You are on page 1of 3


People v. Garza, 44 Ill. App. 3d 30, 357 N.E.2d 1264, 2 Ill. Dec. 821 (1st Dist. 1976) Procedural History: Defendant Daniel Garza was convicted of aggravated battery in the Cook County Circuit Court. Defendant appealed his conviction to the First District Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. Statement of Facts: Three young males were standing before a brightly lit shop window one night, when they were approached by four men in a car. After questioning the young males about membership in a street gang, one of the men attacked them. All three escaped, but two of them were severely injured and had to be hospitalized. The victims provided descriptions of the attackers ethnicity, age, and attire as well as the knife that was used in the attack. A short while later, two police officers who were patrolling the neighborhood stopped four men who fit that description. Defendant was in this group and was known to the officers because of past arrests. Defendant and his brother were separately questioned about their whereabouts at the time of the attack. Defendant stated that he was at his brothers house; however, the brother stated that he himself had been out. One officer then conducted a pat-down of defendant, upon which he discovered a knife similar to the description given by the victims. The knife looked to have been recently washed. The four men were then placed in the police car and taken to the hospital where the two victims were being treated. Both victims independently identified defendant as their attacker. Afterwards the officers took the four men to a police station, where they were placed in a line-up with an individual who had a goatee but otherwise matched them in height, age, and weight. The third victim, who was not hospitalized, identified three of them, including defendant. Although the police officer testified during trial that defendant was not arrested until after the hospital show-up, the judge ruled that defendant was under arrest as soon as he was placed in the squad car. At trial, defendant contended that the arresting officers did not have probable cause; that the hospital show-up was an impermissible form of identification; and that the line-up was suggestive. Issue: 1) May an officer arrest a person if there is no warrant for his or her arrest and that person is not committing a crime? 2) Is a hospital show-up permissible only when a victim or witness is in grave physical condition? 3) Is the placement of all the suspects of a crime in the same line-up with someone who has a distinctive feature impermissibly suggestive?

Answer: 1) Yes, an officer may without a warrant arrest an individual who is not committing a crime, if a crime has been committed and the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual committed said crime. 2) No, a hospital show-up is permissible where the physical condition of the victim or witness requires immediate identification of a suspect or where misidentification is unlikely because the victim or witness had a direct and clear view of the suspect in the commission of a crime. 3) Yes, a line-up is legitimate provided that the participants all have similar characteristics and there is no suggestion or improper interference by the police. Reasoning: Defendant contended that his arrest was improper because there was no warrant. Initially, the police officers did not arrest defendant and his associates, but only stopped them for questioning, relying on the fact that they matched the general description given by the victims. Because the officers were looking for suspects who had engaged in a violent attack, the court held that they were within reason to search defendant for weapons. The court also held that an arrest without a warrant is valid provided that a criminal offense has been committed and the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe the suspect committed said offense. During the pat-down of defendant, the officers discovered a knife that seemed to fit the description given by the witnesses and that also looked to have been washed recently. Additionally, the officers questioning uncovered a seeming discrepancy between defendants and his brothers accounts of where he had been when the attack took place. Based on these facts and the questioning before the pat-down, the court found that the arrest of defendant was valid. Defendant also argued that the hospital show-up was impermissible because neither victim was near death. However, the court held while a hospital show-up is permissible when the grave physical condition of a victim or witness requires immediate identification, it is also permissible when the victim or witnesss clear view of the suspect in the commission of a crime negates the possibility of misidentification. In defendants case the fact that none of the victims died was less important because the officers only knew that the victims injuries were extremely severe. Additionally both of the victims had been standing by a well-lit shop window and were able to clearly observe the assailants face during the attack. The court thus held that the hospital showup was permissible. Lastly, defendant argued that the line-up was impermissibly suggestive because all four suspects were placed in a line-up with one man who had a goatee. However, the court found that this was not the case. First, the line-up participants were all of the same height, age and weight and were dressed similarly to one another. Second, there was evidence that the police unduly influenced

the witness with suggestions or comments. Third, the witness only identified defendant and two others correctly. The court reasoned if the line-up had been truly suggestive, he would have identified all of them. Holding: The First District Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the Cook County Circuit Court.

You might also like