X hits on this document

PDF document

No. 2—09—0833 Opinion iled March 31, 2011 - page 23 / 24





23 / 24

No. 2—09—0833

I respectfully dissent because I believe that the trial court correctly granted defendant’s

motion to suppress. The “ ‘essential purpose’ of the fourth amendment is to impose a standard of

reasonableness upon the exercise of discretion by law enforcement of icers to safeguard the privacy

and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions.” People v. McDonough, 239 Ill. 2d 260, 266

(2010) (quoting Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653-54 (1979)). Here, it is undisputed that the

home address that defendant provided was about four blocks away from the location of the stop.

Of icer Hucker presumably could have verified the address through the license check that led to

defendant’s arrest. As in Young, I believe that Hucker should have asked the teenager, whom Hucker

admitted could have been 16 to 19 years old, whether she was a licensed driver. If so, the reasonable

course of action would have been to allow the teenager to go to the home and retrieve proof of

insurance, which would have led to both the teenager driving the vehicle away and the elimination

of the statutory basis for impounding the vehicle. Although the majority states that it would be

unreasonable and undulyburdensome for an of icer to have to wait an “indeterminate period” for this

series of events (slip op. at 17), the officer could have easily provided a specific amount of time to

retrieve the insurance card.

Even otherwise, I believe the vehicle’s impoundment under the circumstances of this case

violated defendant’s fourth amendment rights. I recognize that the impoundment complied with

section 6—303(e) of the Vehicle Code, but a seizure may comply with state law while still being

unreasonable under the fourth amendment. Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 61 (1968). I agree

with the majority that an impoundment must either be supported by probable cause or be consistent

with the police role as “caretaker” of the streets. Slip op. at 8. In the caretaker scenario, it follows

that “[a]n officer cannot reasonably order an impoundment in situations where the location of the

  • -


Document info
Document views90
Page views90
Page last viewedSat Jan 21 04:25:32 UTC 2017