THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARCO JACKSON, Defendant-Appellee, 389 Ill. App. 3d 283

JUSTICE WOLFSON delivered the opinion of the court: The only question before us is whether the handgun recovered by a police officer was lawfully seized. The trial court, after reconsideration, granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence. This is an appeal of that ruling by the State, as authorized by Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) (210 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(1)). We affirm the trial court. FACTS On November 25, 2006, the defendant was arrested by Chicago police officers and was charged with felony unlawful possession of a handgun.

The defendant filed a motion to quash his arrest and suppress the handgun (motion to suppress). The motion alleged the weapon had been seized in violation of the fourth amendment of the federal constitution and its state counterpart. A hearing on the motion was held on May 14, 2007. Chicago police officer Connor was the only witness to testify. Called as a witness by the defense, Officer Connor testified that on November 25, 2006, he was patrolling the vicinity of 7114 South Ash-land Avenue in Chicago. Officer Connor spotted the defendant, whom he had never seen before.

The defendant was not committing a crime and Officer Connor did not have a warrant for his arrest. However, Officer Connor “[wound] up” recovering a loaded .32-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun “which [the defendant] dropped.” On cross-examination by the State, Officer Connor explained he was patrolling the vicinity of 7114 South Ashland because it was his “beat” and because there had been “numerous robberies in the area in the past.” Officer Connor observed the defendant walking up and down the 7100 block of South Ashland for 40 minutes.

Officer Connor, who was dressed in uniform, approached in his squad car, exited, and walked toward the defendant because of “the incidences of robberies in the area and [the defendant’s] suspicious behavior.” Officer Con-nor’s testimony: “Q. As you approached the defendant on foot, did you tell the defendant to do anything? A. Yes, I did. Q. What did you tell defendant to do? A. I told him to remove his hands from his jacket pockets. Q. Why did you tell the defendant to do that? A. For my safety. Q. How many times did you tell the defendant to remove his hands from his jacket pocket? A.

At least three to four times. Q. What did the defendant do after the first time you told the defendant to remove his hands from his pockets? A. He did not remove his hands. Q. Did the defendant eventually remove his hands from his pocketfs]? A. Yes, he did. Q. What happened as the defendant removed his hands from his pockets? A. He dropped one 32 caliber Smith and Wesson loaded five-shot revolver from his right hand to the ground. Q. After the defendant dropped the handgun to the ground, what did the defendant do? A.

He turned away and fled on foot southbound.” Officer Connor recovered the handgun and radioed other officers to be on the lookout for the defendant. Soon thereafter, the defendant was apprehended a short distance away. The defendant did not reexamine Officer Connor. The trial judge asked Officer Connor about his knowledge of the prior robberies. Officer Connor only recalled there had been “incidents of robberies in the area” and could not recall the robbers’ descriptions.

Officer Con-nor suspected the defendant may have been involved in the robberies because of his “suspicious behavior” in the way he walked up and down the block, looked in store windows, and “check[ed] out people.” No further testimony was presented. Defense counsel contended the motion should be granted because Officer Connor “had absolutely no reason to approach” the defendant and order him to remove his hands from his pockets. Counsel pointed to Officer Connor’s lack of knowledge regarding the prior robberies.

The State made no argument; it simply asked that the motion be denied: “Your Honor, we are asking that you deny the defendant’s motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence.” In the course of denying the defendant’s motion, the trial court found Officer Connor credible and that the case was “almost on all fours” with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968).

The trial court concluded that because Officer Connor had information about robberies in the area and because the defendant’s actions could be interpreted as “casing” potential robbery targets, Officer Connor approached the defendant to make an inquiry. Upon encountering the defendant, Officer Connor directed the defendant to remove his hands from his pockets for the officer’s safety.

During the encounter, the defendant dropped the gun. “At that point when he did make a drop while he wasn’t complying with the officer’s command, under the color of law[,] that’s when the gun was found.” The defendant filed a motion to reconsider, claiming that no facts were articulated by Officer Connor to justify his encounter with the defendant. The trial judge agreed.

In reconsidering and granting the defendant’s motion to suppress, the trial judge explained that it “perhaps overapplied these facts to Terry.” The judge concluded the defendant’s actions could just as easily be construed as window shopping as casing potential targets, and because Officer Connor did not provide any specific information concerning the prior robberies, such as a description of the suspect’s gender, race, age, height, or weight, it was apparent Officer Connor “Q]ust wanted to check out Mr.

Jackson for basically looking inside of windows.” The State filed a certificate of substantial impairment and this appeal followed. DECISION The State contends no fourth amendment seizure occurred at the time the defendant dropped the handgun and thus his fourth amendment rights were not violated when he was subsequently arrested. The State makes no contention that when he approached the defendant, the officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity to support an investigative detention pursuant to Terry, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968).

The trial court’s ultimate decision that this was not a valid Terry stop goes unchallenged. Standard of Review Our supreme court recently reiterated the two-part standard that applies to our review of a circuit court’s ruling on a motion to suppress. As to the circuit court’s findings of historical fact, “ ‘we will reverse those findings only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence.’ ” People v. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d 262, 271, 898 N.E.2d 603 (2008), quoting People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 542, 857 N.E.2d 187 (2006).

