score was a “2” out of “6.” The report further indicated that defendant had a prior misdemeanor conviction, a prior felony conviction, two prior “violent” convictions, and a prior sentence of incarceration. As such, its release recommendation was a “[p]retrial [s]upervision [l]evel 1.” The report also noted that defendant had two children, was currently employed full-time as a custodian, and had been with his company for about half a year. Defendant had also self-reported that he had a history of mental illness for which he had received treatment and a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder or “PTSD.”
¶ 8 B. Pretrial Detention Hearing
¶ 9 On October 4, 2023, at defendant‘s initial appearance following his arrest, the circuit court preliminarily noted that “Gerstein2 [was] satisfied” and that “there
¶ 10 1. The State‘s Proffer
¶ 11 The State subsequently proffered the following in support of its petition.5 On October 3, 2023, at approximately 6 p.m., two plain-clothed Chicago police officers were on routine patrol in an unmarked vehicle with police insignia near the 4200 block of West Lake Street and Kildare Avenue. While on patrol, the two officers observed defendant walking eastbound on Lake Street. Defendant turned and looked in the officers’ direction and was reported to have “widened” his eyes. In order to get a better view of defendant, the officers drove their vehicle closer to defendant‘s location and observed a “heavily downward weighted satchel” across his body. They further observed defendant move the satchel from the front of his body to underneath his right armpit in what they believed to be an attempt to conceal its contents.
¶ 12 The officers remained in the vehicle but attempted to make contact and conduct a field interview with defendant. In response, defendant continued walking eastbound with “eyes widened” and repeatedly stated, “I do not consent to any searches” while continuing to “firmly” hold the satchel in place under his right armpit. As such, the officers believed that defendant was concealing a firearm and began to exit their vehicle.
¶ 13 Upon the officers’ exit from the vehicle, defendant stopped walking, “bladed his stance,” and slowly began backing up. Defendant‘s eyes remained “widened,” and he began to scan the area. Based on the officers’ experience with multiple “UUW arrests” and their assessment of defendant‘s behavior, the officers continued to “reasonably” believe that he was concealing a weapon and proceeded to do a protective pat-down of defendant‘s satchel. One of the arresting officers grabbed the inside of the satchel and felt a hard “L“-shaped object consistent with the shape of a firearm. The officer then reached inside of the satchel and confirmed it as such. However, defendant began pulling away from the officer while stating “that‘s not a gun” and began to resist the officer‘s attempts to recover the firearm and place him in handcuffs. During the struggle, defendant dropped the satchel to the ground, which revealed a 9-millimeter, semiautomatic handgun loaded with a live round in the chamber, as well as other live rounds and an extended magazine.
¶ 14 At some point during the struggle, three other assisting officers arrived on the scene and helped to place defendant in handcuffs, while one of the original arresting officers recovered the firearm. The arresting officers asked whether defendant had a concealed carry license (CCL) or Firearm Owner‘s Identification (FOID) card on his person, to which defendant did not respond. Defendant was then transported
¶ 15 With regard to defendant‘s criminal history, the State indicated that defendant was a four-time convicted felon and had recently been discharged from parole in 2021 stemming from a 2020 Class 3 felony conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, for which he had received a two-year sentence. The State further noted that defendant had also been convicted of aggravated battery of a police officer, which had also included a “PSMV”7 charge, and had served a five-year sentence with the Illinois Department of Corrections in accordance with that conviction. Defendant‘s other criminal history included a 2017 conviction for escaping electronic monitoring, a 2016 robbery conviction for which he served 24 months of probation, which had terminated unsatisfactorily, and a 2016 misdemeanor battery conviction.
