arrest for a traffic violation in Illinois

1974In People v. Thomas, 31 Ill.2d 212 , we set forth the principle that if circumstances reasonably indicate that the police may be dealing not with the ordinary traffic violator, but with a criminal, then a search of the driver and his vehicle is authorized in order to insure the safety of the police officers and to prevent an escape.” There is nothing in the record to indicate that Officer Fields and his partner could have reasonably suspected that the defendant was anything other than an ordinary traffic violator.

1970The People v. Reed, 37 Ill2d 91, 94, 227 NE2d 69 (1967); The People v. Thomas, 31 Ill2d 212, 213, 201 NE2d 413 (1964).

1960To establish the validity of the search in this case, the People rely on People v. Clark, 9 Ill.2d 400 , a unanimous decision of this court in which one of the grounds for sustaining a search of the person was that it had been made *18 in connection with an arrest for a traffic violation.

1960To establish the validity of the search in this case, the People rely on People v. Clark, 9 Ill.2d 400 , a unanimous decision of this court in which one of the grounds for sustaining a search of the person was that it had been made in connection with an arrest for a traffic violation.

1970The People v. Reed, 37 Ill2d 91, 94, 227 NE2d 69 (1967); The People v. Thomas, 31 Ill2d 212, 213, 201 NE2d 413 (1964).

1969Although the defendant is correct in stating that an arrest for a traffic violation does r ot automatically justify a search of the driver or the vehicle (People v. Reed, 37 Ill2d 91, 227 NE2d 69 (1967); People v. Watkins, 19 Ill2d 11, 166 NE2d 433 (1960)), an examination of the record does not justify the conclusion that the search was so patently illegal that a moti on to suppress would have been allowed had it been made..

2013People v. Fitzpatrick, 2013 IL 113449, ¶ 19 .

1996In reaching the above conclusion, we note that the appellate court found that Officer Charles had "specific, articulable facts upon which to believe defendant's vehicle was in violation of the Code when he pulled it over." 269 Ill.App.3d at 968 , 207 Ill.Dec. 348 , 647 N.E.2d 310 .

1996In reaching the above conclusion, we note that the appellate court found that Officer Charles had "specific, articulable facts upon which to believe defendant’s vehicle was in violation of the Code when he pulled it over.” 269 Ill.

1983For example, in United States v. Jenkins (2d Cir. 1974), 496 F.2d 57 , the accused’s money was inventoried for safekeeping following an arrest for a traffic violation.

1977App. 3d 858, 862 , 286 N.E.2d 745 ; People v. Graham (1st Dist. 1974), 23 Ill.

1977It has been held that where an officer makes an arrest for a traffic violation, and while he is standing outside of the car he observes what appears to be a portion of a gun inside the automobile, a search is “justified without regard to the arrest in that it was the auto itself which provided the locus of the offense which the officer had probable cause to believe was being committed.” (People v. Zazzetti (1st Dist. 1972), 6 Ill.

1977App. 3d 858, 862 , 286 N.E.2d 745 ; People v. Graham (1st Dist. 1974), 23 Ill.

1973Beginning with People v. Edge (1950), 406 Ill. 490 , 94 N.E.2d 359 , the Supreme Court held that an arrest for a traffic violation (obstructing an alley and failure to have a safety-inspection sticker) justified a search of the defendant.

1973Beginning with People v. Edge (1950), 406 Ill. 490 , 94 N.E.2d 359 , the Supreme Court held that an arrest for a traffic violation (obstructing an alley and failure to have a safety-inspection sticker) justified a search of the defendant.

1973That rule was followed in People v. Clark, 9 Ill.2d 400 , 137 N.E.2d 820 (illegal parking), and People v. Berry, 17 Ill.2d 247 , 161 N.E.2d 315 (failure to have State license plates and city vehicle sticker).

1973That rule was followed in People v. Clark, 9 Ill.2d 400 , 137 N.E.2d 820 (illegal parking), and People v. Berry, 17 Ill.2d 247 , 161 N.E.2d 315 (failure to have State license plates and city vehicle sticker).

1969Although the defendant is correct in stating that an arrest for a traffic violation does r ot automatically justify a search of the driver or the vehicle (People v. Reed, 37 Ill2d 91, 227 NE2d 69 (1967); People v. Watkins, 19 Ill2d 11, 166 NE2d 433 (1960)), an examination of the record does not justify the conclusion that the search was so patently illegal that a moti on to suppress would have been allowed had it been made..