Defendant was convicted, after stipulated bench trial, of manufacture and delivery of a controlled substance, a Class X felony. Court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress, finding that Defendant voluntarily consented to the police search of his person. The only evidence of Defendant's "voluntary" consent was when trooper asked if he could search Defendant and trooper testified that Defendant "did not tell me no." Defendant testified that he said "no", that he had already been patted down once, nothing was found, and he wanted to know if he could leave. Acquiescence to authority does not equate to consent. Nonverbal consent must be unequivocally clear. Video of stop shows, at best, that Defendant submitted to authority. State failed to meet its burden to show, by totality of circumstances, that Defendant voluntarily consented to search of his person. (CAVANAGH and HARRIS, concurring.)
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Search & Seizure