People v. Frias, 2-06-0654.

• Citation: 912 N.E.2d 1236
• Decision Date: 23 July 2009
• Docket Number: No. 2-06-0654.,2-06-0654.
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carlos FRIAS, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

912 N.E.2d 1236

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carlos FRIAS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2-06-0654.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

July 23, 2009.

Gregory L. Slovacek, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Elgin, for the People.

Thomas A. Lilien, Deputy Defender, R. Christopher White (both Court-appointed), Office of the State Appellate Defender, Elgin, for Carlos Frias.

Justice BURKE delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Carlos Frias, was driving to work with his girlfriend, Alma Rivera, who was the only passenger. A police officer stopped defendant for speeding, and defendant was arrested for offenses unrelated to this appeal. The arresting officer directed Rivera to exit the vehicle, and she did so, carrying her purse. After a search of the car disclosed nothing, the officer emptied Rivera's purse and found what appeared to be two fraudulent social security cards bearing the names "Carlos Frias" and "Carlos Frias Rabello." Defendant was charged with two counts of unlawful possession of a fraudulent identification card (15 ILCS 335/14B(b)(1) (West 2006)), based on the cards found in Rivera's purse.

Defendant moved to suppress the identification cards and quash the resulting arrest, arguing that by searching Rivera's purse the officer violated defendant's fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court granted defendant's motion, concluding that (1) the purse was outside the car when the car was searched, and thus the purse could not be included as part of a lawful search of the vehicle's passenger compartment incident to arrest under New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), and (2) defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the purse, and thus could challenge the search, because he and Rivera were in a close relationship and defendant had entrusted the cards to her.

Following an unsuccessful motion to reconsider, the State appeals. The State argues that (1) the purse was subject to a lawful search incident to arrest because it was inside or at least near the passenger compartment of the car around the time of the arrest, and (2) regardless of whether the search violated Rivera's rights, defendant lacks standing to challenge the search, because he had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the purse. We hold that, under the recent decision announced in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), the search of the purse was not a lawful search incident to defendant's arrest; however, the suppression order must be reversed because defendant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the purse.

FACTS

Only Rivera and the arresting officer, Belvidere police officer David Bird, testified at the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress the identification cards and quash the arrest. Many of the facts are undisputed. At about 11 a.m. on September 28, 2005, Officer Bird stopped defendant for speeding. Rivera, the car's only other occupant, was riding in the front seat. Rivera testified that she was holding her purse on her lap. Officer Bird asked defendant for his driver's license and proof of insurance. Defendant stated his name and date of birth and produced an invalid insurance card. Officer Bird asked Rivera her name, and she identified herself verbally also.

English is not the first language of defendant or Rivera. Rivera testified that defendant asked in Spanish why Officer Bird stopped him, and the officer said "40 kilometer." Officer Bird testified that he can speak Spanish "a little bit," but he could not recall whether he used Spanish when speaking to defendant. Officer Bird was certain that he told defendant the basis for the stop.

Officer Bird went to his squad car to check the status of defendant's driving privileges and determined that defendant's license had been suspended and that defendant had an outstanding arrest warrant. Officer Bird returned to defendant's vehicle, opened the driver's door, pulled defendant from his seat, handcuffed him, and placed him in the back of the squad car. Rivera testified that the officer then gestured for her to exit the vehicle. Rivera testified that the officer spoke only in English and that she did not understand what he said. Officer Bird testified that he believed Rivera could understand him.

Rivera testified that, when she exited the vehicle, she moved the purse from her lap to her right shoulder. Rivera stated that the officer "snatched" the purse without asking, dumped its contents on the trunk lid of defendant's car, and began rummaging through them. Officer Bird denied snatching the purse. He testified that Rivera had placed the purse on the trunk lid and that he used Spanish to obtain her permission to search the purse. Officer Bird recalled that he searched the purse after finding nothing in the car's passenger compartment. At the hearing, Rivera repeatedly denied consenting to the search of her purse. She testified that the officer told her in Spanish that he was looking for weapons and drugs.

