{
  "id": 5215233,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIMOTHY D. SAFIRAN, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Safiran",
  "decision_date": "1992-05-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201491\u20140776",
  "first_page": "639",
  "last_page": "641",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "229 Ill. App. 3d 639"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "518 N.E.2d 750",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 Ill. App. 3d 90",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3615720
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/165/0090-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "392 U.S. 1",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6167798
      ],
      "weight": 6,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/392/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "491 N.E.2d 493",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 Ill. App. 3d 108",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3448176
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/142/0108-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "537 N.E.2d 386",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 Ill. App. 3d 427",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        8498717
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/181/0427-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "530 N.E.2d 210",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 Ill. 2d 326",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3218359
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/124/0326-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 293,
    "char_count": 3791,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.749,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.326505066684335e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7906022706343111
    },
    "sha256": "9caccf2eecb2bfd12001ddda8c8fb02f72c88091276759d82b95d187b8d57abf",
    "simhash": "1:b5af1bfe53483426",
    "word_count": 618
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:36.221708+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. TIMOTHY D. SAFIRAN, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE SLATER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing his breathalizer test, which revealed a blood-alcohol concentration of .17, the defendant, Timothy Safiran, was notified of the statutory summary suspension of his driver\u2019s license pursuant to section 11 \u2014 501.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 95V2, par. 11 \u2014 501.1). The defendant subsequently filed a petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the petition to rescind. The State appeals.\nAt the hearing on the petition, the defendant called the arresting officer to testify. The officer testified that he stopped the defendant\u2019s car \u201cafter it had been identified as a suspicious vehicle.\u201d He noted that he wanted \u201cto see what the driver was doing in the area.\u201d During the stop, he noticed alcohol on the defendant\u2019s breath.\nThe State did not cross-examine the officer. The defense then rested and the State presented no evidence. The trial court subsequently allowed the defendant\u2019s petition to rescind, finding that the underlying stop was improper.\nThe State initially argues that the propriety of the stop could not be properly questioned at the summary suspension hearing, because such hearings are limited to those issues specifically set forth in section 2 \u2014 118.1(b) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 953/2, par. 2 \u2014 118.1(b)).\nAlthough statutory summary suspension hearings are limited to certain statutory issues (see People v. Orth (1988), 124 Ill. 2d 326, 530 N.E.2d 210), the propriety of the underlying stop may always be considered (see People v. Decker (1989), 181 Ill. App. 3d 427, 537 N.E.2d 386). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in considering the propriety of the stop. We therefore turn our attention to the trial court\u2019s determination that the stop was improper.\nThe State contends that the trial court erred in finding that the stop was improper. It argues that the stop was properly based upon the officer\u2019s \u201creasonable suspicion.\u201d In support of this contention, the State notes that such a reasonable suspicion can arise even when no violation of the law has been witnessed. See People v. Hardy (1986), 142 Ill. App. 3d 108, 491 N.E.2d 493.\nWe note that police may make investigatory stops of private citizens even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest. (Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868.) However, to justify the stop, the police officer must be able to point to specific articulable facts which, when taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion. Terry, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868.\nIn the instant case, the police officer indicated that the defendant\u2019s car was stopped because it was \u201csuspicious.\u201d Yet he articulated no facts which would make the defendant\u2019s car any more suspicious than any other vehicle.\nA reviewing court will not disturb the trial court\u2019s finding on a petition to rescind unless that finding was manifestly erroneous. (People v. Repp (1988), 165 Ill. App. 3d 90, 518 N.E.2d 750.) Here, given the lack of articulable facts warranting the stop, we are unable to say that the trial court\u2019s finding was manifestly erroneous.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Kankakee County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nHAASE and STOUDER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE SLATER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William Herzog, State\u2019s Attorney, of Kankakee (John X. Breslin and Jay R Hoffmann, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.",
      "Leonard F. Sacks, of Sacks & Albrecht, of Kankakee, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIMOTHY D. SAFIRAN, Defendant-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201491\u20140776\nOpinion filed May 18, 1992.\nRehearing denied June 29, 1992.\nWilliam Herzog, State\u2019s Attorney, of Kankakee (John X. Breslin and Jay R Hoffmann, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.\nLeonard F. Sacks, of Sacks & Albrecht, of Kankakee, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0639-01",
  "first_page_order": 661,
  "last_page_order": 663
}