People v. Flowers, 179 Ill.2d 257, 688 N.E.2d 626, 227 Ill.Dec.

933 (1997) Procedural History: Defendant Melvin Flowers was charged with possession of a controlled substance. The circuit court granted his motion to suppress the evidence. The State appealed to the appellate court, which reversed the ruling. Defendant appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment of the appellate court and affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. Statement of Facts: On the night of July 12, 1995, an anonymous caller reported to the Danville police a possible burglary of a house for sale after seeing a black male on a bicycle go to the rear of the house and hearing the sound of glass breaking. There were two houses for sale in the area, and three police investigated both of them, finding no signs of a break-in. Approximately 15 minutes later, one of the police officers spotted defendant, a black male, riding a bicycle in the area and stopped him for questioning. Defendant gave the officer, who was joined by another officer, consent to search his bag, which contained clothing. The police officer proceeded to pat defendant down and asked him to empty his pockets. He discovered a tube like object, which defendant confirmed was a crack pipe. Further investigation revealed a plastic bag containing what the officer believed to be cocaine. During the suppression hearing, the officer testified that he did not believe that defendant was carrying any weapons and that the pat down was a routine part of his investigatory stop procedures. The circuit court granted defendants motion to suppress on the grounds that the police officer did not have reason to frisk defendant. The appellate court reversed this judgment. Issue: May a police officer pat down a person during an investigatory stop if the officer does not believe the person to be carrying a weapon? Answer: No. Patting a suspect down during an investigatory stop is permissible only if the officer believes that his or her safety or the safety of others is in danger based on specific, articulable facts. Reasoning: The court reasoned that an investigatory stop is only permissible if the police officer believes that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed. Although the court made no comment on the validity of the stop of defendant, it did note that the officers who responded to the anonymous callers tip found no evidence that a crime was committed. The court also reasoned that a search during such a stop is permissible only if the officer believes his or her safety or the safety of others is in danger. This belief must be based on specific, articulable facts. When the officers stopped defendant, he answered their questions and cooperated with

their requests, giving them consent to search his bag and emptying his pockets when asked. Based on defendants cooperative behavior and the testimony of the officer who stated he did not believe defendant was carrying a weapon, the court determined that there was no specific, articulable facts to support a belief that defendant presented a danger to the officers or anyone else, and therefore, the search of defendant during the investigatory stop was invalid. Holding: The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court and affirmed the judgment of the circuit court.