Opinion filed February 23, 2022 ____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

2022

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ILLINOIS, ) of the 10th Judicial Circuit, ) Peoria County, Illinois. Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. 3-20-0234 v. ) Circuit No. 17-CF-977 ) THOMAS MOSE HARRIS, ) Honorable ) Paul P. Gilfillan, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________

PRESIDING JUSTICE O’BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Daugherity and Lytton concurred in the judgment and opinion. ____________________________________________________________________________

OPINION

¶1 The defendant, Thomas Mose Harris, appealed his conviction for unlawful use of a weapon

by a felon.

¶2 I. BACKGROUND

¶3 The defendant was indicted on January 2, 2018, on charges of unlawful possession of a

weapon by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2018)) and battery (id. § 12-3(a)(1)). Defense

counsel filed a motion to quash the defendant’s arrest and suppress all evidence arising from that

arrest, alleging that there was no probable cause to stop and detain the defendant. ¶4 At the suppression hearing, evidence was presented that a female victim was reportedly

put in a headlock and hit by a heavyset black male behind a liquor store on December 7, 2017.

Officers from the City of Peoria Police Department responded to the liquor store, which had a

video camera that recorded the incident. The police viewed the video recording, obtaining a

description of the perpetrator and his vehicle. The temporary tag number on the vehicle appeared

to be 585T515. Joseph Smiles, a City of Peoria police officer, testified that he was on his way to

work a few days later, on December 13, 2017, when he observed a silver Chevy Tahoe that

matched the description of the vehicle at the liquor store, but with a temporary registration of

575T815. Smiles observed the driver to be a heavy-set black male with a short beard, who appeared

to be the same male as in the liquor store video. Smiles did not stop the vehicle at that time, but

proceeded to work, where he identified the owner of the vehicle as the defendant, viewed a prior

booking photograph of the defendant, and reviewed the surveillance video from the liquor store.

Smiles determined that the defendant was the male individual in the liquor store video. Smiles

contacted Peoria police officer Jonathan Irving, who was on patrol with a new recruit, Officer

Kerry, in the area of one of the two addresses on record for the defendant. Smiles advised Irving

and Kerry that the defendant was a suspect in a battery and that there was probable cause to arrest

the defendant for the battery. Smiles directed Irving and Kerry to go to one of the addresses to look

for the defendant and the Tahoe, and Smiles proceeded to the other address.

¶5 Irving testified that he was contacted via car-to-car messenger, also known as an

investigative alert, by Smiles with an arrest message regarding the defendant. In the alert, Smiles

provided Irving with the description of the vehicle, the license plate (575T815), and the address,

and Smiles requested that Irving patrol by that location. Irving did not know the defendant and did

not observe the defendant engaging in any obvious criminal behavior. Irving did locate the vehicle,

with the defendant inside, and Irving and Kerry approached the vehicle. The officers confirmed

2 that the defendant was the person identified by Smiles and proceeded to arrest the defendant

pursuant to Smiles’s arrest message. The defendant was taken into custody, and a loaded gun was

found on his person during a pat-down search.

¶6 After being indicted, the defendant brought a motion to quash the arrest and suppress all

evidence arising from the arrest. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that

Irving and Kerry had probable cause to arrest the defendant based upon the information in the

investigative alert provided to them by Smiles. Defense counsel then filed a supplemental motion

to suppress, arguing that arresting the defendant based on an investigative alert was contrary to the

Illinois Constitution and People v. Bass,

, aff’d in part, vacated in part,

. The trial court denied the supplemental motion, declining to follow Bass. The

trial court found that Bass was distinguishable because, contrary to the couple of weeks delay

between the investigative alert and the arrest in Bass, this case indicated a “fast[-]acting field

response.”

¶7 The defendant waived his right to a trial by jury, and the matter proceeded to a stipulated

bench trial on the charge of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. The State dismissed the

battery charge. The trial court found that the stipulated evidence was sufficient to prove the

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. The

defendant’s posttrial motion was denied, and he was sentenced to 3½ years in prison. The

defendant appealed.