¶ 16 Next, the State argued that defendant posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person, persons, or the community based on the specific and articulable facts of the case. The State pointed to the fact that defendant had possessed a firearm that had been “ready to fire with a live round in the chamber” and “live rounds in an extended magazine” and that he had also resisted arrest in the course of being placed into custody. The State further referenced defendant‘s multiple convictions, one of which was similar to his current charge and others that were violent in nature. Finally, the State contended that there was no condition or combination of conditions based on defendant‘s history and the facts of the current case that could mitigate the risk to the public.
¶ 17 2. Pretrial Services Assessment
¶ 18 Next, the court asked for the recommendation of a representative from “pretrial services,” who indicated that defendant‘s “new criminal activity” score was a “4 out of 6,” that his “failure to appear” score was a “2 out of 6,” and that his overall “PSA score coincide[d] with Pretrial Supervision Level 1.”8
¶ 19 3. Defendant‘s Argument in Mitigation and for Pretrial Release
¶ 20 In mitigation, defendant stated that he was 26 years old and a lifelong resident of Cook County. Defendant was a high school graduate, had worked full-time for the last six months as a custodian, currently lived with his parents, and had two children that he helped support.
¶ 21 Next, defendant argued that the State was unable to meet its burden on its petition. First, defendant argued that the
¶ 22 Next, defendant challenged the officers’ observation of his weighted satchel as sufficient to conduct a Terry stop. Even assuming that the officers did have reasonable suspicion that he was in possession of a firearm, defendant pointed out even reasonable articulable suspicion on its own was insufficient to justify a frisk or protective pat-down search following a lawful stop, as the officer also needed to have a reasonable belief that the individual was presently dangerous, citing People v. Flunder, 2019 IL App (1st) 171635, in support. Defendant noted that the record failed to demonstrate any evidence to support any belief that he had been presently dangerous, such as through a 911 call regarding “a person with a gun” or any other articulable threats. According to defendant, the officers’ frisk was also unjustifiable under Flunder because the officers did not have any knowledge as to whether defendant possessed a CCL or FOID card, as demonstrated by the officers’ inquiry as to both after he was already placed in handcuffs.
¶ 23 Next, defendant challenged the State‘s assertion that he was a clear and present danger. Specifically, he argued that he was not a danger to the community simply by possessing a firearm, especially considering that he had not used or brandished the weapon. As to his criminal convictions, he stated that such activity was not “recent” and that pretrial services had not reported a “new violent flag” in its assessment. Last, defendant contended that there were conditions that could both ensure his return to court as well as the safety of the community, given his “level one” rating from pretrial services, and thus he could be subject to pretrial supervision and global positioning system or electronic monitoring.
¶ 24 4. The State‘s Reply
¶ 25 The State maintained that defendant‘s release should be denied. First, the State addressed defendant‘s fourth amendment contention by arguing that there were “no fourth amendment motions” before the court for purposes of the pretrial hearing and, even assuming there were, the State would be successful on the merits. The State pointed out that the officers had responded to defendant‘s efforts to conceal the weighted satchel by shifting it across his body after he observed their presence, which indicated that defendant recognized them to be police officers. The
¶ 26 C. Circuit Court Ruling
¶ 27 At the conclusion of the hearing, the court orally granted the State‘s request and denied pretrial release. First, with regard to the first element for pretrial detention, the court made the following findings.
“THE COURT: First, I do find that the petition is properly filed. The defendant is charged with a detainable offense. So *** having found that, first, I have to determine whether the State has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption is great that you did, in fact, commit this offense of unlawfully possessing a firearm having previously been convicted of a felony. Here I have to look at—I‘m relying on the State‘s proffer. Your lawyer has made some excellent points with regard to possible 4th amendment issues down the road. But what I have before me is that law enforcement sees you walking on the street, you‘re carrying some type of satchel bag that appeared to be weighted down in the front of your body, and apparently, when you look in the direction of the law enforcement officers, you immediately move the satchel, and what they interpreted, and, again, I‘m relying on the State‘s proffer here from what they‘re describing as an attempt to conceal the satchel. You continue to walk away as they try to contact you and make statements of ‘I do not consent to any searches.’
