People v. Alvarez

• Decision Date: 28 April 1993
• Docket Number: No. 3-92-0458,3-92-0458
• Citation: 184 Ill.Dec. 263,613 N.E.2d 290,243 Ill.App.3d 933
• Parties: , 184 Ill.Dec. 263 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Audel N. ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 290

613 N.E.2d 290

243 Ill.App.3d 933, 184 Ill.Dec. 263

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Audel N. ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 3-92-0458.

Appellate Court of Illinois Third District.

April 28, 1993.

Robert S. Burke, Asst. Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Mt. Vernon, for Audel N. Alvarez.

John X. Breslin, Deputy Director, State's Attys. Appellate Prosecutor, Ottawa, Joseph Navarro, State's Atty., Ottawa, Lawrence Michael Kaschak, State's Attys. Appellate Prosecutor, Ottawa, for People.

Justice LYTTON delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant Audel N. Alvarez was indicted for unlawful possession with intent to deliver more than 500 grams of cannabis. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 56 1/2, par. 705(e).) Prior to trial the defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence and quash arrest and, also, a motion to compel additional discovery. The motions were denied. Following a bench trial, the defendant was found guilty. The defendant now appeals, claiming that the trial judge erred in denying his discovery motion. We affirm.

The defendant's motion to suppress evidence was filed on March 25, 1992. The motion alleged that the defendant's car was stopped by the police on January 11, 1992, while the defendant was driving on Interstate 80 in LaSalle County, Illinois; that the police conducted a search of the vehicle which resulted in the seizure of certain items, including 29 packages of cannabis; and that the police conducted the search without warrant, probable cause or the consent of the defendant. On April 2, 1992, on its own motion, the circuit court set April 8th as the hearing date for the motion to suppress.

On April 8, 1992, the defense filed a motion to compel additional discovery. The motion alleged that the defense sought certain information and documents; that the setting of the motion to suppress for April 8th left the defense with insufficient time to subpoena the materials from the police; that the defense had conveyed a written request to the state's attorney's office for the materials; and that the request had been refused. The items which the defense motion sought included inter alia police radio logs for the date of the defendant's arrest and the preceding year; documents, publications, video tapes, audio tapes and other materials relied upon by officers in the field, including training documents and other information such as statistics, compiled data, parameters, indicators and similar information relating to the stopping and searching of drug suspects; and records pertaining to the stopping of vehicles upon Interstate 80 by the police. Defendant's motion stated that the basis for the request was that "a substantial issue exists herein relating to the pretextual stop of the Defendant, and the information and documents are not only relevant but critical to a comprehensive presentation of the facts relating to said issue."

That same day, April 8, 1992, the circuit court denied defendant's motion to compel additional discovery. The court then held an evidentiary hearing on defendant's motion to suppress evidence and quash arrest.

At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the defendant, Audel N. Alvarez, testified that he was driving an automobile in an eastbound direction on Interstate 80 in LaSalle County, Illinois. Alvarez was stopped by police, and his car was searched. Alvarez denied that he had violated any traffic laws prior to the stop, and he denied that he had consented to the search. The defendant also testified that the police did not possess a search warrant.

On cross-examination, the defendant testified that his car was a 1983 Chevrolet Camaro. Alvarez testified that he did not understand the officer very well. However, when the officer requested his driver's license, Alvarez handed it to the officer. Alvarez stated that the only thing he understood the officer say at the time of the stop was "Mexican" and "license plates California." After obtaining the driver's license, the officer went back to his car, and spoke on the radio. The officer then returned to the defendant's car, stated that the license was suspended, and told the defendant not to move. Other patrol cars arrived, the defendant was placed in the back of one car, and a police dog began walking around Alvarez' car. After the dog had walked around, the police then went inside the car and began to search.

The defendant testified that the officer asked whether there were any drugs or weapons in the car. Alvarez stated that he didn't know anything. He spoke to the officer in Spanish, and said that drugs are bad. He denied telling the officer that he could search the car.

The defendant stated that he did not have any air fresheners hanging from his rearview mirror, but he did have a cross handing on a chain and a saint's medal at the base of the window.

