IL: Frisk depends on RS def is armed, not just committing some nebulous offense

“We reject defendant’s argument he was seized when officer Harrold requested he remove his hands from his pockets and conclude defendant was not seized until officer Harrold frisked him.” … “Accordingly, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion the individual is armed and dangerous at the time of the frisk. By so concluding, we note defendant’s arguments relating to the lack of reasonable suspicion defendant was involved in criminal activity are inapplicable.” The officer had such reasonable suspicion here. People v. Evans, 2017 IL App (4th) 140672, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 123 (March 9, 2017).

The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that defendant’s girlfriend consented to the search of their residence. “At the suppression hearing the State’s witness … testified that Wallace gave consent to search her residence. Wallace initially testified that she did not give consent, but then testified twice that she did not remember, was on medication and experiences blackouts.” State v. Wesley, 2017-Ohio-799, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 794 (7th Dist. March 6, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Stop and frisk. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.