People v. Caballes

Decision Date18 May 2006
Docket NumberNo. 91547.,91547.
Citation851 N.E.2d 26,221 Ill.2d 282
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Roy I. CABALLES, Appellant.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
851 N.E.2d 26
221 Ill.2d 282
The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,
v.
Roy I. CABALLES, Appellant.
No. 91547.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
May 18, 2006.
Rehearing Denied June 29, 2006.

Page 27

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 28

Ralph E. Meczyk, Lawrence H. Hyman, John Thomas Moran, Jr., Chicago, for appellant.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Springfield (Gary S. Feinerman, Solicitor General, and Linda D. Woloshin, Assistant Attorney General, Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

Ole Bly Pace III, Mary T. McDermott and Selina S. Thomas, Springfield (Stephen W. Baker, Assistant Public Defender, Office of the Cook County Public Defender, Chicago, of counsel), for amicus curiae Illinois State Bar Association.

Barry Sullivan, Jacob I. Corré, Amy K. Trueblood, of Jenner & Block, L.L.P., Harvey Grossman and Shannon P. Bartlett, Chicago, for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.

Locke E. Bowman, Chicago, for amicus curiae Chicago Council of Lawyers and MacArthur Justice Center.

Clyde Murphy, Elizabeth Shuman-Moore, Chicago, for amicus curiae Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc.

Page 29

Harvey Grossman, Adam Schwartz, Shannon P. Bartlett, Chicago, for amici curiae Community Renewal Society et al.

Andrea Lyon, Chicago, for amicus curiae Illinois Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Zubair A. Khan, of Grippo & Elden, L.L.C., Chicago, for amicus curiae Muslim Bar Association.

Donald Jackson, Peoria, for amicus curiae NAACP-Statewide Conference.

Beatriz Santiago, Chicago, for amicus curiae Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois.

Justice GARMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion:


On January 24, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated this court's judgment in People v. Caballes, 207 Ill.2d 504, 280 Ill.Dec. 277, 802 N.E.2d 202 (2003) (Caballes I), and remanded the cause for "further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion." Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 410, 125 S.Ct. 834, 838, 160 L.Ed.2d 842, 848 (2005). Both the Supreme Court and this court in its now-vacated judgment considered only defendant's fourth amendment claim. However, in his original brief to this court, defendant also relied on article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970. Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 6. Therefore, we must now consider whether, even though the canine sniff of defendant's car during a routine traffic stop did not implicate the fourth amendment, it nevertheless violated the guarantees of the state constitution.

We have allowed defendant's motion to permit additional briefing of the state constitutional issues. In addition, we have permitted the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA), with the Office of the Cook County Public Defender, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois (ACLU), with a number of other organizations, to file briefs amici curiae on behalf of the defendant. 155 Ill.2d R. 345.

BACKGROUND

The facts surrounding defendant's arrest are described in detail in our earlier opinion. Caballes I, 207 Ill.2d at 506-08, 280 Ill.Dec. 277, 802 N.E.2d 202. In brief, defendant was stopped on an interstate highway by an Illinois state trooper for the offense of speeding. The trooper radioed the police dispatcher to report that he was making a stop. Before he began to write the ticket, he again radioed the police dispatcher to determine whether defendant's license was valid and to check for outstanding warrants.

When the trooper first radioed the police dispatcher to report the stop, a second trooper heard the transmission and immediately responded to the scene. The second trooper, a member of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, was accompanied by a dog trained to detect narcotics. He and the dog arrived and walked around defendant's car while the first trooper was in the process of writing a warning ticket. The dog alerted at the trunk. A search of the trunk revealed marijuana and defendant was placed under arrest. Approximately 10 minutes elapsed between the stop and the arrest.