Given the totality of what the officers observed, and again, I haven‘t heard the officer‘s testimony, and your lawyer hasn‘t had an opportunity to cross-examine this particular officer, but that law enforcement officer believed you were carrying a firearm, they attempted to pat you down or pat down the satchel, at least, and when that happens at some point that‘s when the resistance begins. And when you pull away, apparently, this firearm, I believe, fell to the ground, the satchel with the firearm in it, and the firearm is recovered from the satchel that you were carrying. So, clearly, I do believe that the proof is evident and the presumption is great that you were in possession of this firearm.
Having said that, and as I‘ve already commented on, [your attorney] raises some excellent points with regard to the 4th amendment issues that will be heard prior to trial. But I do believe that the State has met its burden in establishing that you were in possession of that firearm. And the firearm that was in your possession was a nine-millimeter apparently loaded with an extended magazine.”
¶ 28 Next, with regard to the petition‘s second element, the court made the following findings:
“THE COURT: Next, I must determine whether or not you pose a real and present threat to the safety of others if you were to be released from custody. With regards to that, I have to consider the nature of the offense. I agree with [your attorney]; a firearm by itself is not dangerous. But a firearm like this with
an extended magazine that‘s loaded in the hands of someone who has been convicted for four prior felonies[,] recently for a weapons charge is dangerous. You don‘t have a CCL. You cannot carry a firearm. There‘s four reasons why you can never be near a firearm, so therefore, the fact that based upon your background and based upon the weapon that was in your possession at this time, I do find that you pose a real and present threat to the physical safety of others.”
¶ 29 Last, with regard to the petition‘s third element, the court made the following findings:
“THE COURT: Next, I must determine if there are any conditions or combinations of conditions of release that could mitigate the real and present threat. In other words, try to determine if there is something other than pretrial detention that can mitigate this threat of your release. Here, I am taking into consideration the pretrial score of four and a two with the recommendation of Level 1 supervision. I am also taking into consideration your lawyer‘s arguments, which were well reasoned and thoughtful, not only with regards to the 4th amendment, but to possible conditions of release. I‘ve taken into consideration that you‘re 26 years of age, and you‘ve recently been working as a custodian. However, I also have to take into consideration that one of your recent felony convictions was for escape from electronic monitoring. I also have to take into consideration you were recently convicted of a weapons offense. I have to take into consideration that you were also convicted of a crime of violence, robbery, and also a misdemeanor crime of violence, a battery.
Given the totality of what I‘ve heard, I don‘t believe there is a condition or set of conditions that I can fashion that would mitigate this real and present threat. So I‘m going to order—I‘m going to grant the State‘s petition and order you detained.”
¶ 30 The court‘s oral ruling was memorialized in a written order that same day. Therein, the court made the following findings. First, the court found that “[t]he proof [was] evident or the presumption great that the defendant ha[d] committed an eligible offense listed” within
¶ 31 This appeal followed.9
¶ 33 A. The Act
¶ 34 Given the newness of the statutory scheme at issue, as well as its numerous overlapping considerations, we begin with a summary of the relevant sections of the Procedure Code, as amended by the Act.
¶ 35 1. The Petition and Hearing
¶ 36 The Procedure Code now presumes that all persons charged with an offense shall be eligible for pretrial release prior to conviction.
¶ 37 The State will trigger the requirement for a pretrial detention hearing upon its timely filing of a verified petition for detainment.
¶ 38 Following the filing of the State‘s petition, the circuit court must hold a hearing.
¶ 39 2. Determining “Dangerousness” or a Real and Present Threat
¶ 40 One of defendant‘s bases for reversal of the detention order concerns the court‘s finding that he posed a real and present threat. In determining whether a defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, the court considers a variety of statutorily delineated factors to assess the defendant‘s “dangerousness.”
“(1) The nature and circumstances of any offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence, involving a weapon, or a sex offense.
