Additionally, either the police must use physical force or the defendant must submit to the assertion of police authority. Village of Mundelein v. Thompson, 341 Ill. App. 3d 842, 848-49 (2003). The Village cites People v. Scott, 249 Ill. App. 3d 597 (1993). There, an anonymous citizen approached two police officers and said that an apparently intoxicated individual had just driven away in a brown pickup truck.
In a motion to suppress evidence, the initial burden is on the defendant to establish that the search or seizure was unreasonable or unlawful. People v. Scott, 249 Ill. App.3d 597, 600 (1993). The defendant must make a prima facie case that the police acted without a warrant and that he was doing nothing unusual ( i.e., indicative of criminal activity) to justify the intrusion by the police at the time of the stop or arrest.
A ruling on a petition to rescind or a motion to suppress has generally been reviewed applying a manifest error standard. See People v. Scott, 249 Ill. App.3d 597, 601 (1993). Thus, in reviewing the lawfulness of a search or seizure, when the trial court's ruling involves factual determinations and credibility assessments, the decision will be reversed on appeal only if it is manifestly erroneous or against the manifest weight of the evidence β that is, only where an opposite conclusion is clearly evident from the record.
As we noted above, the court should not have cited Willock because it was a Rule 23 order. Furthermore, Lawson, which only concerned an arrest, and People v. Scott, 249 Ill. App. 3d 597, 619 N.E.2d 809 (1993), which addressed both arrests and Terry stops, do not stand for the general proposition that it is always fatal to the State's case to fail to produce such testimony. As we explain below, the trial court's statement concerning the State's burden was overly broad.
A trial court's ruling on a motion to quash or to suppress will not be overturned on review unless that ruling is against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Scott, 249 Ill. App.3d 597, 601 (1993). As the movant, the defendant has the burden of proof to establish that a search and seizure was unlawful or impermissible; therefore, he must make a prima facie case that the police lacked probable cause, lacked reasonable grounds to arrest the defendant, or had no reasonable or articulable suspicion of criminal activity that would warrant an investigative stop. Scott, 249 Ill. App.3d at 600.
It is well settled that law enforcement officers do not violate the fourth amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place and putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen. ( Florida v. Royer (1983), 460 U.S. 491, 497, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229, 236, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 1324; People v. Scott (1993), 249 Ill. App.3d 597, 602-03, 619 N.E.2d 809.) In this type of situation, the police officer is engaging in what is commonly known as the "community caretaking" function or "public safety" function.
Probable cause to arrest exists when the totality of the circumstances known to the officers is such that a reasonable prudent person would believe that the suspect is committing or has committed a crime. ( People v. Scott (1993), 249 Ill. App.3d 597, 601.) The probability of criminal activity, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is required.
ΒΆ 22 We find the reliability of the anonymous caller is of little relevance in this case because no suspicionless stop or arrest was made and no warrantless search or seizure occurred based on the tip. See People v. Scott, 249 Ill.App.3d 597, 602, 189 Ill.Dec. 108, 619 N.E.2d 809, 814 (1993) (finding the reliability of the tip was irrelevant in the fourth-amendment analysis where there was no initial stop of the defendant based on the tip). Here, an anonymous caller reported the theft of copper wire and that an individual was unlawfully burning plastic-encased copper wire at 10783 Chestnut Lane. Police officers were also aware of copper wire thefts in the vicinity.
Generally, a ruling on a motion to suppress is subject to the manifest error standard of review. People v. Scott, 249 Ill. App. 3d 597, 601 (1993). However, pursuant to Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911, 116 S. Ct. 1657 (1996), when a motion to suppress turns on a question of reasonable suspicion or probable cause, a different standard of review applies.
Defendant appeals, alleging the trial court erred in granting the State's motion for judgment at the close of proponent's case, arguing that he had proved a prima facie case for rescission. A summary suspension is a civil action in which the motorist acts in the role of plaintiff. People v. Scott, 249 Ill. App.3d 597, 600, 619 N.E.2d 809, 813 (1993). In a summary suspension proceeding, the motorist must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to rescission.