The circuit Court of La Salle County denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence and quash arrest. After a bench trial, defendant was convicted of cannabis trafficking (720 ILCS 550/5.1(a) (West 1998)), sentenced to a term of 12 years in prison, and ordered to pay a street-value fine of $256,136. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the police are not required to have reasonable suspicion before conducting a canine sniff and that although the license and warrant check improperly extended the duration of the

Page 30

stop in this case, the resulting delay was de minimis. People v. Caballes, No. 3-99-0932, 321 Ill.App.3d 1063, 277 Ill.Dec. 903, 797 N.E.2d 250 (2001) (unpublished under Supreme Court Rule 23).

This court reversed, with three justices dissenting. Relying on People v. Cox, 202 Ill.2d 462, 470-71, 270 Ill.Dec. 81, 782 N.E.2d 275 (2002), this court held that when a canine sniff is "performed without `"specific and articulable facts"' to support its use," it unjustifiably enlarges "the scope of a routine traffic stop into a drug investigation." Caballes I, 207 Ill.2d at 510, 280 Ill.Dec. 277, 802 N.E.2d 202. Without addressing the appellate court's conclusion that the duration of the stop was not unjustifiably prolonged, this court concluded that the evidence should have been suppressed. The dissenting justices, relying on City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000), would have affirmed on the basis that a canine sniff is not a search. Caballes I, 207 Ill.2d at 512, 280 Ill.Dec. 277, 802 N.E.2d 202 (Thomas, J., dissenting, joined by Fitzgerald and Garman, JJ.).

Although this court did not expressly state that it was conducting its analysis solely under the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, it did state that it was applying the principles of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), as it had previously done in other cases involving routine traffic stops. Caballes I, 207 Ill.2d at 508, 280 Ill.Dec. 277, 802 N.E.2d 202. The majority implicitly and the dissent explicitly (Caballes I, 207 Ill.2d at 514, 280 Ill.Dec. 277, 802 N.E.2d 202 (Thomas, J., dissenting, joined by Fitzgerald and Garman, JJ.)), relied on fourth amendment jurisprudence. In Caballes I, this court gave no consideration to defendant's argument that the evidence against him should have been suppressed under the provisions of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 (Ill.Const.1970, art. I, § 6).

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari. Proceeding from the premise that the "duration of the stop in this case was entirely justified by the traffic offense and the ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop" (Caballes, 543 U.S. at 408, 125 S.Ct. at 837, 160 L.Ed.2d at 846-47), the Court framed the issue as whether a dog sniff, otherwise conducted in a reasonable manner, changes the character of a traffic stop that is lawful at its inception. Caballes, 543 U.S. at 408, 125 S.Ct. at 837, 160 L.Ed.2d at 847.

The Court answered this question in the negative. Official conduct does not constitute a search for fourth amendment purposes unless it compromises a legitimate interest in privacy. Because an individual's interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed legitimate, official conduct that merely reveals the possession of contraband does not compromise a legitimate privacy interest. Caballes, 543 U.S. at 408, 125 S.Ct. at 837, 160 L.Ed.2d at 847. A canine sniff by a dog trained to detect the presence of narcotics discloses only the presence or absence of contraband and, therefore, "does not implicate legitimate privacy interests." Caballes, 543 U.S. at 409, 125 S.Ct. at 838, 160 L.Ed.2d at 847. The Court noted that this analysis is consistent with its earlier decision that the use of thermal-imaging equipment to detect the growing of marijuana plants inside a home is an unlawful search. Unlike the canine sniff, which will not reveal noncontraband items of a private nature, thermal imaging may reveal "intimate details" within a home, such as conduct in the bedroom or bathroom. Caballes, 543 U.S. at 409-10, 125 S.Ct. at 838, 160 L.Ed.2d at

Page 31

848, citing Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001).

ISSUES

Defendant makes three separate claims on remand. First, he argues that this court should not continue to interpret and apply the search and seizure provision of article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 in lockstep with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation and application of the search and seizure clause of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution. Second, defendant asserts that unless the police have probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the use of a canine sniff during a routine traffic stop violates the privacy clause of article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970. Third, defendant claims that the evidence obtained as a result of the dog sniff should be suppressed because the technique is not sufficiently reliable.