(2) The history and characteristics of the defendant ***[.]11
***
(3) The identity of any person or persons to whose safety the defendant is believed to pose a threat, and the nature of the threat.
(4) Any statements made by, or attributed to the defendant, together with the circumstances surrounding them.
(5) The age and physical condition of the defendant.
(6) The age and physical condition of any victim or complainant.
(7) Whether the defendant is known to possess or have access to any weapon or weapons.
(8) Whether, at the time of the current offense or any other offense or arrest, the defendant was on probation, parole, aftercare release, mandatory supervised release or other release from custody pending trial, sentencing, appeal or completion of sentence for an offense under federal or state law.
(9) Any other factors, including those listed in Section 110-5 of this Article deemed by the court to have a reasonable bearing upon the defendant‘s propensity or reputation for violent, abusive, or assaultive behavior, or lack of such behavior.”
Id. § 110-6.1(g).12
¶ 42 Defendant‘s other basis for reversal concerns the portion of the Procedure Code regarding evidence possibly obtained through an unlawful search, seizure, or both. Although a defendant may testify and cross-examine any witnesses called by the State during the hearing, standard evidentiary and admissibility rules are otherwise inapplicable to the presentation or consideration of information at the hearing.
¶ 43 C. Standard of Review
¶ 44 Before proceeding, we first address the applicable standard of review. As noted previously, defendant raises two arguments challenging his detention order. With regard to his fourth amendment argument, defendant posits that the standard of review is abuse of discretion, citing People v. Whitmore, 2023 IL App (1st) 231807. In contrast, in challenging the court‘s dangerousness finding, defendant points back to the language of
¶ 45 The State responds that the court‘s overall determination regarding pretrial detention is abuse of discretion, citing People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864. As such, the State posits, a reviewing court should give deference to the court‘s factual and credibility findings and should only reverse
¶ 46 There is, without question, some debate among the appellate districts, and even among the divisions in the First District, concerning the appropriate standard of review. See People v. Herrera, 2023 IL App (1st) 231801, ¶¶ 22-24 (observing split between districts regarding abuse of discretion and manifest weight of the evidence standard under the Act). Although the Procedure Code provides that the State‘s burden on a pretrial detention petition is “clear and convincing evidence,” under the previous regime for bond hearings and their subsequent appeals, we often employed an abuse of discretion standard. See People v. Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253, ¶ 9; see also Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 10. Because the new statute does not expressly provide for a new or different standard of review, some courts have determined that the abuse of discretion standard is applicable. See Whitmore, 2023 IL App (1st) 231807, ¶ 18 (noting no clear legislative intent within the new statute to disrupt such precedent); Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 11 (observing that, in reviewing an appeal brought pursuant to
¶ 47 However, some decisions have stated that the circuit court‘s factual findings under the statute should be resolved under a manifest weight of the evidence standard. See People v. Rodriguez, 2023 IL App (3d) 230450, ¶ 8; People v. Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶¶ 12-13. Others have said the same standard also applies when assessing whether conditions of pretrial release could mitigate any dangerousness posed by a defendant. See People v. Vingara, 2023 IL App (5th) 230698, ¶ 10. Others have also articulated the standard as de novo, even when evaluating the propriety of the circuit court‘s assessment of the proffered evidence and what condition or combinations may be appropriate. See People v. Battle, 2023 IL App (1st) 231838, ¶¶ 17-18; see also People v. Saucedo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232020, ¶¶ 65-123 (Ellis, J., specially concurring).
Finally, some decisions have employed a bifurcated standard of review, in which the manifest weight of the evidence standard applies to factual findings made by the court in assessing the first and second elements of the petition and the abuse of discretion standard is utilized to assess whether there were any conditions of release that could mitigate a defendant‘s posed risk. See People v. Reed, 2023 IL App (1st) 231834, ¶¶ 24, 31.
