{ "id": 2475655, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARD A. McKNIGHT, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "People v. McKnight", "decision_date": "1990-06-08", "docket_number": "No. 3\u201489\u20140685", "first_page": "530", "last_page": "533", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "198 Ill. App. 3d 530" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "280 N.E.2d 49", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "4 Ill. App. 3d 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2914438 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/4/0065-01" ] }, { "cite": "541 N.E.2d 835", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 Ill. App. 3d 536", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2648358 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/185/0536-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 371, "char_count": 6314, "ocr_confidence": 0.75, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.345432909102184e-08, "percentile": 0.4405540631905567 }, "sha256": "a34ff61a9f9f1480e64bfd4b1e9cceafb95cf99906934c3c133fb70a7ab7ddeb", "simhash": "1:86d3e1e355da0afb", "word_count": 1042 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:28.995518+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARD A. McKNIGHT, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Richard A. McKnight, was charged with driving while his license was revoked (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95\u00bd, par. 6\u2014303). The trial court granted the defendant\u2019s motion to quash the arrest and dismiss the charge. The State appeals. We reverse.\nThe record shows that on June 13, 1989, about 10:40 p.m., police officer Patricia Swanson was on routine patrol. As she drove along Lymons Mound Road, she observed a pickup truck parked beside the road with its headlights off. She testified that she parked her squad car behind the truck. Upon exiting her car, she observed the defendant in the driver\u2019s seat of the truck and heard the truck\u2019s motor running.\nOfficer Swanson further testified that upon approaching the truck she immediately asked the defendant if he had a driver\u2019s license. He responded that he did not. Swanson asked the defendant for his name and ran it through the sheriff\u2019s dispatch, which informed her that the defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license was revoked- .Swanson then asked the defendant if he had been driving the truck. When he stated that he had been driving, she arrested him for driving while his license was revoked.\nOfficer Swanson also testified that Lymons Mound Road is in a wooded area, is not well traveled, and has few houses along it. She stated that the sheriff\u2019s department receives three to four complaints a month about people drag racing on the road and parking alongside it to drink and fight. She testified that she decided to investigate the defendant\u2019s parked truck because it looked suspicious. Additionally, she wanted to determine whether the driver was hurt.\nOther evidence showed that Officer Swanson observed no mechanical defects in the defendant\u2019s truck. Further, the truck had a valid registration and was properly pulled off the road. In addition, Swanson never asked the defendant if he were hurt or needed help.\nAt the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court quashed the defendant\u2019s arrest and dismissed the charge. It held that while Officer Swanson had a right to investigate the parked truck, she was without probable cause to ask for the defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license, since the defendant was not overtly violating any laws.\nOn appeal, the State argues that Officer Swanson\u2019s request for the defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license was proper based on the provision of the driver licensing law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95\u00bd, par. 6\u2014100 et seq.) authorizing a police officer to request the production of a driver\u2019s license.\nSection 6\u2014112 of the driver licensing law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95\u00bd, par. 6\u2014112) states in part:\n\u201cEvery licensee *** shall have his drivers license *** in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and *** shall display such license *** upon demand ***.\u201d\nCiting this court\u2019s opinion in People v. McVey (1989), 185 Ill. App. 3d 536, 541 N.E.2d 835, the defendant argues that to invoke the authority granted by section 6\u2014112, there must first be probable cause. The defendant argues that without probable cause such a demand amounts to an illegal seizure under the fourth amendment.\nWe disagree and adopt the reasoning set forth in People v. Francis (1971), 4 Ill. App. 3d 65, 280 N.E.2d 49. There, the court held that to require some other offense to have been committed before a police officer may demand a driver\u2019s license vitiates the purpose of section 6\u2014112. Therefore, it concluded that a routine spot check of a motorist to ascertain if he has complied with the requirement of possession of a driver\u2019s permit is neither unreasonable nor invalid, provided such check is not used as a substitute for a search for evidence of some possible crime unrelated to possession of a driver\u2019s permit.\nBased on Francis, we conclude that it is not necessary for a police officer to have probable cause to request production of a driver\u2019s license and that such a request does not create an illegal seizure. We also find that this decision is consistent with our holding in People v. McVey.\nIn McVey, the defendant was arrested for driving while his license was revoked. The defendant was parked in his car when a police officer pulled up behind him. Upon approaching the car, the officer asked the defendant for his license. The defendant produced an apparently valid California driver\u2019s license. This court concluded that at that point a seizure had not yet occurred. However, the officer then proceeded to order the defendant to remain in his car while the officer ran a check on the defendant\u2019s license. We concluded that at that point a seizure occurred.\nTherefore, contrary to the defendant\u2019s argument in the case at hand, McVey does not stand for the proposition that a seizure occurs when a driver is asked for his license. The seizure in McVey occurred when the officer continued his investigation even though he had been given an apparently valid license. At that point the officer had no grounds to believe the defendant was committing a crime, and any further investigation amounted to an illegal arrest and seizure.\nTherefore, since we have concluded that Swanson\u2019s request for the defendant\u2019s license was proper, the next step is to determine whether her continued investigation was also proper. Here, upon asking for the defendant\u2019s license, Officer Swanson was informed that he did not have one. We find that at that point Swanson had reasonable grounds upon which to continue her investigation, since the defendant failed to produce the required license.\nIn conclusion, we hold that the trial court\u2019s decision to quash the defendant\u2019s arrest and dismiss the charge was manifestly erroneous. The court is therefore ordered to reinstate the charge against the defendant.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of La Sall\u00e9 County is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with our findings.\nReversed and remanded.\nBARRY and SCOTT, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE STOUDER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Joseph Navarro, State\u2019s Attorney, of Ottawa (Elizabeth A. Klug and John X. Breslin, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.", "Darrell K. Seigler, of Ottawa, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARD A. McKNIGHT, Defendant-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201489\u20140685\nOpinion filed June 8, 1990.\nJoseph Navarro, State\u2019s Attorney, of Ottawa (Elizabeth A. Klug and John X. Breslin, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.\nDarrell K. Seigler, of Ottawa, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0530-01", "first_page_order": 552, "last_page_order": 555 }