The defense next called Thomas Karalis as a witness. Karalis stated that he is an attorney with the State's Appellate Defender's Office in Ottawa. When Karalis began to testify as to an incident on March 21, 1992, the trial judge ruled his testimony irrelevant. The defense then made an offer of proof. If allowed, Karalis would have testified that on March 21, 1992, he was stopped by a police officer while driving on Interstate 80. According to Karalis, he was driving a vehicle with California plates, but he had violated no traffic laws. The officer detained Karalis' car for about 10 or 12 minutes, issued no citations, but requested permission to search Karalis' vehicle. When Karalis refused, he was allowed to leave. According to Karalis, the officer who stopped his vehicle was the same officer who stopped Alvarez.

After the defense rested, the State called Officer Dan Gillette to testify. Gillette testified that he is a Sergeant with the Illinois State Police and, on January 11, 1992, he was training Captain Scutt of the LaSalle County Sheriff's Department in drug interdiction. While sitting in their vehicle in the median of Interstate 80, Gillette saw a 1983 Chevrolet Camaro with "a lot of items" hanging from the rearview mirror. It appeared to the officer that these items obstructed the driver's view.

Sergeant Gillette began to follow the vehicle. The driver kept looking in his rearview mirror, and the car began drifting and weaving between lanes. During the mile and a half that Gillette followed the Camaro, the car drifted into the other lane four times. After the car made an abrupt lane change between two semi trucks, the officer activated his lights and stopped the car.

The driver of the vehicle was the defendant, Audel Alvarez. The officer requested the driver's license, and Alvarez gave it to him. Gillette explained why he stopped the car, and then went back to his car and ran a radio check on the driver's license. The driver's license was suspended. Gillette returned to the car, and saw that the driver was shaking and beads of sweat were forming on his forehead. Gillette told Alvarez that he would be issuing citations and the vehicle would be towed. The officer asked whether there were any weapons or drugs in the car. The driver stated, "No, drugs are bad, go ahead."

Officer Gillette called for a canine unit, and a dog began scratching at the rear bumper. The dog's handler indicated that this reflected the presence of narcotics. Gillette then informed Alvarez that the dog had indicated the presence of drugs, at which point Alvarez would not speak in English, only in Spanish.

The police then conducted an inventory search of the car prior to towing. The search and subsequent removal of the rear bumper disclosed 29 packages of a substance which field tested positive for cannabis.

On cross-examination, Officer Gillette testified that the first thing he had noticed about the defendant's car was the California license plate. While he had previously stopped cars for obstruction of windshield, Gillette seldom issued a citation. And, once again, Gillette testified that Captain Scutt was present in the car for the purpose of receiving training on drug interdiction. Gillette also testified that it was not standard procedure in an inventory search to call for a canine unit.

On re-direct examination, Gillette testified that the reasons he had called for the canine unit were the heavy scent of air freshener which is often used to mask some other smell, the presence of a roll of duct tape which is often used by drug couriers to wrap drugs, and the nervous behavior displayed by the driver.

The circuit court found that the police had acted in a reasonable manner, and denied the defendant's motion to suppress.

On April 22, 1992, the defendant filed a motion requesting that the circuit court reconsider its rulings on defendant's motion to compel additional discovery and motion to suppress. Regarding the discovery motion, the defendant asserted that the information sought was relevant, since under "current prevailing law * * * an arrest may not be used as a pretext to search for evidence, and the tainted evidence is excluded in order to deter deliberate police misconduct." The circuit court denied the motion to reconsider. The defendant was then tried and convicted.

On appeal, the defendant asserts that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to compel additional discovery. The defendant claims that the police officer's stated reason for stopping the defendant--weaving and the presence of obstructions in the windshield--were merely a pretext for the stop. The defendant contends that the police radio logs might have demonstrated the officer's actual reasons for stopping the defendant's car.

We find that the trial judge did not err in denying the defendant's discovery motion. A trial judge has broad discretion in controlling discovery. (People v. Fairbanks (1986), 141 Ill.App.3d 909, 914, 96 Ill.Dec. 260, 491 N.E.2d 74.) A trial court's discovery ruling will not be overturned unless there is a manifest abuse of...