{ "id": 279763, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARILYN LOVE, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Love", "decision_date": "2000-12-15", "docket_number": "No. 1-00-1039", "first_page": "534", "last_page": "538", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "318 Ill. App. 3d 534" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "468 U.S. 420", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11338811 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "439" }, { "page": "334" }, { "page": "3150" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/468/0420-01" ] }, { "cite": "237 Ill. App. 3d 202", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5162874 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "holding that officers engaged in a search when they shined flashlights in defendant's mouth and told him to spit out a folded packet on his tongue" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/237/0202-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 757", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12047531 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "769-70" }, { "page": "919" }, { "page": "1835" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0757-01" ] }, { "cite": "305 Ill. App. 3d 493", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1208126 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "501" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/305/0493-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 Ill. App. 3d 13", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5796653 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "17" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/221/0013-01" ] }, { "cite": "272 Ill. App. 3d 502", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 252520 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "504-05" }, { "parenthetical": "a search was effectuated when defendant complied with the officers' show of authority and unzipped his jacket at the officers' request" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/272/0502-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 Ill. 2d 302", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 477765 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "310" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/163/0302-01" ] }, { "cite": "392 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6167798 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "21" }, { "page": "906" }, { "page": "1880" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/392/0001-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 534, "char_count": 8811, "ocr_confidence": 0.731, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.14910846821831e-08, "percentile": 0.3246061836037545 }, "sha256": "c754e0573b7c625279eb75625b09178e5eaad06af1c0173d84f2567bb6c137aa", "simhash": "1:bd8568076a8a67c7", "word_count": 1459 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:02:38.722215+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. MARILYN LOVE, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE O\u2019BRIEN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Marilyn Love, appeals the circuit court\u2019s order denying her motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, defendant argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the arresting officer\u2019s stop and search pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968), were proper. We reverse.\nDefendant was charged with one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. At trial, Officer Olson testified that at approximately 1:50 a.m. on January 29, 1999, he was engaged in narcotics surveillance at 5723 West Washington Street in Chicago. With the aid of binoculars, Officer Olson observed defendant, who was approximately 100 to 150 feet away. Officer Olson also observed a male riding a bicycle in the same vicinity.\nOfficer Olson testified that he observed a male pedestrian approach the bicyclist and hand him an unknown quantity of United States currency. The bicyclist then directed the pedestrian to defendant. The pedestrian approached defendant, who removed an item from her mouth and handed it to the pedestrian.\nOfficer Olson and his partner then approached defendant and asked her name. Officer Olson testified that defendant had \u201cdifficulty answering [so] he told her to spit out what she had in her mouth.\u201d Defendant spat out a roll of tape with 16 baggies attached; Officer Olson testified that he believed the bags contained crack cocaine.\nFollowing Officer Olson\u2019s testimony, defendant moved to quash her arrest and suppress evidence. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that Officer Olson had engaged in a proper Terry stop.\nA stipulation was then read into the record establishing that the substance seized from defendant contained at least 1.1 grams of a substance containing cocaine. Defendant testified on her own behalf and denied possessing or selling drugs on the night in question. The circuit court found her guilty and sentenced her to five years in prison.\nDefendant appeals the circuit court\u2019s order denying her motion to suppress. For purposes of this appeal, defendant does not dispute the facts of this case as testified to by Officer Olson. Accordingly, our review is de novo. People v. James, 163 Ill. 2d 302, 310 (1994).\nDefendant argues that the circuit court erred in determining that Officer Olson had sufficient grounds to make a Terry stop. In Terry, the United States Supreme Court held that an officer may briefly detain a person absent probable cause when the officer\u2019s decision is based on \u201cspecific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant [the] intrusion.\u201d Terry, 392 U.S. at 21, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 906, 88 S. Ct. at 1880.