IL: “Officer safety” here didn’t justify a search because of an alleged “furtive gesture” where defendant was quiet and compliant

Not every movement in a car is a “furtive gesture.” The defendant was quiet and compliant before the officer decided to search the back seat area for “officer safety” solely because defendant reached that way. No other reason for a search was given. Here it wasn’t enough. People v. Smith, 2015 IL App (1st) 131307, 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 413 (May 29, 2015):

[*P36] In the instant case, the articulated basis for searching defendant’s car was that Officer Perez observed defendant reach toward the rear of the passenger seat. Defendant was quiet and compliant. When asked why he asked defendant to step out of the vehicle, Officer Perez simply stated, “for officer safety,” but offered no other specific or articulable facts to support his belief that he feared for his safety. He never saw a firearm in defendant’s hand. It is clear that the only basis used for the search was defendant’s movement in the vehicle. Under an objective review, we find that based on defendant’s movement in the car, there was no reasonable basis for Officer Perez to engage in a search of defendant’s vehicle. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence.