{ "id": 5799707, "name": "In re D.D.H., an Alleged Delinquent Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.D.H., Respondent-Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "People v. D.D.H.", "decision_date": "1991-11-05", "docket_number": "No. 5\u201490\u20140380", "first_page": "150", "last_page": "154", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "221 Ill. App. 3d 150" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "560 N.E.2d 1053", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1057" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "203 Ill. App. 3d 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2580887 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "108" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/203/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "537 N.E.2d 395", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "396-97" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 Ill. App. 3d 576", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 8498935 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "579" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/181/0576-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 S. Ct. 1285", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 L. Ed. 2d 496", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "440 U.S. 938", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6297441, 6295973, 6297190, 6295717, 6296874, 6298474, 6298159, 6297941, 6296277, 6295450, 6297723, 6295196, 6296573 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/440/0938-09", "/us/440/0938-04", "/us/440/0938-08", "/us/440/0938-03", "/us/440/0938-07", "/us/440/0938-13", "/us/440/0938-12", "/us/440/0938-11", "/us/440/0938-05", "/us/440/0938-02", "/us/440/0938-10", "/us/440/0938-01", "/us/440/0938-06" ] }, { "cite": "383 N.E.2d 155", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "158" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "73 Ill. 2d 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5440503 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "221" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/73/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "568 N.E.2d 133", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "135" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "209 Ill. App. 3d 274", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2543319 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "277" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/209/0274-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 S. Ct. 1714", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 L. Ed. 2d 207", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "450 U.S. 1003", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6377084, 6377700, 6378181, 6377574, 6377421, 6376334, 6376494, 6376690, 6378328, 6376186, 6376892, 6377246 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/450/1003-06", "/us/450/1003-10", "/us/450/1003-11", "/us/450/1003-09", "/us/450/1003-08", "/us/450/1003-02", "/us/450/1003-03", "/us/450/1003-04", "/us/450/1003-12", "/us/450/1003-01", "/us/450/1003-05", "/us/450/1003-07" ] }, { "cite": "410 N.E.2d 209", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "214" }, { "page": "214" }, { "page": "214" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 Ill. App. 3d 718", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3181869 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "722" }, { "page": "722" }, { "page": "723" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/87/0718-01" ] }, { "cite": "392 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6167798 ], "weight": 9, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "21-22" }, { "page": "906" }, { "page": "1879-80" }, { "page": "21-22" }, { "page": "906" }, { "page": "1880" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/392/0001-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 576, "char_count": 9116, "ocr_confidence": 0.767, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1704728731288967 }, "sha256": "654fd006c1966cca29df8315d4932e71d59c59da52d8d0d9b7dc5796fc7d5acb", "simhash": "1:287c5eb50ced2e2b", "word_count": 1549 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:34.404944+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re D.D.H., an Alleged Delinquent Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.D.H., Respondent-Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE HARRISON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis appeal was taken by the State, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) (134 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1)), from an order of the circuit court of Jefferson County granting a motion to suppress evidence filed by respondent, the minor D.D.H., in delinquency proceedings. We affirm.\nThe sole witness to testify at the May 15, 1990, hearing on the motion to suppress was Officer Rodney Stuart King, Mt. Vernon police department. Officer King testified that shortly after midnight on January 1, 1990, he was seated in his squad car parked across the street from the Huck\u2019s convenience store in the 1900 block of Broadway in Mt. Vernon, Illinois. King observed respondent inside the store. Respondent looked out the windows of the store, saw Officer King and waved at him. King characterized respondent as \u201cactually making fun of me.\u201d\nOfficer King could see the cashier waiting on customers in the front of the store, and periodically entering a back room, where he would remain for a moment before returning. Respondent talked with the cashier in the front of the store, but while the cashier was in the back room, respondent walked up and down the aisles. King \u201cdid not observe [respondent] put anything in his coat pockets or any other thing.\u201d At one point, respondent stepped outside the store, observed Officer King, waved at him and then reentered the store.\nOfficer King knew that there were frequent retail thefts at this convenience store and stated that he thought respondent\u2019s actions \u201clooked suspicious, *** especially, you know, him noticing me.\u201d King did not see respondent pick up any items and pay for them before leaving the store. Upon exiting, respondent was carrying a bag of the type one would obtain from the store clerk, as well as two Huck\u2019s Big Swig beverage cups. The cashier made no attempt to stop respondent or to contact Officer King.\nAs respondent began walking down the 100 block of South Twentieth Street, Officer King stopped him and asked for identification. Respondent produced an identification card issued by Mt. Vernon Township High School and, in response to King\u2019s question, stated that he was 15 years old. As respondent removed his identification from his coat pocket, Officer King saw a package of M&M\u2019s and asked respondent if he had purchased them. Respondent replied, \u201cYes. We can go back and ask the cashier.