People v. Jones
| Decision Date | 19 May 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 97683.,97683. |
| Citation | 215 Ill.2d 261,830 N.E.2d 541 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Carlos JONES, Appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Springfield, and Robert Haida, State's Attorney, Belleville (Gary Feinerman, Solicitor General, and Linda D. Woloshin and David H. Iskowich, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, and Norbert J. Goetten, Stephen E. Norris and Sharon Shanahan, of the Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Mt. Vernon, of counsel), and Jonathan Shih, law student, for the People.
Herbert J. Lantz, Jr., Belleville, for appellee.
Defendant, Carlos Jones, was charged in the circuit court of St. Clair County with one count of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) (West 2000). The circuit court denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Following a stipulated bench trial, defendant was convicted as charged. The appellate court reversed defendant's conviction, holding that the circuit court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress. 344 Ill.App.3d 413, 279 Ill.Dec. 255, 800 N.E.2d 97. We allowed the State's petition for leave to appeal (177 Ill.2d R. 315(a)), and now reverse the judgment of the appellate court.
The record contains the following pertinent facts. Defendant was charged with one count of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, in that defendant knowingly carried in a vehicle a revolver when he was not on his own land, or in his own abode, or in his fixed place of business, and the revolver was uncased, loaded, and immediately accessible at the time of the offense. See 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) (West 2000). Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence. The circuit court held a suppression hearing. The only witnesses who testified were Illinois State Trooper Christopher Gebke and defendant. The hearing adduced the following testimony.
At approximately 10:35 p.m. on February 18, 2001, defendant was driving an older model pickup truck east on Route 15 in Belleville. With defendant was his son, whom the record indicates was 11-year-old Carlos Junior. On Route 15 near 59th Street, defendant drove past Gebke, who observed that defendant's tail lights were not operating. Gebke initiated a traffic stop. He approached defendant's vehicle and informed defendant that his tail lights were not working. Gebke asked defendant for his driver's license, and defendant complied. According to his testimony, Gebke at this point did not suspect defendant of any crime other than having inoperable tail lights.
After defendant handed his driver's license to Gebke, defendant's front shirt pocket opened. Defendant had a small wooden box in the pocket. Based on his training and experience, Gebke recognized that type of box as an item of drug paraphernalia known as a "one-hitter" box, which is commonly used to carry cannabis. Gebke asked defendant what he had in his pocket and defendant replied that he had cigarettes. The testimony conflicts at this point. According to Gebke, he asked defendant for the box and defendant voluntarily handed it to Gebke. However, according to defendant, Gebke took the box from defendant's pocket as defendant attempted to button the pocket closed.
The remaining evidence is uncontradicted. The box was approximately two inches wide, four inches tall, and less than an inch thick. Gebke opened the box and saw what he believed to be cannabis and a pipe. Gebke asked defendant to step out of the vehicle. Gebke testified that his purpose in so doing was to arrest defendant for a drug offense and to handcuff defendant. After Gebke asked defendant to step out of the vehicle, but before defendant complied, Gebke observed defendant's right hand move. It appeared to Gebke that defendant was pushing something between the vehicle seat cushions. As soon as defendant exited the vehicle, Gebke saw the butt of a handgun protruding from the front seat cushions.
Gebke handcuffed defendant, seized the handgun, which was a loaded .22-caliber revolver, and placed defendant in the squad car. Gebke returned to defendant's vehicle, where he encountered defendant's son crying. Gebke asked defendant's son if he would like to sit in the squad car with his father, and the son said yes. When defendant's son was secured, Gebke searched defendant's vehicle. Behind the rear seat, Gebke found a small bag containing a loaded .38-caliber revolver with 22 additional bullets. Gebke described this search both as a search incident to arrest and an inventory search, as he planned to have the vehicle towed.
On January 2, 2002, the circuit court entered a written order granting defendant's motion in part and denying it in part. The circuit court suppressed the box and its contents based on People v. Evans, 259 Ill.App.3d 650, 197 Ill.Dec. 650, 631 N.E.2d 872 (1994). The court in Evans described a single-purpose container as a container that by its nature cannot support a reasonable expectation of privacy because its contents can be inferred from its outward appearance and the container can reasonably have no legitimate purpose other than the concealment of contraband. Evans, 259 Ill.App.3d at 655, 197 Ill.Dec. 650, 631 N.E.2d 872. The Evans court held that the small wooden box in that case, which was very similar to defendant's box in this case, was not a single-purpose container. Therefore, the box by itself could not provide the officer with probable cause to search it. Evans, 259 Ill.App.3d at 657, 197 Ill.Dec. 650, 631 N.E.2d 872.
