IL: 1:30 am U-turn 50′ before safety roadblock was RS

Defendant’s U-turn over railroad tracks 50′ before a “safety roadblock” set up on a highway just across the state line from Iowa was reasonable suspicion. (Time of day was an important factor.) It was not indicative of “going about one’s business.” People v. Timmsen, 2016 IL 118181, 2016 Ill. LEXIS 277 (March 24, 2016):

[*P14] Here, we agree with the State that the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of reasonable suspicion. Defendant’s U-turn across railroad tracks just 50 feet before the roadblock is the type of evasive behavior that is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion. Id. at 124, see also United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 885, 95 S. Ct. 2574, 45 L. Ed. 2d 607 (1975) (a driver’s obvious attempts to evade officers is an appropriate factor in deciding reasonable suspicion); Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1, 6, 105 S. Ct. 308, 83 L. Ed. 2d 165 (1984) (a person’s “strange movements” in his attempt to evade police officers contributed to a finding of reasonable suspicion); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8, 109 S. Ct. 1581, 104 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1989) (a person’s evasive route through an airport can be highly probative in a reasonable suspicion analysis). Also, the fact that the U-turn was made in the early morning hours of a weekend (1:15 a.m. on a Saturday) indicates more of a probability of criminal behavior such as driving under the influence than does the same action at 8 a.m. on a weekday. As noted above, reasonable suspicion determinations must be made on commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior. Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 125. Further, since the roadblock was well-marked, it was readily identifiable as a roadblock rather than being mistaken for an accident site or a road hazard, which one may generally desire to avoid. Moreover, the roadblock was not busy, which suggests that a driver would not have feared a lengthy delay. We conclude that when considering “the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture,” Deputy Duffy had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.

[*P15] As in Wardlow, our conclusion is entirely consistent with an individual’s right to go about one’s business. Defendant’s U-turn upon encountering the police roadblock was the opposite of defendant going about his business. Continuing eastbound on the highway would have been going about his business. We cannot view defendant’s evasive behavior under these circumstances as simply a refusal to cooperate. Evasive behavior and a person’s refusal to speak with an officer when an officer approaches him are not one and the same. See Id.

[*P16] We disagree with defendant’s contention that his legal traffic maneuver shortly before the police roadblock did not amount to reasonable suspicion. Defendant views his U-turn as a single, isolated event, contending that avoidance of a roadblock alone is insufficient to form the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct a traffic stop. He disregards the additional circumstances present, arguing that these factors “simply reflect the choice of when, where, and how the police decided to erect the [roadblock].” However, defendant’s contention misses the point of a reasonable suspicion analysis, which considers the totality of the circumstances. The Court in Wardlow did not view the defendant’s legal act of flight from police in isolation. It found that the defendant’s flight upon noticing the police as well as his presence in a high-crime area were sufficient to generate reasonable suspicion. Id. at 124. Here, defendant’s U-turn upon encountering the roadblock, as well as the other circumstances present, were sufficient to generate reasonable suspicion. While it is true that some of these circumstances reflected the choice of when, where and how the police decided to erect the roadblock, this will always be true of a police officer’s presence in any location. In Wardlow, the fact that police officers decided to converge upon a high-crime area did not make the consideration of that factor in the Court’s reasonable suspicion analysis any less significant. Similarly here, the location, day and time of the roadblock are pertinent circumstances to consider in a reasonable suspicion determination.