Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

06/13/88 the People of the State of v. Edward T. Ruth

June 13, 1988

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

v.

EDWARD T. RUTH, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE



APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT

524 N.E.2d 1254, 170 Ill. App. 3d 623, 121 Ill. Dec. 206 1988.IL.925

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Whiteside County; the Hon. Timothy J. Slavin, Judge, presiding.

APPELLATE Judges:

JUSTICE HEIPLE delivered the opinion of the court. SCOTT and WOMBACHER, JJ., concur.

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE HEIPLE

The defendant, Edward T. Ruth, was charged with operating a motor vehicle which was 5,100 pounds in excess of the maximum amount permitted by the Illinois Vehicle Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95 1/2, par. 15-111.) The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence alleging that the police officer was not justified in stopping the defendant to weigh his loaded truck, because the officer had no reason to believe the vehicle was overweight.

At the suppression hearing, Trooper John Clark of the Illinois State Police testified that at 2 a.m. on July 2, 1987, he observed a semitractor combination (the truck) traveling east on Wallace Street in Sterling. The truck was carrying 10 rolls of a steel, wire-like material. The truck stopped at a stop sign and then turned south onto Route 88. As the truck turned, it accelerated slowly and emitted black smoke from its exhaust stack. The trooper heard that the engine was making a large amount of noise and sounded strained. Clark observed that as the truck climbed a hill which led to a bridge overpass, it appeared to be moving slowly.

Clark continued to testify that he followed the truck across the overpass and watched it turn from Route 88 onto First Street in Rock Falls. The trooper stated that the truck never attained a speed greater than 15 or 20 miles per hour. Clark observed that neither the tires nor the springs were depressed. Based on his observations, Clark believed that the truck was over the 73,280 pound weight limit for First Street. Clark stopped the truck and requested that the defendant driver take it to be weighed at portable scales in Rock Falls.

Clark had been an Illinois State trooper since 1985. In 1985, he successfully completed the Illinois State Police Academy training regarding the recognition of proper techniques to weigh overweight vehicles.

Following arguments, the trial court found that a reasonable person would not have believed that the truck was overweight based upon the black exhaust smoke, the groaning engine and the difficulty of acceleration. The court suppressed the weight ticket gathered from the stop. The State appealed.

In reviewing a trial court's decision to suppress evidence, an appellate court must decide whether the decision of the trial court was manifestly erroneous. (People v. Williams (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 239, 311 N.E.2d 681.) In relevant part, section 15 -- 112 of the Illinois Vehicle Code defines a police officer's authority to stop a suspected overweight vehicle as follows:

"Any police officer having reason to believe that the weight of a vehicle and load is unlawful shall require the driver to stop and submit to a weighing of the same either by means of a portable or stationary scales." Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95 1/2, par. 15-112(a).

The State argues on appeal that the trial Judge applied an erroneous standard in suppressing the evidence. The State contends that the Judge should not have ruled on whether a reasonable person would have believed from the factors observed that the truck was overweight. Rather, the State urges that the applicable standard is whether a police officer would have had reason to believe that the truck here was overweight.

In People v. Slonski (1976), 40 Ill. App. 3d 319, 352 N.E.2d 292, on which the State relies, the appellate court held that the "reason to believe" standard under section 15 -- 112(a) is a lesser standard than probable cause. Probable cause exists for arrest where a reasonable and prudent person having the knowledge possessed by the officer at the time of the arrest would believe that the defendant ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.