However, the circuit court denied defendant's motion to suppress regarding the two loaded handguns seized from defendant's vehicle. The court concluded that the weapons were not tainted under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The court noted that, based on defendant's traffic violation, Gebke had the right to remove defendant from his vehicle. Further, the circuit court found that once defendant was out of the truck, the seizure of the handguns was justified based on Gebke's plain view of the handgun between the seat cushions. The court reasoned: "It does not matter that the officer's reason for asking the defendant to get out of the truck was based upon his illegal seizure of the purported marijuana box, since the deputy's subjective intention is not the test to determine the constitutionality of a search."
Defendant waived his right to a jury trial and subsequently agreed that the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing would serve as the evidence at a stipulated bench trial. On March 25, 2002, the circuit court found defendant guilty as charged. On April 15, 2002, the court reversed its suppression of defendant's box and its contents. The court explained that The circuit court denied defendant's motions to reconsider the court's suppression denial and the judgment finding defendant guilty as charged.
On May 14, 2002, the circuit court held a sentencing hearing. Defendant had no prior criminal convictions, and received an honorable discharge from military service. The court allowed defendant to speak prior to sentencing. Defendant acknowledged the seriousness of his conduct, and stated that he had learned a valuable lesson. Based on recommendations from defense counsel and the prosecution, the circuit court sentenced defendant to serve one year of conditional discharge and to pay a $300 fine and court costs, and ordered that the handguns be destroyed.
Defendant timely appealed. The appellate court reversed defendant's convictions and sentence. 344 Ill.App.3d 413, 279 Ill.Dec. 255, 800 N.E.2d 97. The court held that defendant's box was not a single-purpose container and, consequently, could not, by itself, furnish probable cause to search and seize it. 344 Ill.App.3d at 425, 279 Ill.Dec. 255, 800 N.E.2d 97. Further, the court held that section 2 of the Drug Paraphernalia Control Act (720 ILCS 600/2 (West 2000)) did not define "one-hitter" boxes as drug paraphernalia and, in any event, the Act did not add to a probable cause analysis. 344 Ill.App.3d at 425-26, 279 Ill.Dec. 255, 800 N.E.2d 97. The appellate court lastly concluded that the handguns and ammunition should be excluded from evidence because they were "fruit of the poisonous tree" and their discovery was not inevitable. 344 Ill.App.3d at 426-27, 279 Ill.Dec. 255, 800 N.E.2d 97.
We allowed the State's petition for leave to appeal. 177 Ill.2d R. 315(a). We observe that defendant was sentenced in May 2002. Therefore, he could have already served his sentence of one year of conditional discharge. However, the probability that a criminal defendant may suffer collateral legal consequences from a sentence already served precludes a finding of mootness. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 371 n. 2, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 2135 n. 2, 124 L.Ed.2d 334, 343 n. 2 (1993) (). Additional pertinent background will be discussed in the context of the analysis of the issues.
In reviewing a circuit court's ruling on a motion to suppress, mixed questions of law and fact are presented. Findings of historical fact made by the circuit court will be upheld on review unless such findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence. This deferential standard of review is grounded in the reality that the circuit court is in a superior position to determine and weigh the credibility of the witnesses, observe the witnesses' demeanor, and resolve conflicts in their testimony. However, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Lewis
... ... area that apparently runs from the gaming area to other areas, such as the Club Cappuccino, and on the videotape they are few, if any, other people depicted in the relevant portion of the corridor area. ( See Videotape at approximately 14:08:45.) ... At this point, Lewis put ... See generally People v. Jones, 215 Ill.2d 261, 294 Ill.Dec. 129, 830 N.E.2d 541 (2005) ("Probable cause, i.e., sufficient evidence to justify the reasonable belief that the ... ...
- People v. McCall
-
People v. Colyar
...incriminating character of the object is not immediately apparent, the plain view doctrine cannot justify the seizure.” People v. Jones, 215 Ill.2d 261, 272, 294 Ill.Dec. 129, 830 N.E.2d 541 (2005), citing Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 374–75, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 2136–37, 124 L.Ed.2d 33......
-
People v. Daniel
...credibility of the witnesses, observe the witnesses' demeanor, and resolve conflicts in their testimony.” People v. Jones, 215 Ill.2d 261, 268, 294 Ill.Dec. 129, 830 N.E.2d 541 (2005). “A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only when an opposite conclusion is apparent or......