People v. Schlottman

• Decision Date: 16 March 1976
• Docket Number: No. 74--394,74--394
• Citation: 37 Ill.App.3d 62,344 N.E.2d 8
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David SCHLOTTMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 8

344 N.E.2d 8

37 Ill.App.3d 62

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.David SCHLOTTMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 74--394.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

March 16, 1976.

Robert Agostinelli, Director, State Appellate Defender Agency, Ottawa (Mary Robinson, Ottawa, and Randall Nye, Senior Law Student, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

James E. Hinterlong, Illinois State's Attorney Assoc., Ottawa (Russell H. Boothe, Ottawa, of counsel), for appellee-plaintiff.

BARRY, Justice.

The defendant, David Schlottman, appeals from his conviction for possessing not less than 10 nor more than 30 grams of cannabis in violation of Ill.Rev.Stat., 1973, ch. 56 1/2, § 704(c).Schlottman was charged by complaint.The court conducted a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence and denied his motion.He was found guilty at a bench trial and was sentenced to one year of probation, a one hundred dollar fine, and costs of fifteen dollars.

He raises three issues in his appeal: 1) Whether his conviction should be reversed because his motion to suppress evidence was improperly denied, the evidence being the product of an unlawful stop for questioning, 2) whether his conviction must be reversed because the record does not affirmatively show that his waiver of jury trial was made knowingly and understandingly, and 3) whether it was an abuse of the trial court's discretion to impose, as a part of defendant's sentence, a fine of one hundred dollars without first considering defendant's financial resources and future ability to pay such a fine.

In view of our disposition of the first issue raised by defendant, it is unnecessary to comment upon or decide the other issues raised.

We agree with defendant's contention that his conviction must be reversed because his motion to suppress evidence was improperly denied.On the night defendant was arrested, May 24, 1974, at about 10:00 P.M. two Tazewell County Deputy Sheriffs were dispatched to investigate a teen-age drinking and 'pot'party which was reported to be going on near Mackinaw Bridge.The area around the bridge is essentially rural.While proceeding to the scene the officers stopped three or four cars coming from the scene.One of the cars was stopped as far as three or four miles from the bridge.These investigative stops uncovered no evidence of crime and no arrests resulted.The individuals stopped corroborated the report of a party going on at Mackinaw Bridge.As the officers neared the bridge they encountered the local farmer who had called in the original complaint.He informed them that the party had been there but that he had broken it up and dispersed the participants.After examining the scene, and finding no one present, the officers drove across the bridge and proceeded down the rural gravel road for some distance.They parked their car and extinguished its lights.There testimony indicated that after waiting for two or three minutes they observed the defendant's car proceeding slowly towards them and towards the bridge.The car was not fleeing from the scene of the party as they suspected the cars they stopped earlier were.Both officers admit they had no idea of who was in the oncoming car.They further admit that there was nothing unusual about the operation of defendant's vehicle and that they did not observe the violation of any traffic laws.The farmer had not described any particular vehicles to them.When defendant's car approached nearer the deputies turned on the lights of their squad car and pulled across the road blocking the path of defendant's car.After the stop had been completed the deputies directed the occupants to get out and produce identification.As defendant exited the car a bag of what appeared to be cannabis came into the plain view of the police.

In order to determine the validity of the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized we must decide the legality of the stop.The State has attempted to justify the legality of the stop and the resulting seizure of the contraband in plain view on the criteria established in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889(1968).Under Terry v. Ohio, supra, andAdams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612(1972), the courts have approved of authority in appropriate circumstances to infringe upon the Fourth Amendment right to privacy and will allow a properly limited search or seizure on facts that fall short of probable cause to arrest or search...