People v. Webb
| Decision Date | 01 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-18-0110,1-18-0110 |
| Citation | 446 Ill.Dec. 1,169 N.E.3d 62,2020 IL App (1st) 180110 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Corey WEBB, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
¶ 1 Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon by a street gang member and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. He appeals those convictions, arguing that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, that the State did not prove that he was a member of a street gang, and that the trial court erred when it limited the trial testimony about the Independent Police Review Authority's investigation surrounding defendant's arrest. We hold that the trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence and did not abuse its discretion when it limited the scope of the testimony about the investigation into the police officers' conduct in making the arrest. We, however, hold that the evidence was insufficient to prove defendant's membership in a street gang. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for resentencing.
¶ 3 On September 10, 2010, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Chicago police officers were on patrol when they saw a large gathering of 30 to 40 people gathered in the street and on the sidewalk making a lot of noise. Officer Dennis Huberts and his partner arrived at the scene on the east side of the crowd, and two other officers arrived at the scene on the opposite side of the crowd. The four officers exited their vehicles with plans to disperse the crowd with the officers converging on the crowd from different directions.
¶ 4 The crowd was beginning to disperse, primarily toward the north and the west, when Officer Huberts saw defendant begin running eastward toward him and his partner. Officer Huberts observed defendant looking over his shoulder at the other set of police officers as he fled. Officer Huberts also saw that defendant was clutching something near his waistband as he was running. Officer Huberts announced his office and told defendant to stop. Defendant did not comply.
¶ 5 Officer Huberts chased defendant and put his hands on defendant's shoulders to try to stop him. Defendant continued to run and pull away from Officer Huberts, so Officer Huberts performed an "emergency takedown," grabbing defendant near his collar area and pulling him to the ground. While on the ground, defendant was resisting Officer Huberts's attempts to detain him, and defendant continued to stiffen his body and would not remove his hands from his waist area while Officer Huberts attempted to gain control over defendant on the ground. Officer Huberts struck defendant in the head multiple times in an attempt to secure defendant's compliance. After striking defendant, Officer Huberts and his partner were able to get control of defendant's arms and hands, and Officer Huberts went to the area that defendant had been holding and felt a weapon in defendant's waistband. Once defendant's hands were under control of the officers, Officer Huberts went and retrieved a Desert Eagle 9-millimeter handgun from the center of defendant's waistband. The officers then handcuffed defendant. All of the events took place in a matter of seconds.
¶ 6 Defendant was arrested and eventually charged with unlawful possession of a weapon by a street gang member and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. While at the police station, defendant told the officers that he is a member of the Black P. Stones and that he had been a member of that gang for as long as he could remember. Defendant further stated that he got the gun from one of his fellow gang members. An assistant state's attorney memorialized defendant's statement and authorized the charges against him. After being at the police station for a period, defendant was transported by ambulance to the hospital. He underwent surgery for a broken jaw
.
¶ 7 As the case against defendant progressed, defendant filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. In that motion, defendant argued that he was doing nothing wrong or illegal before the police officers ran up to him and threw him on the ground. Defendant stated that the officers began to punch and kick him and that they then searched him. He argued that any statement he allegedly made or any evidence uncovered during the search should be suppressed as being the product of an unlawful search and seizure. The trial court denied defendant's motion.
¶ 8 At trial, the police officers' testimony was consistent with the narrative set forth above. However, defendant himself and two other eyewitnesses testified in defendant's defense. All three of these witnesses testified that the officers essentially targeted defendant and searched him for no reason. These witnesses also testified that the officers treated defendant harshly, including that they kicked him in the face, resulting in defendant ending up on the ground, spitting up blood. These witnesses testified that defendant was doing nothing wrong and that the officers just came at him for no reason. They testified that defendant did not have a weapon.
¶ 9 The jury found defendant guilty of both unlawful possession of a weapon by a street gang member and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. The trial court sentenced defendant to five years' imprisonment. He now appeals his convictions.
¶ 11 Defendant argues that (1) his motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence should have been granted, (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove that the Black P. Stones meet the statutory definition of a "streetgang," (3) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a directed finding as to whether there was sufficient evidence that the Black P. Stones met the statutory definition of a streetgang, and (4) the trial court improperly limited the testimony about the Independent Police Review Authority's investigation launched into the circumstances surrounding defendant's arrest, namely that the officers used excessive force in arresting defendant. We agree with defendant on points two and three and we reject his arguments on points one and four.
¶ 13 Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. Defendant contends that his fourth amendment rights were violated where the officers on scene did not see him do anything illegal or improper before they violently detained him. Under the circumstances, defendant maintains that when he was tackled and restrained by the officers it constituted an impermissible arrest, not a lawful Terry stop, because the officers restrained him with physical force before they had made any observations that could constitute probable cause or even a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
¶ 14 Before a police officer may arrest an individual, the officer must have probable cause that the person committed or is committing a crime. People v. Sledge , 92 Ill. App. 3d 1051, 1058, 48 Ill.Dec. 381, 416 N.E.2d 412 (1981). In contrast, a police officer may briefly detain an individual and perform a protective pat down when the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the individual is engaged in criminal activity and for purposes of officer safety. Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 30-31, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
¶ 15 Officer Huberts testified that he saw defendant running from the crowd and clutching his waistband. Defendant was running toward Officer Huberts and his partner. Officer Huberts believed that the manner in which defendant was grabbing near his waistband was indicative of defendant having a gun concealed in that area. The officers' testimony portrayed the scene as somewhat chaotic, with a large group of individuals creating a noise disturbance and then scattering to disperse when the police arrived. The officers encountered defendant in a high-crime area at approximately 11:30 at night. Defendant fled from one set of officers, but that meant that he was running toward Officer Huberts and his partner while he was fixated on his waistband, leading the officers to suspect that defendant was armed while running in their direction. The officers reasonably perceived an officer safety issue.
¶ 16 The officers had a reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged in criminal activity when he ran from the crowd, grabbing near his waist, in a manner that suggested he was carrying a weapon. The officers provided, both at trial and at the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence, a reasonable basis upon which they believed defendant was armed. Defendant was acting far different than the others in the crowd that were dispersing, and his nervous and evasive behavior culminated in flight. In the officers' experience, defendant's fixation on his waistband area in a manner suggesting he had a weapon concealed there as he fled indicated that he was armed. The officers in this case had seen dozens of people carrying weapons in the past who conducted themselves as defendant did here. See Terry , 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868 ().
¶ 17 When the officers attempted to detain defendant in furtherance of the above-established reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, defendant resisted their attempts to effectuate a Terry stop. He continued to run from Officer Huberts after Officer Huberts announced his office and told defendant to stop. Then, when Officer Huberts put his hands on defendant's shoulders to try to stop him, defendant tried to pull away. It was at that point that Officer Huberts elevated the...
To continue reading
Request your trial