¶8 II. ANALYSIS

¶9 The defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash and suppress.

The defendant contends that there was no reasonable grounds, exigent circumstances, or good faith

to support the arrest and the search of the defendant absent an arrest warrant. Also, the defendant

3 argues that the Peoria Police Department’s use of an investigative alert violates separation of

powers. The State contends that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress and that the

use of investigative alerts is proper.

¶ 10 The state and federal constitutions both protect individuals from unreasonable searches and

seizures. U.S. Const., amend. IV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 6. “An arrest without probable cause or

a warrant based thereon violates these constitutional provisions.” People v. Lee,

,

484 (2005). The police may make an arrest without a warrant when the officer “has reasonable

grounds to believe that the person is committing or has committed an offense.” 725 ILCS 5/107-

2(1)(c) (West 2018); People v. Hardimon,

. In the context of a

warrantless arrest, “ ‘reasonable grounds’ ” has the same meaning as “ ‘probable cause.’ ” People

v. Jackson,

(quoting Lee, 214 Ill. 2d at 484).

¶ 11 The determination of whether police had probable cause to arrest is based on the officer’s

reasonable belief at the time of the arrest. Lee, 214 Ill. 2d at 484. The inquiry is, viewed through

an objective lens, whether the facts known to the police presented a probability of criminal activity.

Id. at 485. “Whether there is probable cause to believe that a defendant has committed a crime is

based on an evaluation of all of the information available, including its source.” Id. In reviewing a

motion to suppress, we uphold factual findings unless they are against the manifest weight of the

evidence. However, the ultimate question of whether the evidence should be suppressed is

reviewed de novo. People v. Pitman,

(2004).

¶ 12 In this case, Smiles spoke to the victim, viewed the video of the attack, obtained a

description of the perpetrator, and obtained a description of the perpetrator’s vehicle. The vehicle

had a temporary plate, but Smiles could not identify the perpetrator with that plate number.

However, six days after the attack, Smiles was driving to work and observed a vehicle matching

4 the description, driven by a male individual who matched the description of the man that Smiles

had seen in the surveillance video, and with a license plate that differed from the temporary plate

by two digits. Smiles did not make an arrest at that point but continued to the police station, ran

the license plate, pulled the vehicle owner’s booking photograph, and rewatched the surveillance

video. There were two addresses for the defendant; Smiles proceeded to one and contacted Irving

with the other address. Smiles described the defendant and the battery investigation and informed

Irving via the investigative alert that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant. The

investigative alert that was relayed to the arresting officers provided reasonable grounds to make

a warrantless arrest. See People v. Simmons,

(arrest based on

investigative alert was upheld where the State presented evidence that officer who issued the alert

had probable cause to make the arrest); People v. Bass,

(vacating the portion

of the appellate court opinion that held arrests based on investigative alerts to be unconstitutional).

Thus, we find that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to quash his arrest

and suppress evidence.

¶ 13 The defendant also contends that the investigative alert process violates the doctrine of

separation of powers because it is an administrative procedure promulgated by the executive

branch (i.e., a law enforcement agency) and conflicts with the authority of the courts. However,

the mere use of alerts to disseminate information among officers does not eliminate judicial

evaluations of probable cause. “ ‘When officers are working in concert, probable cause can be

established from all the information collectively received by the officers even if that information

is not specifically known to the officer who makes the arrest.’ ” People v. Buss,

(1999) (quoting People v. Bascom,

(1997)).

5 ¶ 14 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 15 The judgment of the circuit court of Peoria County is affirmed.

¶ 16 Affirmed.

6 No. 3-20-0234

Cite as: People v. Harris,

Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria County, No. 17-CF-977; the Hon. Paul P. Gilfillan, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys James E. Chadd, Thomas A. Karalis, and Drew Charles Parsons, for of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant. Appellant:

Attorneys Jodi Hoos, State’s Attorney, of Peoria (Patrick Delfino and for Thomas D. Arado, of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Appellee: Office, of counsel), for the People.

7