\nIllinois has codified a Terry stop in section 107 \u2014 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/107 \u2014 14 (West 1992)). Section 107 \u2014 14 states:\n\u201cA peace officer, after having identified himself as a peace officer, may stop any person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably infers from the circumstances that the person is committing, is about to commit or has committed an offense as defined in Section 102 \u2014 15 of this Code, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions. Such detention and temporary questioning will be conducted in the vicinity of where the person was stopped.\u201d 725 ILCS 5/107 \u2014 14 (West 1992).\nThe court employs an objective standard to determine whether the stop is reasonable: Would a person of reasonable caution believe the action taken was proper knowing the facts available at the time of the stop? People v. Rivera, 272 Ill. App. 3d 502, 504-05 (1995).\nOfficer Olson knew the following specific, articulable facts when he stopped defendant: (1) that at 1:50 a.m., a pedestrian handed money to a bicyclist in the general vicinity of defendant; (2) the bicyclist directed the pedestrian toward defendant; and (3) defendant then took an item out of her mouth and handed it to the pedestrian.\nOfficer Olson could rationally infer from those facts that the pedestrian gave money to the bicyclist in exchange for the item in defendant\u2019s mouth. Although Officer Olson testified that from his vantage point he could not identify the item that defendant gave to the pedestrian, the officer could rationally infer that the item was not a legal substance such as food, gum, breath mints, cough drops, chewing tobacco, etc., as such items are generally not sold or otherwise exchanged after placement in one\u2019s mouth. Rather, the rational inference is that the item was an illegal substance, most likely drugs, which can be sold in very small packages. The time of day that the event occurred (1:50 a.m.) further supports the officer\u2019s rational inference that defendant was engaged in criminal behavior. Accordingly, Officer Olson had sufficient grounds to make a Terry stop.\nNext, defendant argues that the circuit court erred in finding that Officer Olson engaged in a proper Terry search when he told defendant to spit out what she had in her mouth. Defendant argues that the search was improper because the officer did not reasonably fear that he or another was in danger of attack. See People v. Morales, 221 Ill. App. 3d 13, 17 (1991); 725 ILCS 5/108 \u2014 1.01 (West 1992) (a police officer may conduct a Terry search only if he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual and that either his safety, or the safety of others, is in danger).\nThe State counters that the officer never \u201csearched\u201d defendant. We disagree. A search as contemplated by the fourth amendment occurs when an expectation of privacy considered reasonable by society is infringed. People v. Radcliff, 305 Ill. App. 3d 493, 501 (1999). Individuals have a legitimate privacy interest protecting against \u201csearches involving intrusions beyond the body\u2019s surface.\u201d Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 769-70, 16 L. Ed. 2d 908, 919, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 1835 (1966). Here, Officer Olson effectually intruded upon defendant\u2019s body by ordering her to spit out what was in her mouth. The officer\u2019s actions constituted a sufficient intrusion upon defendant\u2019s privacy interest to qualify as a search under the fourth amendment. See also People v. Harper, 237 Ill. App. 3d 202 (1992) (holding that officers engaged in a search when they shined flashlights in defendant\u2019s mouth and told him to spit out a folded packet on his tongue).\nThe State argues that defendant voluntarily spat out what was in her mouth. We disagree. Defendant cannot be said to have acted voluntarily in light of Officer Olson\u2019s testimony that he \u201cdetained\u201d defendant and \u201ctold\u201d her to spit out what was in her mouth. Rather, defendant spat out what was in her mouth in order to comply with the officer\u2019s show of authority. See, e.g., People v. Rivera, 272 Ill. App. 3d 502 (1995) (a search was effectuated when defendant complied with the officers\u2019 show of authority and unzipped his jacket at the officers\u2019 request).\nThe State next argues that the officer\u2019s order was a justifiable means of compelling defendant to state her name pursuant to section 107 \u2014 14, which provides that an officer making a Terry stop may \u201cdemand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions.\u201d 725 ILCS 5/107 \u2014 14 (West 1992). However, while section 107 \u2014 14 states that an officer may \u201cdemand\u201d the defendant\u2019s name, it does not provide that the officer may compel a response. Further, the United States Supreme Court has stated in the context of a Terry stop:\n\u201c[T]he officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer\u2019s suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317, 334, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 3150 (1984).\nIn the present case, the officer went beyond the scope of Terry and section 107 \u2014 14 when he ordered defendant to spit out what was in her mouth so as to compel a response to his questions. Accordingly, the circuit court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress.\nWith the required suppression of the evidence, the State would have no opportunity to prevail on retrial. Therefore, we reverse defendant\u2019s conviction.\nReversed.\nBUCKLEY and GALLAGHER, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE O\u2019BRIEN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Rita A. Fry, Public Defender, of Chicago (James S. Jacobs, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.", "Richard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Mary L. Boland and Walter T. Keane, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARILYN LOVE, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (6th Division)\nNo. 1\u201400\u20141039\nOpinion filed December 15, 2000.\nRita A. Fry, Public Defender, of Chicago (James S. Jacobs, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nRichard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Mary L. Boland and Walter T. Keane, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0534-01", "first_page_order": 554, "last_page_order": 558 }