{ "id": 5246933, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TIMOTHY R. ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Adams", "decision_date": "1992-02-06", "docket_number": "No. 4-91-0619", "first_page": "815", "last_page": "819", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "225 Ill. App. 3d 815" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "110 S. Ct. 736", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "107 L. Ed. 2d 754", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "493 U.S. 1027", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11456897, 11457212, 11457252, 11456966, 11456841, 11456873, 11457102, 11457038, 11457008, 11457071, 11457138, 11457170, 11456944, 11456924 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/493/1027-03", "/us/493/1027-13", "/us/493/1027-14", "/us/493/1027-06", "/us/493/1027-01", "/us/493/1027-02", "/us/493/1027-10", "/us/493/1027-08", "/us/493/1027-07", "/us/493/1027-09", "/us/493/1027-11", "/us/493/1027-12", "/us/493/1027-05", "/us/493/1027-04" ] }, { "cite": "542 N.E.2d 457", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "460" }, { "page": "460" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "186 Ill. App. 3d 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2657393 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "337" }, { "page": "337" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/186/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "440 U.S. 648", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6187389 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "663" }, { "page": "673" }, { "page": "1401" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/440/0648-01" ] }, { "cite": "485 N.E.2d 513", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "517" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 Ill. App. 3d 106", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 8498634 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "111" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/138/0106-01" ] }, { "cite": "524 N.E.2d 1112", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1116" }, { "page": "1116" }, { "page": "1116" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 Ill. App. 3d 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3619084 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "98-99" }, { "page": "98-99" }, { "page": "98" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/171/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "552 N.E.2d 1314", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1319" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 Ill. App. 3d 136", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2489134 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "142" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/196/0136-01" ] }, { "cite": "530 N.E.2d 210", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "215" }, { "page": "217" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 Ill. 2d 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3218359 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "337-38" }, { "page": "341" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/124/0326-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 501, "char_count": 7945, "ocr_confidence": 0.789, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6802995655150255e-07, "percentile": 0.6974649873409609 }, "sha256": "dc95e4406d6af34c77eeb8e876faa0ac6e3e2e0c9c1be3025d5f8a327ff4af5b", "simhash": "1:bbba3d9cadcca4c5", "word_count": 1324 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:39.761728+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TIMOTHY R. ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE McCULLOUGH delivered\nthe opinion of the court:\nDefendant Timothy R. Adams appeals from an order of the circuit court of Macoupin County denying his petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension of his Illinois driver\u2019s license. On appeal, the only issue raised is whether the decision of the trial court was against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nDefendant was the only witness to testify at the hearing. However, the parties stipulated to portions of the arresting officer\u2019s report, which was read into the record as follows:\n\u201cOn May 4, 1991, I, Trooper C. J. Leach, Number 4346, was patrolling on Illinois Route 16 in Gillespie, Illinois. At the intersection of Illinois Route 16 and Macoupin Street, I saw an east bound [sic] green Mazda flatbed truck with no registration plates visible on the front or rear. I initiated a traffic enforcement stop on the Mazda to investigate the registration. The Mazda pulled into the Wareco at the intersection of Illinois Route 16 and Illinois Route 4. As I shone my spotlight on the rear window of the Mazda, I saw that a valid license applied for slip was displayed in the rear window. I went to the Mazda driver\u2019s door to explain to the driver, Timothy R. Adams, why I stopped him. Adams\u2019 wife, Diane, and another male adult were also passengers in the Mazda.\u201d\nDefendant testified that when Leach approached his vehicle, the officer apologized and indicated he saw the form in the rear window of the truck. Defendant stated the officer had followed his vehicle for about a half of a mile, although he was not speeding or weaving and there was nothing illegal about his vehicle. Defendant stated this incident took place in the evening, and defendant\u2019s counsel advised the court that it occurred about midnight. Defendant stated he received no ticket other than the ticket for driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI). (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 95\u00bd, par. 11-501(a)(2).) On Leach\u2019s sworn report regarding summary suspension, the bases for the DUI arrest were stated to be \u201codor of alcoholic beverage on breath, slurred speech, failure of field sobriety test.\u201d The summary suspension resulted because defendant\u2019s blood-alcohol concentration was .19.