We review de novo the circuit court’s ultimate legal ruling granting or denying the motion. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d at 271. I. Defendant’s Claim of Forfeiture Initially, the defendant claims the State’s challenge to the grant of his motion to suppress has been forfeited. The defendant’s claim of forfeiture is based on the State’s failure to make any trial court argument concerning the legality of the seizure. The State simply asked that the defendant’s motion to suppress be denied. The record reveals the State did not offer any specific reasons why the trial court should deny the defense motion.

The State’s failure to take a position is troubling; see People v. Vasquez, 388 Ill. App. 3d 532, 543 (2009), where, referring to the State’s appeal of a suppression ruling, we said: “A party cannot make an argument for the first time on appeal.” We believe, however, the record is sufficient for us to consider the issues now raised by the State in this appeal. II. Seizure of the Defendant The constitutional precepts are well known: the fourth amendment of the federal constitution and its state counterpart protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures, including seizures of their persons. People v.

Thomas, 198 Ill. 2d 103, 108, 759 N.E.2d 899 (2001). However, “not every encounter between the police and a private citizen results in a seizure.” Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d at 544. There are at least three tiers of police-citizen encounters: (1) arrests, which must be supported by probable cause; (2) brief investigative detentions, which must be supported by “a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity”; and (3) consensual encounters, which “involve no coercion or detention and thus do not implicate fourth amendment interests.” Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d at 544.

The defendant contends Officer Connor engaged in an unlawful investigative detention from the moment he approached the defendant and directed him to remove his hands from his pockets. The State, on the other hand, now contends the encounter between the defendant and Officer Connor was consensual. What separates these two opposing views is whether Officer Connor’s conduct conveyed a “means of physical force or a show of authority, [such that the defendant’s] freedom of movement [was] restrained.” Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d at 273, citing United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497, 509, 100 S.

Ct. 1870, 1877 (1980). Four factors listed in Mendenhall tend to support a finding of non-consensual seizure: (1) the threatening presence of several officers; (2) an officer’s display of a weapon; (3) the physical touching of the individual’s person; or (4) “ ‘the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.’ ” Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d at 274, quoting Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554, 64 L. Ed. 2d at 509, 100 S. Ct. at 1877.

While the totality of the circumstances must be examined to determine whether a seizure has occurred, the complete absence of the four Mendenhall factors negates a finding of a seizure. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d at 281-82. On the record before us, the first three Mendenhall factors are not present: (1) there was no threatening presence of several officers; Officer Connor was alone; (2) while Officer Connor was armed and in uniform, there is no testimony he displayed his weapon; and (3) there is no testimony that there was any physical contact between Officer Connor and the defendant.

It is the fourth factor that supports the defendant’s contention that a seizure occurred, although we have said “an officer wearing a police uniform may create an air of formality or may project greater authority than would an officer in plain clothes.” People v. Ocampo, 377 Ill. App. 3d 150, 159, 879 N.E.2d 353 (2007). Officer Connor was in uniform when he approached the defendant; we presume he was carrying a visible bolstered gun. When Officer Connor approached the defendant the first thing he did was to tell the defendant to remove his hands from his pockets. It was not a question or a request.

It was an order, and he repeated it three or four times. When the defendant finally obeyed the order, removing his hands from his pockets, the gun dropped to the ground. The remaining question in this case is whether defendant’s removal of the gun from his coat pocket was the result of an unlawful seizure. If it was, we do not see how the fact that the defendant then “turned away and fled on foot” makes any difference. The seizure was complete at the moment Officer Connor first saw the gun.

We recognize that at the first hearing on defendant’s motion the trial court said the defendant “wasn’t complying with the officer’s command, under the color of law,” when the gun was found. That conclusion was not referred to by anyone when the trial court reconsidered the defendant’s motion to suppress. By granting the motion, the trial court necessarily changed its view on whether the defendant was submitting to lawful authority when the gun dropped to the ground.

At any rate, whether the defendant was submitting to authority at the critical moment in these undisputed events is a question of law, which we review de novo. We find, in accord with the fourth Mendenhall factor, Officer Con-nor’s use of language indicated “that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.” Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 553, 64 L. Ed. 2d at 509, 100 S. Ct. at 1877. When the defendant complied, a seizure took place. There was no legal basis for it.

We have held that when a police officer approached an individual and told him he “ ‘needed to talk’ ” with him, a reasonable person would interpret the statement as a command, not a request. Ocampo, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 160-61. That is, “[A] consensual encounter will lose its consensual nature if law enforcement officers convey a message, by means of physical force or show of authority, that induces the individual to cooperate.” People v. Gherna, 203 Ill. 2d 165, 179, 784 N.E.2d 799 (2003). In People v. Smith, 331 Ill.

App. 3d 1049, 780 N.E.2d 707 (2002), we discussed the point at which a consensual encounter turns into an unlawful seizure. Although the defendant in Smith began to back away from the officers before he was told to stop and take his hands out of his pockets, we said that in other circumstances “we would find that a seizure occurred no later than when the defendant was told to stop and to remove his hands from his pockets.” Smith, 331 Ill. App. 3d at 1053.

We believe that after the third or fourth command by Officer Con-nor, a “reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554, 64 L. Ed. 2d at 509, 100 S. Ct. at 1877. CONCLUSION We conclude the handgun possessed by the defendant was seized as a result of the defendant’s submission to authority. Because we believe the seizure of the handgun violated the fourth amendment, we affirm the decision of the trial court to sustain the defendant’s motion to suppress. Affirmed. R. GORDON, EJ., concurs.