¶ 48 Without any further direction from our supreme court on this significant issue, we find a recent case from a panel within our district to be persuasive, namely Saucedo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232020. Therein, our court stated that “[r]eview of the decision to grant or deny a detention petition *** requires a mixed standard of review” because the circuit court‘s decision involves consideration of “three propositions.”
¶ 49 The first two elements of the petition that are challenged here do not allow for the court to exercise discretion on what may be considered. Rather, the statute is clear as to what facts should be utilized in determining whether there was, by clear and convincing evidence, a sufficient showing that the requisite detainable offense was committed, as well as the defendant‘s level of dangerousness based on the facts of the alleged crime and relevant background information. These determinations ultimately require the circuit court‘s resolution of the State‘s factual proffer. See Reed, 2023 IL App (1st) 231834, ¶ 24 (applying manifest weight of the evidence standard to whether a defendant committed the charged offense and if he posed a danger to the community).
¶ 50 As such, we also find that the manifest weight of the evidence standard is appropriate for the first two elements of the petition at issue here. In reviewing both issues, we note that “[a] finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or if the finding itself is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Stock, 2023 IL App (1st) 231753, ¶ 12. We now turn to the merits of the appeal.
¶ 51 D. Unlawful Search and Seizure
¶ 52 We note that defendant‘s first challenge to the detention order is not so consistent. In his form notice of appeal, defendant marked the boxes that indicated that he sought to challenge the court‘s finding that he posed a “real and present threat.” Defendant also marked an “other” box under the section labeled “denial or revocation of pretrial release.” Neither box, however, contained any further explanation as to why the court‘s findings were erroneous.
¶ 53 In the record, however, the notice of appeal contained a one-page supplement that was time-stamped by the clerk of the court, which appears to have been filed the same day of the form notice of appeal. The supplement contained further explanation as to why the court had erred in those same findings. In the explanation for the “other” grounds for reversal, the supplement stated:
Pursuant to“Other—The Court failed to consider evidence that proof of the charged crime may have been the result of an unlawful search or seizure when assessing the weight of the evidence against the [defendant].”
54 In his memorandum, defendant‘s argument on this point is not so artfully drafted in that it is not immediately clear on which portion of the court‘s order he seeks reversal.13 Defendant contends that “the court failed to consider evidence that proof of the charged crime may have been the result of an unlawful search or seizure when assessing the weight of the evidence against” defendant pursuant to
55 In response, the State construes this argument as a direct challenge to the court‘s first finding, whether the proof was evident and the presumption great that defendant committed the detainable offense. Therein, the State agrees with defendant that, during the hearing, although defendant cannot move to suppress evidence or a confession at the hearing, the Procedure Code allows for consideration of whether the evidence sustaining the detainable offense resulted from an unlawful search and seizure. However, the State contends that there is no such provision in the Procedure Code that supports the conclusion that “the mere existence of evidence of an unlawful search or seizure operates as an absolute bar to finding by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant committed a detainable offense.” The State reasons that this is because the proceeding itself is “not concerned with the ultimate admissibility of evidence at a pending trial” and instead assesses “whether the defendant ought to be held in custody pending trial.”
56 The parties’ initial arguments require us to look to the text of the statute to determine its effects, if any, on the first element of a pretrial detention petition. The fundamental rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature‘s intent, and the best indicator of that intent is the statutory language, given its plain and ordinary meaning. People v. Clark, 2019 IL 122891, ¶¶ 18, 20. We must review the statute as a whole and construe words and phrases in light of other relevant provisions. Id. ¶ 20. We must also keep in mind “the reason for the law, the problems sought to be remedied, the purposes to be achieved, and the consequences of construing the statute one way or another” and must further assume that the legislature did not intend absurd, inconvenient, or unjust results. Id.
