Search & seizure; Motion to suppress evidence; A Terry stop; People v Shankle; Limits; Sibron v New York; Ybarra v Illinois

Holding that the police did not have the legal right to detain and search defendants-McCloud and Edwards, the court concluded that the trial court erred in denying their motion to suppress. Police were conducting an undercover investigation into a club. Officer K “detained McCloud because McCloud was security. He and the other police officers needed to remove security so decoys could enter the club with their weapons. [K] testified at the motion hearing that it was common practice to detain security during undercover operations, but he failed to provide any testimony that indicated he was detaining McCloud because he had a reasonable suspicion that McCloud had committed or was committing any crimes.” The court noted that immediately after K removed McCloud from the building, he put him “against a wall, asked him if he had any narcotics or weapons on him, which McCloud contended that he did not, and then performed a pat down of his person. Although [K] contended that the pat down was for ‘Officer safety,’ [K] failed to provide any testimony that indicated that McCloud was armed and dangerous.” In addition, another officer (L) did not “provide any testimony indicating that he detained Edwards because he had a reasonable suspicion that Edwards had committed or was committing any crimes.” L only testified that his assignment “was ‘to detain security, anyone at the door,’” which was common in “this type of operation[.]” L did not offer any testimony indicating “that Edwards had made motions or gestures signifying that he was armed or dangerous at any point.” Considering the evidence here “in light of Sibron and Ybarra,” the court concluded that, as in Sibron, “the mere act of working security at an afterhours club being investigated for the possibility that it was selling liquor without a license did not provide reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop at the time of defendants’ seizure and pat down search.” In addition, “as in Ybarra, there was no testimony that either defendant gave any indication that they possessed a weapon or intended to commit an assault.” Given that the search and seizure did not meet the requirements for a Terry stop and thus, was “unreasonable, the evidence seized from defendants must be suppressed.” Reversed and remanded.