Respondent minor was riding his bicycle when 2 police officers, wishing to speak with him as a potential witness to a homicide, stopped their squad car in his path of travel in middle of street. Officers noticed a bulge in his pocket in the "silhouette" of a firearm. Respondent admitted that he was in possession of fa firearm. Although a seizure did take place, it was reasonable under the circumstances. In context of a suspicionless but reasonable seizure, the later development of a reasonable suspicion that the detainee is armed justifies a patdown of that person. The fact that the court wanted to view the pants the Respondent had been wearing, and the gun, to test credibility of officer's testimony that he could see outline of gun, indicates that court did not have a pre-existing opinion about them. Court did not abuse its discretion in reopening the proof, did not act as advocate, and did not improperly rely on information outside evidentiary process.(HOWSE, concurring; McBRIDE, specially concurring.)
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Search & Seizure