57 As noted prior,
58
59 Defendant is correct that the prior version of the Procedure Code expressly prohibited a court from considering whether evidence underlying the offense was obtained as a result of unlawful search and seizure. See
60 First, the location of
61 Further, under the first element of the petition, the State need only prove that “proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant has committed” the relevant offense. (Emphasis added.)
62 As such, we proceed to the merits of defendant‘s contention. Defendant argues that the circuit court failed to properly weigh the fact that his charged crime may have been the result of an unlawful search or seizure. Specifically, defendant argues that the initial Terry stop was illegal because the arresting officers did not have reasonable, articulable suspicion that he had committed or was about to commit a crime. In support of this contention, defendant points to the fact that the officers solely conducted the arrest based on the fact that defendant had “widened” his eyes and that he was carrying a “weighted satchel.”
63 Further, defendant continues, even if the officers believed he was armed, his seizure was still illegal. Defendant notes that, per our court‘s ruling in Flunder, 2019 IL App (1st) 171635, in order to conduct a legal pat-down, the officers had to believe that he was both armed and dangerous. Here, defendant contends, the mere fact that he was walking on a sidewalk with a bag could not have risen to the conclusion that he was dangerous, given that there was no evidence of any 911 calls reporting a gun or other relevant threats. As such, defendant reasons, given that evidence of the
64 The State responds that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in rejecting defendant‘s fourth amendment arguments and finding that the proof was evident and the presumption great that defendant had committed the detainable offense of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. The State maintains that its proffer met its burden based on the officers’ reasonable belief that he likely had a firearm in his possession, which was supported by the (1) officers’ observations that defendant had been carrying a “sagging satchel” that appeared to contain a heavy object; (2) that when police officers attempted to speak with him, his eyes “widened” and he reacted with “furtive movements” to conceal the bag and its contents; (3) his repeated statements that he did not consent to a search; and (4) his attempts to walk away from the officers. Although the State concedes that the officers likely did not observe the gun at the outset of the interaction, it maintains that this would merely go to the weight of the evidence.
65 Notably, the State appears to characterize this interaction as a “brief Terry stop,” which it did not do during the hearing before the circuit court. The State further acknowledges that “reasonable minds may disagree regarding the weight assigned to the evidence,” but nevertheless, the record undercuts any question as to whether the court properly considered defendant‘s fourth amendment argument, wherein the court expressly noted that defense counsel had “made some excellent points” regarding those issues. As such, the State concludes, the record demonstrates that the State met its burden based on the totality of the evidence presented in showing that defendant had committed a detainable offense, which was not an arbitrary determination by the court.
66 There is no dispute that defendant‘s unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon is a detainable offense under the Procedure Code. See
67 We first reiterate that defendant‘s pretrial detention hearing was held one day after his arrest and that the State did not call any of the police officers as witnesses, which was expressly noted by the court in its ruling. Further, as provided in the Procedure Code, the court is not authorized to enter a suppression order at this stage in the proceedings, thus prohibiting it from expressing any opinion as to the existence of reasonable, articulable suspicion. See
68 However, the court also balanced these considerations against the State‘s proffer and ultimately determined that the State had met its burden on the first element. Specifically, the court pointed to the nature and circumstances of the arrest per the police officers’ assessment of the scene. Although not noted by the circuit court, the police officers’ arrest report indicated that the two had experience with “multiple UUW arrests” and that, based on defendant‘s behavior, they believed he was carrying a firearm. Such behavior, however, was specifically mentioned by the circuit court in its ruling, in which the court referenced defendant‘s attempt to conceal the satchel upon what the State interpreted as defendant‘s recognition of who the police officers were, his attempts to leave the scene, and his repeated statements that he did not consent to a search. Further, as noted by the court, at the end of the day, defendant was ultimately found in possession of a weapon, which he was not allowed to do based on his status as a felon.
