People v. Turman

• Decision Date: 23 October 2019
• Docket Number: NO. 4-17-0815,4-17-0815
• Citation: 2019 IL App (4th) 170815,145 N.E.3d 473,437 Ill.Dec. 900
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus E. TURMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2019 IL App (4th) 170815

145 N.E.3d 473

437 Ill.Dec. 900

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Marcus E. TURMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-17-0815

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

FILED October 23, 2019

James E. Chadd, John M. McCarthy, and Joshua Scanlon, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, for appellant.

Julia Rietz, State's Attorney, of Urbana (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and James C. Majors, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant, Marcus E. Turman, appeals from his conviction for violating section 3 of the Sex Offender Registration Act (Act) ( 730 ILCS 150/3 (West 2016) ). On appeal, defendant argues we should reverse his conviction because the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence. We disagree and affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 A. Information

¶ 4 In January 2017, the State charged defendant by information with violating the Act based on his failure to register his current address with the Urbana Police Department within three days of establishing his residence or temporary domicile in Urbana. Id.

¶ 5 B. Motion to Suppress

¶ 6 In June 2017, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, claiming he was unlawfully seized without reasonable suspicion. Defendant alleged, on January 17, 2017, he was seized when Champaign County sheriff's deputies, in a show of authority, approached, surrounded, and ordered him to dismount from his bicycle. Defendant further alleged that seizure occurred without the requisite reasonable, articulable suspicion to believe he committed or was about to commit a crime. Defendant requested the trial court suppress all evidence obtained following his encounter with the deputies.

¶ 7 C. Suppression Hearing

¶ 8 In July 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant presented testimony from a Champaign County sheriff's deputy who was involved in the January 17, 2017, encounter, Deputy Nicky Bolt. Defendant also introduced into evidence an aerial map. The following is gleaned from the evidence presented.

¶ 9 On January 17, 2017, at 3:55 p.m., Champaign County sheriff deputies, including Deputy Bolt, were dispatched to 813 MacArthur Drive in Urbana for a reported armed robbery. Deputy Bolt believed the armed robbery, a purse-snatching, occurred in the front yard of the residence located at 813 MacArthur Drive. Deputy Bolt identified the location of the armed robbery on the aerial map.

¶ 10 Dispatch provided a description of the armed robbery suspect. The suspect was described as a black male, approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall and of medium build, wearing blue jeans and a black hooded sweatshirt. Deputy Bolt testified the "victim" also reported the suspect left "on foot." Deputy Bolt, along with other deputies and a canine unit, responded to the neighborhood where the armed robbery occurred to search for the suspect.

¶ 11 Deputy Bolt testified she arrived "at the scene" at approximately 4:26 p.m. Deputy Bolt, who was inside a squad car, observed a male, later identified as defendant, on a bicycle on the corner of Pfeffer Road and California Avenue. Defendant's location was approximately "a block, block and a half" away from the location where the armed robbery had occurred. Deputy Bolt identified where defendant was located on the aerial map. Defendant was wearing blue jeans, a black jacket, a black hooded sweatshirt, and a blue hat. Deputy Bolt made an in-court identification of defendant as the person she observed on the bicycle.

¶ 12 Deputy Bolt testified she decided to approach defendant because he was (1) "approximately the same size" as the suspect, (2) "wearing blue jeans, a black jacket[,] and a black hooded sweatshirt," and (3) "riding his bike down Pfeffer [Road]." Deputy Bolt noted that defendant later reported to be 5 feet 7 inches tall and 125 pounds, which she believed to be accurate based on her encounter with him.

¶ 13 On direct examination, Deputy Bolt testified as follows concerning her approach and initial interaction with defendant:

"Q. Okay. Now, you, at that point, when you saw him, you told him to get off the bicycle?

A. Yeah. I asked him if he would speak with us.

Q. Okay. He wasn't free to leave at that time?

A. I didn't tell him he wasn't free to leave. I mean—

Q. He had—

A.—that was never indicated.

Q. But you asked—you ordered him to get off the bicycle?

A. I asked him if he would speak with us, if he would stop and speak with me, yes.

Q. So, you didn't order him to get off the bicycle?

A. No. Not that—

Q. If he had left on his bicycle, would you have tried to stop him?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Would you have used force to do that?

* * *

Q. Reasonable force? I'm not—would you have attempted to restrain him from leaving or would you have followed him in your vehicle?

