IL: Unconveyed intent to seize def didn’t make this not consensual

The officer’s subjective intent that this was a seizure was not conveyed to defendant, and each of the queries to defendant were requests not commands. Defendant consented. “Specifically, LaGrange testified that when he asked Youngman if he had anything illegal on him, Youngman said ‘go ahead and search me.’” People v. Smith, 2016 IL App (3d) 140648, 2016 Ill. App. LEXIS 178 (March 29, 2016):

[*P33] The record here is devoid of any of the factors listed in Mendenhall as indicative of a seizure rather than a consensual encounter. Though LaGrange himself testified that defendants were not free to leave because he was conducting an investigation, this sentiment, importantly, was never conveyed to defendants. See Goyer, 265 Ill. App. 3d at 167 (officer’s undisclosed subjective intent does not affect coercive nature of encounter in any way). The record shows that each of LaGrange’s requests of Youngman were, in fact, requests, rather than orders. Indeed, though defendants argue that LaGrange “requested consent to search [Youngman’s] person,” the evidence showed that the search was performed at Youngman’s suggestion. Specifically, LaGrange testified that when he asked Youngman if he had anything illegal on him, Youngman said “go ahead and search me.” Though defendants conclude that Youngman did not consent, but merely acquiesced to LaGrange’s authority, it cites no objective factors, either from Mendenhall or similar to those found in Mendenhall, that could support such a conclusion.

This entry was posted in Consent, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.