An illegal stop and search that led to an outstanding warrant wasn’t attenuated by the finding of the warrant, even when the stop was not purposeful or flagrant. In re Jarrell C. (People v. Jarrell C.), 2017 IL App (1st) 170932, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 762 (Dec. 11, 2017):
[*P36] Here, the evidence does not reveal that the officers were conducting a fishing expedition. Their stop of respondent was not calculated to cause fright, surprise, and confusion. The evidence suggests that the stop was an isolated instance that occurred in connection with a bona fide belief that respondent possessed a gun in his waistband. Accordingly, just as in Strieff, the officers’ error in judgment does not rise to the level of purposeful or flagrant violation of respondent’s rights. This factor is the only one that favors attenuation.
[*P37] Based on our review of the case, we find that the trial court erred in denying respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence. The court determined that the police stop was unjustified and we will not disturb that finding. But respondent’s unrelated arrest warrant did not intervene between the stop and the discovery of the evidence, as the police did not know about the arrest warrant before or during respondent’s search. Therefore, the court erred when it denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the illegal stop.