Standard of Review

Defendant proposes de novo review on the basis that this is the proper standard of review of a trial court's "ultimate finding of probable cause or reasonable suspicion," citing People v. Sorenson, 196 Ill.2d 425, 431, 256 Ill.Dec. 836, 752 N.E.2d 1078 (2001).

As for the first two issues raised by defendant, de novo review is appropriate, but not for the reason stated by defendant. We are asked to consider whether to abandon or reaffirm the lockstep doctrine and whether the right to privacy guaranteed by the state constitution is implicated by a dog sniff of a car during a routine traffic stop. These are questions of law, subject to de novo review for that reason. Woods v. Cole, 181 Ill.2d 512, 516, 230 Ill.Dec. 204, 693 N.E.2d 333 (1998).

As for the third issue, there is a question of law...

To continue reading

Request your trial
197 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Reed
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • June 16, 2022
  • Montgomery Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chesson
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 29, 2012
  • State v. Guillen, 2 CA-CR 2007-0365.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • June 24, 2009
    ... ... which would not be revealed without physical intrusion." ...         ¶ 8 The Fourth Amendment provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Searches conducted ... Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 408-09, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005) (emphasis in original), quoting Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 123, 104 S.Ct. 1652 ... 213 ... ...
  • State v. Short, 12–1150.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • July 18, 2014
    ... ... warrant, the resident who answered explained that he did not know Lorenzen or Short but stated that there was an apartment next door and “people are coming and going from there all the time.” The new location was a two-story house that had been converted into four apartments. Deputies then ... People v. Caballes, 221 Ill.2d 282, 303 Ill.Dec. 128, 851 N.E.2d 26, 45 (2006). This is equally true in Iowa.         The timing of the adoption of the Iowa ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Procedures for Objections & Motions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • May 1, 2013
    ...v. Johnson , 237 Ill 2d 81 , 927 NE2d 1179 (2010); People v. Sutherland , 223 Ill 2d 187, 860 NE2d 178 (2006); People v. Caballes , 221 Ill 2d 282, 851 NE2d 26 (2006); People v. Lampitok , 207 Ill 2d 231, 798 NE2d 91 (2003); People v. Conner , 358 Ill App 3d 945, 832 NE2d 442 (2005); People......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • May 1, 2013
    ..., 257 Ill App 3d 502, 629 NE2d 724 (1994), §11:100 People v. Byron , 164 Ill 2d 279, 647 NE2d 946 (1995), §6:150 People v. Caballes , 221 Ill 2d 282, 851 NE2d 26 (2006), §1:270 People v. Caffey , 205 Ill 2d 52, 792 NE2d 1163 (2001), §§6:10, 6:180, 6:100 People v. Calabrese , 398 Ill App 3d ......
  • TABLE OF CASES
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Procedure, Volume One: Investigation (CAP) (2017) Title Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...543 Buza, People v., 231 Cal. App.4th 1446 (Cal. 2014), 198 Cabagbag, State v., 277 P.3d 1027 (Hawaii 2012), 509 Caballes, People v., 851 N.E.2d 26 (Ill. 2006), 5 Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973) , 182, 216 Calandra, United States v., 414 U.S. 338 (1974) , 10, 343, 344, 349, 354, 356......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Procedure, Volume One: Investigation (CAP) (2021) Title Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...Cal. App.4th 1446 (Cal. 2014), 215 Byrd v. United States, 359 C Cabagbag, State v., 277 P.3d 1027 (Hawaii 2012), 554 Caballes, People v., 851 N.E.2d 26 (Ill. 2006), 5 Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973), 235 Calandra, United States v., 414 U.S. 338 (1974), 11, 370, 372, 375, 383, 385 Ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT