People v. McKnight
| Decision Date | 08 June 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-89-0685,3-89-0685 |
| Parties | , 144 Ill.Dec. 677 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard A. McKNIGHT, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Elizabeth A. Klug, State's Attys. Appellate Prosecutor, Joseph Navarro, State's Atty., Crim. Justice Center, John X. Breslin, Deputy Director, State's Attys. Appellate Prosecutor, Ottawa, for the People.
Darrell K. Seigler, Ottawa, for Richard A. McKnight.
The defendant, Richard A. McKnight, was charged with driving while his license was revoked (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 95 1/2, par. 6-303). The trial court granted the defendant's motion to quash the arrest and dismiss the charge. The State appeals. We reverse.
The record shows that on June 13, 1989, about 10:40 p.m., police officer Patricia Swanson was on routine patrol. As she drove along Lymons Mound Road, she observed a pick-up truck parked beside the road with its headlights off. She testified that she parked her squad car behind the truck. Upon exiting her car, she observed the defendant in the driver's seat of the truck and heard the truck's motor running.
Officer Swanson further testified that upon approaching the truck she immediately asked the defendant if he had a driver's license. He responded that he did not. Swanson asked the defendant for his name, and ran it through the sheriff's dispatch, which informed her that the defendant's driver's license was revoked. Swanson then asked the defendant if he had been driving the truck. When he stated that he had been driving, she arrested him for driving while his license was revoked.
Officer Swanson also testified that Lymons Mound Road is in a wooded area, is not well traveled, and has few houses along it. She stated that the sheriff's department receives three to four complaints a month about people drag racing on the road and parking alongside it to drink and fight. She testified that she decided to investigate the defendant's parked truck because it looked suspicious. Additionally, she wanted to determine whether the driver was hurt.
Other evidence showed that Officer Swanson observed no mechanical defects in the defendant's truck. Further, the truck had a valid registration and was properly pulled off the road. In addition, Swanson never asked the defendant if he was hurt or needed help.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court quashed the defendant's arrest and dismissed the charge. It held that while Officer Swanson had a right to investigate the parked truck, she was without probable cause to ask for the defendant's driver's license, since the defendant was not overtly violating any laws.
On appeal, the State argues that Officer Swanson's request for the defendant's driver's license was proper based on the provision of the Driver Licensing Law (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 95 1/2, par. 6-100 et seq.) authorizing a police officer to request the production of a driver's license.
Section 6-112 of the Driver Licensing Law (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 95 1/2, par. 6-112) states in part:
"Every licensee * * * shall have his drivers license * * * in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and * * * shall display such license * * * upon demand * * *."
Citing this court's opinion in People v. McVey (1989), 185 Ill.App.3d 536, 133 Ill.Dec. 624, 541 N.E.2d 835, the defendant argues that to invoke the authority granted by section 6-112, there must first be probable cause. The defendant argues that without probable cause such a demand amounts to an illegal seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
We disagree and adopt the reasoning set forth in People v. Francis (1971), 4 Ill.App.3d 65, 280 N.E.2d 49. There, the court held that to require some other offense to have been committed before a police officer may demand a driver's license vitiates the purpose of section 6-112. Therefore, it concluded that a routine spot check of a motorist to ascertain if he has complied with the requirement of possession of a driver's permit is neither unreasonable nor invalid, provided such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cummings
...L.Ed.2d 299 (2005), quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991)); accord People v. McKnight, 198 Ill.App.3d 530, 533, 144 Ill.Dec. 677, 555 N.E.2d 1196 (1990) ( “it is not necessary for a police officer to have probable cause to request production o......
-
People v. Hernandez
...suspicion of a traffic violation or other criminal activity.” Id. at 713, 233 Ill.Dec. 928, 701 N.E.2d 1202 (citing People v. McKnight, 198 Ill.App.3d 530, 533, 144 Ill.Dec. 677, 555 N.E.2d 1196 (1990), and People v. Francis, 4 Ill.App.3d 65, 67, 280 N.E.2d 49 (1971)). This court acknowledg......
-
People v. Safunwa
... ... See People v. McKnight, 198 Ill.App.3d 530, 533, 144 Ill.Dec. 677, 555 N.E.2d 1196 (1990); People v. Francis, 4 Ill.App.3d 65, 67, 280 N.E.2d 49 (1972). Section 6-112 states in part: ... "Every licensee * * * shall have his drivers license * * * in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle ... ...
-
People v. Hernandez
...where there has been no initial suspicion of a traffic violation or other criminal activity." Id. at 713 (citing People v. McKnight, 198 Ill. App. 3d 530, 533 (1990), and People v. Francis, 4 Ill. App. 3d 65, 67 (1971)). This court acknowledged that, while it is proper to drive on a "traffi......