People v. Surles
963 N.E.2d 957 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Handcuffing a passenger during a routine traffic stop without probable cause constitutes an unlawful arrest. A subsequent pat-down search cannot be justified under the inevitable discovery doctrine if there was no independent, reasonable, and articulable suspicion that the passenger was armed and dangerous.
Facts:
- Chicago police officers McGrew and Jesse initiated a traffic stop of a sedan for failing to stop at a stop sign.
- Darrell Surles was the passenger in the front seat of the vehicle, which was stopped in what police described as a high-crime area.
- The driver was unable to produce a valid driver's license and was placed under arrest.
- The officers decided to inventory the vehicle and ordered Surles and the other passenger to exit.
- Officer McGrew ordered Surles out of the car and immediately handcuffed him from behind for 'officer safety,' despite Surles not doing anything illegal, improper, or threatening.
- After Surles was handcuffed, Officer McGrew handed him to Officer Solana.
- Officer Solana then observed a 'slight bulge' in Surles's waistband, performed a pat-down search, felt a hard object, lifted Surles's shirt, and discovered a revolver.
Procedural Posture:
- Darrell Surles was charged with being an armed habitual criminal.
- Surles filed a pre-trial motion in the trial court to suppress the revolver as evidence obtained from an illegal search.
- The trial court held a hearing and denied the motion to suppress.
- After a stipulated bench trial, the trial court found Surles guilty.
- Surles was sentenced to seven years in prison.
- Surles's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- Surles, as the defendant-appellant, appealed the conviction to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a protective pat-down search of a vehicle passenger, conducted after the passenger was handcuffed without probable cause or a reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous, violate the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Salone
Yes, the search violates the Fourth Amendment. The court determined that placing Darrell Surles in handcuffs was not a mere investigatory stop but a full arrest. A reasonable person in Surles's situation—confronted by six officers, ordered out of the car, and immediately placed in physical restraints—would not feel free to leave. This arrest was unlawful because Officer McGrew lacked probable cause; Surles was merely a passenger, and his conduct was unremarkable and non-threatening. The trial court's reliance on the inevitable discovery doctrine was erroneous because a lawful pat-down search would not have occurred. A pat-down requires a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. The officers lacked this suspicion, as Surles's mere presence in a high-crime area and a non-descript bulge in his clothing—observed only after the illegal arrest—are individually and collectively insufficient to justify a protective frisk.
Concurring - Justice Murphy
Yes, the search was unconstitutional. While concurring with the majority's conclusion, this opinion emphasizes that the holding should not be interpreted to endanger law enforcement officers. Police are permitted to perform a protective pat-down search when they possess a reasonable, articulable suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous, as established in Terry v. Ohio. This case should not create a chilling effect on the appropriate use of pat-down searches to ensure officer safety. However, in this specific instance, the evidence failed to show that the officers had the necessary reasonable articulable suspicion to justify the search of Surles.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the Fourth Amendment protection for vehicle passengers, clarifying that they are not subject to search or seizure merely by association with a driver's traffic violation. It significantly curtails the police practice of using generalized 'officer safety' concerns or the characterization of an area as 'high-crime' to justify handcuffing and frisking individuals without specific, articulable suspicion. The court's rejection of combining a 'high-crime area' with a 'bulge' sets a higher bar for justifying Terry frisks, requiring more particularized evidence that the specific individual poses a threat. This case will likely be cited to challenge searches of passengers who have not committed any independent illegal act.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Surles