Officer Bird discovered a small wallet in Rivera's purse, and the credit card slots of the wallet contained the two social security identification cards on which the charges against defendant are based. Officer Bird testified that Rivera said that the cards belonged to defendant.

The trial court found that Officer Bird had valid grounds to stop the car, investigate defendant's driving privileges, and arrest defendant based on his suspended license and the outstanding warrant. The court further found that Officer Bird lawfully searched the vehicle incident to the arrest. However, the court found that Rivera had not consented to the search of her purse. The court suppressed the evidence and quashed the resulting arrest. The court concluded that Officer Bird violated the fourth amendment in searching the purse, because it was outside the car during the search of the passenger compartment. The court further concluded that defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in Rivera's purse because defendant and Rivera "were intimately involved as boyfriend-girlfriend and that [d]efendant entrusted personal (although fraudulent) information to his girlfriend to keep in her purse, [an] area of high privacy."

The State moved to reconsider the suppression order, reiterating the argument that defendant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the purse. The court denied the motion, citing its previous reasons. The State filed a certificate of impairment, and this appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

A. Jurisdiction

In this case, the trial court entered its memorandum of decision on May 8, 2006, and the State filed a motion to reconsider the interlocutory order on May 24, 2006. The court denied the motion to reconsider on June 13, 2006. The court's consideration of the motion delayed the State's filing of its notice of appeal until July 3, 2006, which was more than 30 days after the entry of the interlocutory order. Presented with similar facts, our supreme court recently held in People v. Marker, 233 Ill.2d 158, 330 Ill.Dec. 164, 908 N.E.2d 16 (2009), that, when a trial court grants a motion to suppress evidence, the State's timely-filed motion to reconsider tolls the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal. Under the supreme court's holding in Marker, we have jurisdiction to consider the State's appeal in this case.

B. Standard of Review

In moving to suppress the social security cards and to quash the arrest, defendant had the initial burden of proving that the search and seizure were unlawful. See 725 ILCS 5/114-12(b) (West 2006). "However, once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of an illegal search and seizure, the burden shifts to the State to produce evidence justifying the intrusion." People v. Ortiz, 317 Ill.App.3d 212, 220, 250 Ill.Dec. 542, 738 N.E.2d 1011 (2000). The trial court's finding that Rivera did not consent to the search was central to the court's implicit conclusion that the State failed to meet its burden of showing that the intrusion was justified. Also, defendant bears the burden of proving that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in Rivera's purse. People v. Rosenberg, 213 Ill.2d 69, 78, 289 Ill.Dec. 664, 820 N.E.2d 440 (2004), citing Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2561, 65 L.Ed.2d 633, 641 (1980).

In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we apply the two-part standard of review adopted by the Supreme Court in Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663, 134 L.Ed.2d 911, 920 (1996). People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill.2d 530, 542, 306 Ill.Dec. 94, 857 N.E.2d 187 (2006). Under this standard, a trial court's findings of historical fact should be reviewed only for clear error, and a reviewing court must give due weight to any inferences drawn from those facts by the fact finder. Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 699, 116 S.Ct. at 1663, 134 L.Ed.2d at 920; Luedemann, 222 Ill.2d at 542, 306 Ill.Dec. 94, 857 N.E.2d 187. In other words, we give great deference to the trial court's factual findings, and we will reverse those findings only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Luedemann, 222 Ill.2d at 542, 306 Ill.Dec. 94, 857 N.E.2d 187, citing People v. Sorenson, 196 Ill.2d 425, 431, 256 Ill.Dec. 836, 752 N.E.2d 1078 (2001). We review de novo the trial court's ultimate legal ruling as to whether suppression is warranted. Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 699, 116 S.Ct. at 1663, 134 L.Ed.2d at 920; Luedemann, 222 Ill.2d at 542-43, 306 Ill.Dec. 94, 857 N.E.2d 187.

In this case, the only disputed factual question is whether Rivera consented to the search of the purse. The trial court found Rivera to be credible and found that she did not consent. We give great deference to the court's finding and conclude that it is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. We review de novo the ultimate question...