MEMORANDUM

To: Attorney Lori Scott

From: Lisa Hendler

Re: People v. Washington

Date: December 11, 2014

ISSUES

During a lawful traffic stop, can law enforcement conduct a search of a passenger
if there is reasonable and articulable suspicion that that person is armed and dangerous?

BRIEF ANSWERS

Yes, during a lawful traffic stop, any occupants of a vehicle may be searched for
weapons if the officer thinks his safety is at risk, or reasonably believes the occupant is
armed and dangerous, regardless of suspicion of illegal activity. If a search goes past that
limit, meaning, what is reasonable and necessary to find a weapon, given the situation,
than any evidence found resulting from that search would be suppressed.

FACTS

On September 15, 2004, Crystal Washington, the defendant, was a passenger in a

2014 black Toyota Camry with her friend Michelle, the driver of the car. On their way to
a pizza restaurant, the girls noticed a Grayslake police car had been following them for
approximately one mile. As they drove through the intersection of Washington Road and
Route 45, the police car pulled them over for alleged inoperable brake lights. Officer
Young proceeded to the drivers side of the vehicle and asked the driver for her license
and proof of insurance.

Lisa Hendler 1
 During the time the driver was detained with Officer Young for the traffic stop,
another officer arrived on the scene. As he walked toward the passenger side of the
vehicle, he saw the defendant blow her nose and then reach for the glove box.

The defendant had not yet opened the glove box, when the officer ordered her out
of the vehicle. The officer yelled, Bitch, get out of the car. Put your hands on top of
your head. The defendant complied. The officer then asked, Whatcha got in there?
The defendant motioned her head no. The officer pushed the defendant against the back
of the car and said, You aint talkin? You better open your damned mouth! The
defendant spit out the contents of her mouth, to respond orally because she was afraid the
officer would otherwise hit her. Crystal was arrested and charged with possession of a
controlled substance. The police report indicates that the contents in Crystals mouth was
cocaine, but Crystal contends it was peanut butter cookies.

DISCUSSION

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall
issue but upon probable cause U.S. CONST. amend. IV.

During a traffic stop, temporary detainment and search of a vehicles occupants

fall under the Fourth Amendments condition of reasonableness. People v. Bunch, 207
Ill.2d 7, 13 (2003). A Terry analysis offers a way to challenge what is reasonable during a
traffic stop using a two-prong approach. Bunch, 207 Ill.2d 7 at 14. In the following
cases, People v. Bunch, People v. Harris 228 Ill.2d 222 (2008), and our case at hand; all
the vehicles were all stopped for traffic violations. Bunch, 207 Ill.2d 7 at 14, Harris, 228
Ill.2d 222 at 232. Therefore, the focus on these cases will fall under the second prong of
a Terry analysis. The second prong explores the duration and methodology of a search
during a lawful traffic stop. Bunch, 207 Ill.2d 7 at 14. If questioning takes place that is
not connected to the purpose of the traffic stop, then reasonable and articulable suspicion
needs to exist in order to substantiate it. Bunch, 207 Ill.2d 7 at 14.

Lisa Hendler 2
 Crystals movement toward the glove box while the officer was approaching the
vehicle caused the officer to feel that his safety was in jeopardy. This justified the officer
to ask Crystal to exit the car, to question her, and to search her, even though she gave the
officer no reason to believe she was, about to be, or had been part of any illegal activity.
Looking at the Bunch case, Bunch was an idle front-seat passenger with no connection to
the reason for the traffic stop, and who had not given the police any reason to believe he
was involved in any kind of threatening or criminal conduct. The traffic stop resulted in
the arrest of the vehicles driver for not producing a license. At this point, the traffic stop
was over. Bunch, 207 Ill.2d 7 at 19. Based on the second prong of a Terry analysis, there
was no reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain Bunch further. Bunch, 207 Ill.2d 7
at 16-17. The officer unwarrantedly questioned Bunch and detained him beyond the
scope of the traffic stop, which led to the discovery of heroin in his mouth, and finally,
his arrest. Bunch, 207 Ill.2d 7 at 20.

In the Harris case, during a lawful traffic stop, a sheriffs deputy asked Harris to
step out of the vehicle and asked for his identification before the completion of the traffic
stop. The deputy ran a warrant check on the driver and on Harris at the same time. That
check revealed an outstanding arrest warrant for Harris. Subsequently, the deputy
arrested Harris, and while he searched Harris, the deputy found cocaine in Harris jacket
pocket. Harris, 228 Ill.2d 222 at 247. Unlike Bunch and Harris, there was reasonable
and articulable suspicion to warrant the search and subsequent arrest of Crystal
Washington.

The lack of probable suspicion distinguishes Bunch and Harris from Crystal, but
they may be similar in the fact pattern that relates to the manner in which their searches
were handled by law enforcement.

Crystals case contains several factors that may have led her to believe that she
had no choice, other than to follow the officers orders.
(1) The officer yelled, Bitch, get out of the car...

Lisa Hendler 3
 (2) The officer pushed Crystal against the back of the squad car; and
(3) The officer said, You aint talkin? You better open your damned mouth!
Comparing Crystals case to the Bunch case, there were several factors that led Bunch to
feel as though the encounter was not consensual:
(1) The traffic stop happened at 1 a.m.;
(2) The officer questioned Bunch while shining a flashlight in his face; and
(3) The officer was standing only a foot away while questioning Bunch.
Bunch, 207 Ill.2d 7 at 19. Looking at the Harris case, similar to Crystals case, the way
the search was carried out led Harris into believing that he had to comply with law
enforcement. These particular events were:
(1) Flashing squad car lights;
(2) The driver was being arrested; and
(3) The deputy never told him why he wanted his identification.
Harris, 228 Ill.2d 222 at 247.

In Bunch, the officers show of authority during the search led the court to believe
that a sensible person would not be likely to feel as though they were free to leave.
Bunch, 207 Ill.2d 7 at 19. In the Harris case, Harris argued that he did not comply with
the deputys request for identification because he wanted to, but because he thought he
had to. Harris, 228 Ill.2d 222 at 246. Similarly, in Crystals situation, the show of
authority led Crystal to believe if she didnt do what the officer was requiring her to do,
he might hit her.

The case at hand is potentially distinguished from Harris and Bunch. Although
the officer had reasonable suspicion in ordering Crystal out of the car, the way the search
was carried out is questionable. Crystal stated she was afraid the officer would hit her,
rendering her compliance arguably involuntary, therefore non-consensual.

Lisa Hendler 4
 CONCLUSION

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution was designed to protect
a person from unreasonable search and seizure, but does not forbid law enforcement from
searching a person when there is reasonable suspicion to conduct a search. The court will
have to determine if the officers conduct in Crystals case renders the search non-
consensual.

Lisa Hendler 5