\u201d\nOfficer King next shined his flashlight through the lids of the cups that respondent carried, and saw that one contained a soft drink, but the other contained something blue. Officer King asked respondent if he could see the cup and when respondent handed it to him, King removed the lid and discovered 10 packs of bubble gum inside. When asked if he had purchased the gum, respondent replied that he had and offered to return to Huck\u2019s to verify the fact.\nOfficer King placed respondent in his squad car, returned to the convenience store and asked the cashier if respondent had purchased the bubble gum. The cashier told Officer King that respondent had purchased chicken livers and gizzards, one package of M&M\u2019s, and one package of bubble gum, but that he had not bought 10 packs of bubble gum. At that time, Officer King arrested respondent for retail theft of the bubble gum and searched him, finding eight rolls of Certs candy and two additional packs of M&M\u2019s. The cashier stated that respondent had not purchased these items, and by means of the price tags marked \u201cHuck\u2019s,\u201d the cashier was able to identify them as store merchandise.\nOfficer King testified that as he observed respondent in the store he was thinking, \u201c[t]his guy\u2019s going to be stealing some stuff probably,\u201d and stated that he stopped respondent \u201cfor his suspicious acts inside the store, just to make sure he did not steal anything inside the store.\u201d King testified that he searched respondent to find any additional stolen property and, secondarily, to insure respondent had no weapons. In response to the court\u2019s question, Officer King admitted that when he observed respondent walking up and down the aisles of the store, he did not know if respondent was obtaining items he later purchased or was taking items that he did not purchase.\nFollowing argument by counsel, the circuit court took the motion under advisement. On May 23, 1990, the court entered an order granting respondent\u2019s motion to suppress evidence. The court concluded, inter alia, that \u201c[t]he officer stopped the minor for temporary questioning without arrest pursuant to Chapter 38, section 107 \u2014 14,\u201d and that the officer did not have the required \u201carticulable suspicions\u201d to justify an investigative stop under Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868.\nThe reviewing court has the duty to affirm the result reached by the circuit court on a motion to suppress evidence unless the lower court\u2019s ruling was manifestly erroneous. (People v. Grice (1980), 87 Ill. App. 3d 718, 722, 410 N.E.2d 209, 214, cert. denied (1981), 450 U.S. 1003, 68 L. Ed. 2d 207, 101 S. Ct. 1714; In re F.R. (1991), 209 Ill. App. 3d 274, 277, 568 N.E.2d 133, 135.) It is well settled that a police officer, in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, may approach an individual for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to arrest, provided that the officer\u2019s decision to stop is based on specific and articulable facts which, when combined with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the investigative intrusion. (Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 906, 88 S. Ct. at 1879-80; Grice, 87 Ill. App. 3d at 722, 410 N.E.2d at 214.) The Court in Terry stated that in determining whether a stop is reasonable an objective standard is to be used, namely, whether the facts available to the officer warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that the action taken was appropriate. (Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 906, 88 S. Ct. at 1880; accord People v. Holdman (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 213, 221, 383 N.E.2d 155, 158, cert. denied (1979), 440 U.S. 938, 59 L. Ed. 2d 496, 99 S. Ct. 1285.) However, a mere suspicion or hunch is not sufficient. Grice, 87 Ill. App. 3d at 723, 410 N.E.2d at 214.\nThe holding in Terry has been codified in section 107 \u2014 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 107 \u2014 14). That section provides that a law enforcement officer may detain and temporarily question a person in a public place \u201cwhen the officer reasonably infers from the circumstances that the person is committing, is about to commit or has committed an offense.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 107 \u2014 14.\nA portion of the argument in the briefs filed in this court has been devoted to the question whether Officer King\u2019s use of a flashlight to look inside respondent\u2019s beverage cup and King\u2019s subsequent opening of the cup constituted a search. However, it will not be necessary to address this issue since we find that the statutory standard of section 107 \u2014 14 was not satisfied at the time defendant was stopped by Officer King. Consequently, the bubble gum in the beverage cup was discovered incident to an illegal stop.\nIn the present case, Officer King testified that his suspicions were based exclusively on respondent\u2019s walking up and down the aisles of the store and waving at him, and that he had not seen respondent take anything from the shelves and \u201cdid not observe him put anything in his coat pockets or any other thing.\u201d Therefore, by the officer\u2019s own admission, defendant was neither committing a crime nor was he about to commit one at the time of the stop. (See People v. Jones (1989), 181 Ill. App. 3d 576, 579, 537 N.E.2d 395, 396-97.) Further, when respondent exited the store he was carrying a bag provided by the cashier, who made no attempt to stop respondent or to contact Officer King. Therefore, the circuit court was not manifestly erroneous in concluding that Officer King did not have the articulable facts required by Terry to justify an investigative stop.\nWe have examined the cases cited by the State in support of its arguments. However, each case dealing with police interference with an individual\u2019s fourth amendment rights necessarily turns on its own unique circumstances (People v. Zamora (1990), 203 Ill. App. 3d 102, 108, 560 N.E.2d 1053, 1057), and the decisions cited by the State do not contain factual situations comparable to the one here involved.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Jefferson County suppressing evidence is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nWELCH and HOWERTON, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE HARRISON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Gary Duncan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Mt. Vernon (Kenneth R. Boyle, Stephen E. Norris, and Gerry R. Arnold, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.", "Daniel M. Kirwan and Dan W. Evers, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re D.D.H., an Alleged Delinquent Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.D.H., Respondent-Appellee).\nFifth District\nNo. 5 \u2014 90\u20140380\nOpinion filed November 5, 1991.\nGary Duncan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Mt. Vernon (Kenneth R. Boyle, Stephen E. Norris, and Gerry R. Arnold, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.\nDaniel M. Kirwan and Dan W. Evers, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0150-01", "first_page_order": 172, "last_page_order": 176 }