A. I would have followed him.

Q. Okay. For the purposes of stopping him?

A. Yes, but I wouldn't have placed hands on him to stop him at that point."

¶ 14 Deputy Bolt testified a male deputy, "Deputy Hubbard," exited his vehicle, which was located near Pfeffer Road and California Avenue, when he saw her "get out" with defendant. Deputy Hubbard approached where Deputy Bolt was standing. When asked if she and Deputy Hubbard "were on either side" of defendant, Deputy Bolt testified she could not recall their "exact stance" but believed they were both close to defendant and "[p]robably" within arm's length.

¶ 15 At some point, Deputy Bolt called dispatch to complete a Law Enforcement Agencies Data System (LEADS) check. Dispatch reported defendant had a "violation of the sex offender registration out of Peoria County." Deputy Bolt then asked defendant when he last registered, to which defendant stated it was a year prior with the Danville Police Department. Deputy Bolt asked defendant where he was staying, to which defendant stated he had been staying at his aunt's house on Illinois Street for the past three months. After learning this information, Deputy Bolt placed defendant under arrest for failing to register as a sex offender. Deputy Bolt went to the house of defendant's aunt, which was "just up the block." Deputy Bolt learned from defendant's aunt that defendant had been staying with her for approximately a week.

¶ 16 Defendant was later presented for a "show-up" with the victim of the armed robbery. The show-up was found to be "negative."

¶ 17 On cross-examination, Deputy Bolt testified as follows concerning her interaction with defendant:

"Q. Okay. After you made contact with him, what did you do?

A. At that point, I informed him who I was and who I worked for and that I stopped him because an armed robbery had just occurred and he matched the description of that armed robbery. While speaking with him, he had—he had difficulty remembering where his aunt's—his aunt lived, telling us his information and he was very fidgety, kept putting his hands in his pocket."

¶ 18 Deputy Bolt also testified that she asked defendant for his name, which defendant provided. She then reported defendant's name to dispatch to complete a LEADS check. Deputy Bolt acknowledged she did not know the exact time the armed robbery occurred but only that she received the dispatch call at 3:55 p.m. and made contact with defendant at "[r]oughly" 4:20 p.m.

¶ 19 By examination of the trial court, Deputy Bolt testified as follows concerning her interaction with defendant:

"Q. All right. And so the sequence of conversation with him was you stopped him, identified why you were stopping him, that he had matched the description, got his name and then did you immediately run his name through LEADS or was there further conversation first?

A. No. I ran his name through LEADS right after he—

Q. So, basically stopped—

A.—gave me his information.

Q.—told him why you stopped him—

A. Mm-hmm.

Q.—got his name, ran LEADS?

A. Yeah. I believe I had asked him where he had been, and that's when he said he'd been at—he was coming from his aunt's house and going to the gas station. And then after he told me that, that's when I ran his name through LEADS.

Q. Okay. And how long did it take you to get a response from LEADS about the violation?

A. It was within—it was right away. I mean, it came back right away."

¶ 20 Defendant requested the trial court suppress all evidence obtained following his encounter with the deputies, claiming the evidence presented demonstrated he was unlawfully seized without reasonable suspicion. Specifically, defendant asserted he was seized at approximately 4:20 p.m. when Deputy Bolt exited her vehicle to speak with him. At that time, defendant contended, he was not free to leave. In support, defendant highlighted Deputy Bolt's testimony, indicating she was looking for an armed robbery suspect and she would have followed him in her squad car had he attempted to leave. Defendant further asserted the seizure occurred without reasonable suspicion as (1) the description of the armed robbery suspect was "very vague" and could "fit[ ] various people," (2) defendant did not match the description of the suspect as he was wearing a blue hat and riding a bicycle, and (3) it was unreasonable to believe the suspect would be on a bicycle and only a block and a half away 25 to 30 minutes after the armed robbery occurred.

¶ 21 The State requested the trial court deny defendant's motion to suppress, claiming the evidence presented demonstrated Deputy Bolt had the necessary reasonable suspicion to detain defendant. The State asserted the description of the armed robbery suspect was not vague, since it included the suspect's gender, race, height, build, and clothing. The State further asserted it was reasonable for Deputy Bolt to believe, given the suspect's description and the surrounding circumstances, that defendant was the perpetrator. Specifically, the State highlighted that Deputy Bolt responded to the neighborhood of the armed robbery within a...