\nOn appeal, defendant argues Leach had no reasonable, articulable suspicion or belief that a crime had been or was about to be committed such as to justify the initial stop. Defendant also argues that once determining the license-applied-for form was valid, the officer was not justified in further detaining him and subsequently arresting him for DUI. We affirm.\nA proceeding to rescind a summary suspension is a civil action in which the burden of proof rests on the motorist. (People v. Orth (1988), 124 Ill. 2d 326, 337-38, 530 N.E.2d 210, 215.) The trial court\u2019s determination of whether the motorist\u2019s evidence constitutes a prima facie case for rescission will be overturned on appeal only if the finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Orth, 124 Ill. 2d at 341, 530 N.E.2d at 217.) \u201cThe trial court\u2019s decision will be considered to be against the manifest weight of the evidence if, after a review of the evidence, it is clearly evident that the conclusion opposite to the one reached by the trial court was the proper disposition.\u201d Rogers v. City of Jerseyville (1990), 196 Ill. App. 3d 136, 142, 552 N.E.2d 1314,1319.\nA very similar issue was raised and considered in People v. Tylkowski (1988), 171 Ill. App. 3d 93, 524 N.E.2d 1112. In Tylkowski, the court stated:\n\u201cDefendant contends that it appears from his confession that, while he did not have license plates, he had a receipt showing that he had applied for the plates displayed on his windshield. He argues that, therefore, the police were not justified in stopping him. However, the only way the officers could determine that defendant did have a valid receipt on his windshield was by stopping him to check. The fact that there was no evidence that the officers ever determined whether the defendant had applied for plates does not invalidate defendant\u2019s arrest in light of the fact that upon stopping defendant, the officers discovered that he was carrying a weapon and driving without a license. Accordingly, we conclude that the officers\u2019 investigatory stop was warranted and that defendant\u2019s subsequent arrest was not illegal.\u201d Tylkowski, 171 Ill. App. 3d at 98-99, 524 N.E.2d at 1116.\nEven though no probable cause exists to arrest an individual, a police officer may make an investigatory stop if the officer\u2019s decision is based on specific and articulable facts and the rational inferences therefrom which warrant an investigative intrusion. (Tylkowski, 171 Ill. App. 3d at 98-99, 524 N.E.2d at 1116; People v. Moffitt (1985), 138 Ill. App. 3d 106, 111, 485 N.E.2d 513, 517.) Stopping a motor vehicle and detaining its occupants without a warrant is a seizure which would be prohibited by the fourth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution unless there is at least an articulable and reasonable suspicion that an occupant or the vehicle is subject to seizure for a violation of the law. (Delaware v. Prouse (1979), 440 U.S. 648, 663, 59 L. Ed. 2d 660, 673, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 1401.) The test is not what the officer should have seen, but whether, viewed objectively, the \u201ctotality of the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time of the stop would warrant a reasonable and prudent person to believe a crime had been committed.\u201d (People v. Assenato (1989), 186 Ill. App. 3d 331, 337, 542 N.E.2d 457, 460, cert. denied (1990), 493 U.S. 1027, 107 L. Ed. 2d 754, 110 S. Ct. 736; see also Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 107\u201414; Tylkowski, 171 Ill. App. 3d at 98, 524 N.E.2d at 1116.) The absence of a license plate provides the basis for the stop. The trial court found the officer did not observe the license-applied-for sticker prior to the stop. The fact that defendant was not cited for the offense which the officer suspected was being committed and for which defendant was originally stopped does not invalidate the subsequent arrest of defendant when probable cause for a more serious violation is discovered after the stop. Assenato, 186 Ill. App. 3d at 337, 542 N.E.2d at 460.\nDefendant next argues that once Leach determined the license-applied-for form was valid, it was improper for the officer to further \u201cdetain\u201d him to speak to him and apologize for stopping him. The trial judge observed that it was \u201cgood common sense, good everyday etiquette\u201d for the officer to attempt to apologize and to explain the reason for the stop.\nDefendant attempts to break this issue into a two-step analysis. There is no need for a bifurcated analysis. The entire incident was the result of a single stop. The stop was justified. The officer\u2019s talking to defendant is not a further, unwarranted intrusion, as defendant argues. It just naturally follows that once it was determined that defendant had a valid license-applied-for form displayed, the officer would approach the defendant, explain the reason for the stop, apologize, and advise defendant he was free to leave. In so doing, any observations the officer made may form the basis of probable cause to arrest the defendant for a reason totally unrelated to the stop. As a result, the denial of defendant\u2019s petition to rescind the summary suspension is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Macoupin County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSTEIGMANN and LUND, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE McCULLOUGH delivered" } ], "attorneys": [ "Thomas D. Denby, of Denby, Meno, Bloomer & Denby, of Carlinville, for appellant.", "Vince Moreth, State\u2019s Attorney, of Carlinville (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Dale M. Wood, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TIMOTHY R. ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4 \u2014 91\u20140619\nOpinion filed February 6, 1992.\nThomas D. Denby, of Denby, Meno, Bloomer & Denby, of Carlinville, for appellant.\nVince Moreth, State\u2019s Attorney, of Carlinville (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Dale M. Wood, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0815-01", "first_page_order": 841, "last_page_order": 845 }