•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This Article reviews a recent traffic stop case in Illinois that looks unremarkable from a distance but, upon closer examination, contains a variety of criminal procedure questions about traffic stops, mistake of law, formation of suspicion, and—ultimately—the durability and flexibility of the reasonable, articulable suspicion standard itself when a bizarre fact pattern puts it to the test. In People v. Timmsen, the Illinois Supreme Court wrestles with the question of whether wholly legal behavior, when misinterpreted as illegal conduct, can create the basis for a roadside interaction and the evidentiary question of whether, given the facts particular to this case, the fruits of a subsequent search should have been available to the prosecution. This Article rejects the Illinois Supreme Court’s conclusion and explains why the case could and should have been decided differently. Finally, looking to the not-so-distant future of autonomous vehicles, this Article imagines motorists’ legal problems when they are questioned, detained, or searched for things their autonomous vehicles did innocently that may, as in the Timmsen case, look unusual at first glance but, nevertheless, should not by themselves arouse police suspicion; today’s Google Maps route suggestions and rudimentary self-driving modes (like Tesla’s FSD V12, newly released at the time of this Article) as a temporary state and prerequisite to a future ecosystem where automotive guidance technology and law enforcement scrutiny may collide unexpectedly.

First Page

831

Download

Share

COinS