!

People v. Blake, 268 Ill. App. 3d 737, 645 N.E.2d 580, 206 Ill. Dec. 575 (2nd Dist. 1995). Procedural History: Defendant James Blake was convicted of possession of a controlled substance in the Lake County Circuit Court. During trial, Defendant unsuccessfully moved to suppress evidence obtained during a weapons frisk. Defendant appealed his conviction to the Second District Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment of the trial court. Statement of Facts: A police officer observed Defendant and another person exchanging items in a location known for drug deals. Both men were shadowed, and the officer did not see what they exchanged. During the hearing on the motion to suppress, the officer testified that when he stopped the men, they both appeared nervous. He conducted a pat down of both men because he claimed to fear for his safety. The officer did not find any weapons but discovered a bulge in Defendants pants pocket, which through manipulation he determined was a rolled object in a plastic bag. The officer testified that it felt like marijuana and after retrieving the object from Defendants pocket discovered what he believed to be marijuana. During trial, Defendant claimed that the search was intrusive and went beyond what was permitted for a pat down in search of weapons. In deciding on the motion to suppress, the trial court considered that the officer had seen two persons exchanging items and that he had prior experience in making drug arrests involving marijuana. Therefore, the court denied Defendants motion to suppress. Issue: During an investigatory stop, may an officer search a suspect without probable cause after determining there is no weapon? Answer: No. A pat down for weapons during an investigatory stop is permissible only if the officer has clear and articulable reasons to believe he or others are in danger. After concluding that there are no weapons, continued exploration of the suspects person is impermissible without probable cause. Reasoning: The appellate court was called upon to determine if the trial court had erroneously denied Defendants motion to suppress. Although warrantless searches are generally unreasonable, the Supreme Court established in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968), that an exception exists when an officer has a reasonable belief that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime. Further, an officer may pat down a person during an investigatory stop if the officer has a reasonable belief that the person is armed and dangerous. If during a pat

down the officer feels an object whose shape leads to its identification, the officer has not invaded the suspects privacy. In order for an officer to seize an item, he must have probable cause to believe the item is contraband. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S. Ct. 2130, 124 L. Ed. 2d 334 (1993). Probable cause is established on more than mere suspicion, meaning the officer must know specific facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed and that the defendant committed it. If after determining through a pat down that the defendant is not carrying a weapon, an officer may not continue exploring the defendants pockets in order to establish probable cause of the commission of a crime. Id. In this case, the court held that the officer never explained how he knew that the bulge in Defendants pocket was marijuana as supposed to any other legal substance. Therefore, he needed to establish probable cause to continue manipulating the object. However, the officer did not see what Defendant and the other man exchanged, nor were the two men known to the officer as drug dealers in an inherently suspicious area. Although they appeared nervous at his approach, this is not enough to establish probable cause. Therefore, the appellate court held that the officer failed to establish probable cause and that the trial court erred in denying Defendants motion. Holding: The Second District Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Lake County Circuit Court. Dissent: Judge Bowman dissented. He agreed with the majority opinion that further exploration of a defendants person after the officer has determined that there is no weapon exceeds the scope of Terry. However, he disagrees that the officer in this case had acted in this manner. He points to the officers testimony, in which the officer claims he felt objects in Defendants left and right pockets but only focused on the left pocket because, based on his prior experience in drug arrests, he immediately recognized the contents to be marijuana. In Bowmans view, the overall circumstances, thus, were enough to establish probable cause to continue exploration. Bowman would have affirmed the trial courts judgment.