Matthew R. Leisten, Ogle County State’s Attorney’s Office, Oregon
815-732-1170 | Email Matthew R. Leisten
Terry Trouble in the Second District: Wallet Search Crosses the Line in Retail Theft Stop
In People v. Molitor, 2026 IL App (2d) 240644, the Second District Appellate Court reversed the denial of a motion to suppress evidence because police officers conducted an improper Terry search of the defendant while investigating him for a retail theft.
In Molitor, Aurora police responded to a retail theft at a Dollar General in which the defendant was identified as the suspect. Police officers encountered the defendant, who gave consent to search his backpack. Another officer patted the defendant down for weapons and evidence of the retail theft. The officer felt something like a gift card in the defendant’s wallet during the pat-down and gave the wallet to another officer. The officer who received the wallet opened a zipper compartment in the wallet and found suspected fentanyl. 2026 IL App (2d) 240644 at ¶¶7, 8, 18.
The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress for an improper Terry search. 2026 IL App (2d) 240644 at ¶28.
The appellate court reversed and held that search of the defendant’s wallet exceeded a proper scope to determine if the defendant had weapons. 2026 IL App (2d) 240644 at ¶49. The appellate court restated the holdings from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968), in which the U.S. Supreme Court allowed police officers to conduct a brief investigatory stop of a person when the totality of the circumstances reasonably lead officers to believe that criminal activity is afoot and that the person is armed and dangerous. 2026 IL App (2d) 240644 at ¶39, citing People v. Colyar, 2013 IL 111835, ¶32, 996 N.E.2d 575, 374 Ill.Dec. 880. When the officer is justified in believing that the person whose suspicious behavior is being investigated is armed and dangerous, the officer can take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. 2026 IL App (2d) 240644 at ¶40, citing Terry, supra, 88 S.Ct. at 1881.
However, in order for the officer to conduct a limited search or “frisk” of the detained person for weapons, the officer must reasonably believe that the person is armed and dangerous. 2026 IL App (2d) 240644 at ¶42, quoting People v. Flowers, 179 Ill.2d 257, 688 N.E.2d 626, 629, 227 Ill.Dec. 933 (1997). See also 725 ILCS 5/107-14, 5/108-1.01. “[T]he scope of the search must be strictly limited to a search for weapons.” 2026 IL App (2d) 240644 at ¶42, quoting People v. Davis, 352 Ill.App.3d 576, 815 N.E.2d 92, 96, 286 Ill.Dec. 882 (2d Dist. 2004).
The investigatory stop requires a separate inquiry from the inquiry into whether the frisk was valid. The officer does not have to be “absolutely certain” the individual is armed but must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that, taken with reasonable inferences, justify the intrusion. 2026 IL App (2d) 240644 at ¶43, quoting Terry, supra, 88 S.Ct. at 1883, 1880.
The appellate court criticized the trial court for justifying the scope of the pat-down for weapons and contraband. Even assuming the pat-down was lawful, searching the defendant’s wallet was improper because the officers testified that they did not fear for their safety while interacting with the defendant, and the officers were wrong to conclude that the wallet might contain a weapon because of the defendant’s demeanor. The court reemphasized the holding that the sole justification for a Terry pat-down is to protect the officer and others in the vicinity — not to gather evidence. 2026 IL App (2d) 240644 at ¶¶49 – 54.
For more information about criminal law, see DEFENDING CRIMINAL CASES: PRETRIAL ISSUES, GUILTY PLEAS, AND DEFENSES (IICLE®, 2025). Purchase the publication here or Online Library subscribers can view it for free by clicking here. If you don’t currently subscribe to the Online Library, visit www.iicle.com/subscriptions.