People v. Moody

68 Citing cases

  1. People v. Cleaves

    523 N.E.2d 720 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)   Cited 3 times

    Probable cause must be determined by considering the totality of the evidence and circumstances. ( People v. Moody (1983), 94 Ill.2d 1, 8, 445 N.E.2d 275, 278.) Moreover, probable cause to arrest must have existed prior to the search, because it is the validity of the arrest that makes the search proper.

  2. People v. Lumpp

    113 Ill. App. 3d 694 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)   Cited 17 times
    Applying rule where defendant's alleged confession was involuntary because the police ignored defendant's request for counsel

    Probable cause for an arrest exists when "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution in believing that an offense has been committed and that the person arrested has committed the offense." ( People v. Moody (1983), 94 Ill.2d 1, 7; People v. Creach (1980), 79 Ill.2d 96, 101, 402 N.E.2d 228, cert. denied (1980), 449 U.S. 1010, 66 L. Ed.2d 467, 101 S.Ct. 564; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 107-2.) "This standard requires more than mere suspicion, but it does not require the arresting officers to have in their hands evidence sufficient to convict the defendant."

  3. People v. Cokley

    347 Ill. App. 3d 292 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 5 times

    Probable cause exists if a police officer has knowledge of facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person arrested committed the offense. People v. Moody, 94 Ill.2d 1, 7, 67 Ill.Dec. 795, 445 N.E.2d 275, 278 (1983), citing Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 208 n. 9, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2254 n. 9, 60 L.Ed.2d 824, 833 n. 9 (1979). While this standard requires more than mere suspicion, an arresting officer is not required to possess evidence sufficient to convict.

  4. People v. O'Neal

    531 N.E.2d 867 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)   Cited 5 times
    Upholding probable cause where police overheard voice later identified as defendant's stating he would exchange money for five grams of heroin, and then saw defendant handing plastic bag to codefendant

    • 1 The test to determine if probable cause to arrest exists is whether a reasonable man would believe that an offense has been committed and that the person arrested has committed the offense. ( People v. Moody (1983), 94 Ill.2d 1, 445 N.E.2d 275.) The inquiry must focus on what was done and known by the police and what the facts, objectively viewed, prove.

  5. People v. Simpson

    129 Ill. App. 3d 822 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)   Cited 29 times
    Finding no error in admitting allegedly prejudicial evidence where the defendant himself testified to it

    • 1, 2 Probable cause exists in the objective sense if the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution in believing that an offense has been committed and that the person arrested has committed the offense. ( People v. Moody (1983), 94 Ill.2d 1, 7, 445 N.E.2d 275.) It is the function of the trial court to analyze the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officers at the time of the arrest in order to determine their sufficiency; a reviewing court will not disturb these findings unless they are manifestly erroneous. People v. Free (1983), 94 Ill.2d 378, 401, 447 N.E.2d 218, cert. denied (1983), 464 U.S. 865, 78 L.Ed.2d 175, 104 S.Ct. 200.

  6. In re D.G

    144 Ill. 2d 404 (Ill. 1991)   Cited 62 times
    Applying a de novo standard of review to analysis of probable cause

    The probable cause requirement of the fourth amendment strikes a balance between the individual's right to privacy and the need for efficient law enforcement. ( People v. Moody (1983), 94 Ill.2d 1, 7.) Probable cause exists when police "`have knowledge of facts which would lead a reasonable man to believe that a crime has occurred and that it has been committed by the defendant.'" ( Wright, 111 Ill.2d at 145, quoting People v. Eddmonds (1984), 101 Ill.2d 44, 60.) Probable cause "requires more than mere suspicion, but it does not require the arresting officers to have in their hands evidence sufficient to convict the defendant.

  7. People v. Byrd

    408 Ill. App. 3d 71 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that the trial court's "legal conclusion sufficiently informs us of the supporting inferences the trial judge may have drawn to reach his decision."

    When assessing probable cause, "[our] inquiry must focus on what was done and known by the police, not on what was believed, what the facts objectively viewed add up to, not what the officer on the scene believed they added up to." People v. Moody, 94 Ill. 2d 1, 9, 445 N.E.2d 275 (1983). We also find no reason to disagree with the implicit decision of the circuit court to give little weight to Officer Marshall's testimony that the woman that engaged in the single transaction with the defendant "looked like [a drug abuser]."

  8. People v. Deluna

    334 Ill. App. 3d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 66 times
    Holding that minor discrepancies in officer's and forensic scientist's descriptions of confiscated narcotics, e.g., whether a hole was poked in the evidence collection bag, went only to the weight of the evidence

    Probable cause is more than a mere suspicion that an offense has been committed and the individual in question committed it; however, probable cause does not require evidence sufficient to convict. See People v. Moody, 94 Ill. 2d 1, 7-8 (1983), quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175, 93 L. Ed. 1879, 1890, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 1310 (1949) (probable cause deals with "`probabilities[,] * * * the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act'"); Blake, 268 Ill. App. 3d at 740. Whether probable cause existed at the time the officer felt the object during the pat-down search "must be determined from the standpoint of the officer, with his skill and knowledge being taken into account, and the subsequent credibility determinations must be made by the trial court."

  9. People v. Delaware

    314 Ill. App. 3d 363 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 14 times
    Reiterating that a Terry stop "must be limited in scope and duration because an investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop."

    The probable cause requirement of the fourth amendment strikes a balance between the individual's right to privacy and the need for efficient law enforcement. People v. Moody, 94 Ill.2d 1, 7 (1983). Decisions involving the exclusionary rule, based on the fourth amendment and the Illinois Constitution, require that we carefully balance the legitimate aims of law enforcement against the right of our citizens to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.

  10. People v. Belton

    257 Ill. App. 3d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 6 times
    Finding probable cause where the police knew that a serious crime had been committed, the defendant was identified by witnesses who told police "there he is now," the defendant fled on foot after being identified, and the police apprehended the defendant after chasing him

    Probable cause to arrest exists where "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution in believing that an offense has been committed and that the person arrested has committed the offense." ( People v. Moody (1983), 94 Ill.2d 1, 7, 445 N.E.2d 275.) Although this standard requires more than mere suspicion, it does not require the police to have evidence sufficient to convict the defendant at the time of arrest. ( Moody, 94 Ill.2d at 7.)