1620 South Michigan Avenue Unit 611 Chicago, Illinois 60616 Telephone: (312) 566-0678
To: Curt MarceilleFrom: Alma McCauleyRe: Matter of juvenile C.M.͛s contention of State͛s alleged improper seizureDate: Monday, November 2, 2009
Was an officer͛s order for a juvenile passenger, C.M., and the driver to exit a vehicle during atraffic stop motivated by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or a concern for his personal safetydue to the circumstances, thereby amounting to a constitutional stop within the meaning of the FourthAmendment, or was it motivated by C.M.͛s hostile attitude, thus constituting an improper seizure withinthe meaning of the Fourth Amendment?
According to a similar Florida case,
R.H. v. State
, 671 So.2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), an officer͛stestimony that he had only made a prior observation of a conversation between vehicle passengers andan African-American male, and neither was concerned for his personal safety during an apparentlylawful traffic stop, rendered the officer͛s subsequent discovery of cocaine unconstitutional within themeaning of the Fourth and First Amendments.
On January 2, 2006, Officer Jones received a 911 emergency call concerning a liquor storerobbery. He responded, investigated the scene, and took the store owner͛s statement, including avague description that several children driving an unknown SUV, who threatened him with a gun, wereresponsible for the robbery.Hours later during his shift, Officer Jones saw the 2006 Cadillac Escalade that held C.M. andthree other children. Officer Jones thought the children he noticed may have been responsible for theliquor store robbery, and followed the SUV until, frustrated after observing no traffic violations (exceptfor his later testimony that he noticed the SUV weaving on the side of the road), he pulled the vehicleover without reason to support a pretext stop.