IL: Heroin overdose victim injected with Narcan is PC to arrest for possession

When the police come upon a heroin overdose and inject Narcan, there is probable cause to arrest the defendant for possession. People v. Teper, 2016 IL App (2d) 160063, 2016 Ill. App. LEXIS 794 (Nov. 17, 2016):

[*P38] The question here is whether the police had “reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain, arrest, or search” defendant “for criminal activity[,] and the reasonable suspicion or probable cause [was] based on information obtained prior to or independent of” defendant “taking action to seek or obtain emergency medical assistance and not obtained as a direct result of the action of seeking or obtaining emergency medical assistance.” Id. As discussed, defendant never sought emergency medical assistance, and she did not obtain emergency medical assistance until the officers injected her with Narcan. Prior to that time, the officers observed defendant’s condition and saw a brown rock-like substance, syringes, and the bottom part of a can containing cotton that were in plain view in the car.

[*P39] An officer has probable cause to arrest a person if he or she knows facts that would lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that the individual has committed an offense. People v. Taylor, 2016 IL App (2d) 150634, ¶ 49. In general, when an officer observes illegal drugs in plain view, the officer has probable cause to seize the contraband and arrest the vehicle’s occupants. See People v. Leggions, 382 Ill. App. 3d 1129, 1134 (2008); People v. Walters, 256 Ill. App. 3d 231, 238 (1994). Thus, before rendering emergency medical assistance in the form of the Narcan injection, the officers here had probable cause to arrest defendant for unlawful possession of a controlled substance, because they viewed defendant’s condition and saw suspected drugs and drug paraphernalia. Stated differently, the officers’ probable cause was based on information they acquired before defendant obtained emergency medical assistance from them, and the evidence was not a direct result of defendant obtaining emergency medical assistance. See 720 ILCS 570/414(e) (West 2014). Accordingly, even if section 414(c) initially provided defendant with immunity, section 414(e) prohibited the application of that immunity. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges under section 414.