69 As noted by the State, reasonable minds could differ on the impact of defendant‘s fourth amendment argument on the evidence proffered by the State. However, at this stage in the proceedings, we cannot say that an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent. As the fourth amendment argument is only “relevant” to the court‘s overall assessment of the evidence, a disagreement about the evidence‘s significance does not automatically render the court‘s decision unreasonable. Further, the court‘s oral ruling indicates that its ruling was not arbitrary, as it clearly considered defendant‘s argument in its overall assessment of the petition. Finally, we must reiterate the narrow purpose and scope of the detention hearing, which does not preclude the later filing of a motion to suppress. As such, we affirm the court‘s finding as to the first element of the petition that the State had met its burden in establishing that defendant had committed the charged offense.
70 E. Real and Present Threat
71 Next, defendant argues that the State also failed to meet its burden of proving that he posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person, persons, or the community based on the specific and articulable facts of his case. Defendant contends that the mere fact that he was in possession of a firearm does not equate to the notion that he was a threat to the community, especially as there were no allegations or evidence of him actually using the weapon. Defendant also points to the fact that he received a low pretrial services assessment score as further indication that he does not pose a threat. Notably, however, defendant does not challenge any of the court‘s findings as to his criminal background, and as we stated prior, the record does not contain any documentation to that effect.
72 The State responds that the circuit court did not err in finding that defendant posed a real and present threat. The State first rejects defendant‘s argument that it solely relied on his criminal history to argue that he was a threat to the safety of others. Indeed, the State points out, the
73 The State also rejects defendant‘s argument that the mere possession of a firearm did not make him a threat. The State points out that defendant had four prior felonies, including convictions for violent crimes and an illegal possession of a firearm conviction, thus making him a repeat offender for his current charge. Thus, the State reasons, the circuit court properly found, based on the totality of the information presented, that defendant posed such a threat.
74 We turn to the record. The court‘s combined oral and written rulings that defendant posed a real and present threat were based on a variety of factors. First, the court considered the nature of the offense, which involved the unlawful possession of a weapon. See
75 Additionally, the court considered defendant‘s history and characteristics. See
76 Further, when discussing whether there were conditions or a combination of conditions that would otherwise mitigate his risk, the court stated that it had considered the pretrial scores of “4” out of “6” for “new criminal activity” and “2” out of “6” for “failure to appear,” pretrial services’ ultimate recommendation of level one supervision, defendant‘s fourth amendment arguments, and his age and full-time employment. See
77 Thus, based on our careful review of the court‘s oral and written rulings, we cannot agree with defendant that the circuit court did not carefully and thoroughly evaluate the State‘s petition based on the proffer it had at the time of the hearing. The court‘s concern seemed to ultimately lie with defendant‘s extensive criminal history, in addition to the fact that he had already acquired one prior and prohibitive conviction for the same charge that brought him back to court. As such, we do not find that the circuit court‘s determination that defendant posed a threat to the safety of any person or the community was unreasonable in light of the circumstances.
78 In sum, we ultimately conclude that the circuit court did not err in granting the State‘s petition for defendant‘s detainment prior to trial, and as such we affirm the order in its entirety.
79 III. CONCLUSION
80 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
81 Affirmed.
82 Ellis, J., specially concurring.
83 For the reasons given in my special concurrences in People v. Whitaker, 2024 IL App (1st) 232009, ¶ 79 (Ellis, J., specially concurring), and People v. Saucedo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232020, ¶ 65 (Ellis, J., concurring), I would employ a standard of review of de novo to the factual findings. I otherwise concur in the judgment.
People v. Parker, 2024 IL App (1st) 232164
| Decision Under Review: | Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 23-MC-1112731; the Hon. William N. Fahy, Judge, presiding. |
| Attorneys for Appellant: | Sharone R. Mitchell Jr., Public Defender, of Chicago (Tai Martin, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant. |
| Attorneys for Appellee: | Kimberly M. Foxx, State‘s Attorney, of Chicago (Zachary M. Slavens, Assistant State‘s Attorney, of counsel), for the People. |