People v. Myers

• Decision Date: 27 December 1978
• Docket Number: No. 14943,14943
• Parties: , 23 Ill.Dec. 722 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanley M. MYERS, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 516

384 N.E.2d 516

66 Ill.App.3d 934, 23 Ill.Dec. 722

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanley M. MYERS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14943.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Dec. 27, 1978.

Thomas J. Difanis, State's Atty., Urbana, Robert C. Perry, Deputy Director, State's Attys. Appellate Service Commission, James G. Condon, Staff Atty., Springfield, for plaintiff-appellant.

Malcolm Barnes, Urbana, for defendant-appellee.

CRAVEN, Justice:

After being charged with unlawful possession of cannabis, in violation of sections 4 and 5 of the Cannabis Control Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 561/2, pars. 704, 705), the defendant, Stanley Myers, filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during a search of his car and a motion to suppress statements made following the seizure of that evidence. At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement and in a subsequent written opinion it granted the defendant's motions. The State appeals, contending that the trial court's finding and decision was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and that the trial court relied upon unsound authority.

The testimony at the suppression hearing revealed that a State police officer was on routine patrol of Interstate 57, in Champaign County, when he observed a vehicle with only one operational headlight. The officer followed the vehicle for approximately one-half mile before turning on the warning lights and his spotlight. After turning on the lights, the officer noticed the driver bend over as if he were placing something under the seat. When the driver stopped the vehicle it was at a point where mercury vapor lights illuminated the highway and the interior of the automobile. The officer approached the vehicle, advised the driver of the headlight violation, and asked for his driver's license. After the driver produced his license, the officer asked him to step out of the vehicle, and, as he did so, the officer observed a brown paper grocery sack lying on the floorboard, partially beneath the driver's seat. While the driver was standing outside the car, the officer opened the sack and observed six clear bags containing a green vegetable-like substance which was subsequently determined to be cannabis. The officer testified at the hearing that he had no reason to suspect that the brown paper bag contained any illegal substance but that he seized it for his own safety to determine that it did not contain a weapon. The driver, defendant Myers, was then escorted to a squad car and given Miranda warnings after which he made an incriminating statement concerning the contents of the sack.

The trial court's excellent written opinion granting the motions to suppress noted that the record was devoid of any uncivil behavior on the defendant's part and that the defendant's only unusual movement was bending over as his automobile was coming to a stop. In addition, the trial court noted that the officer seized the bag in order to look for a weapon even though he was not afraid or in fear of his safety. The order concluded that there were insufficient suspicious circumstances or specific information known to the officer to justify a limited search and consequently the evidence seized was suppressed. With respect to the defendant's incriminating statement following his arrest, the trial court found that the interrogation was predicated upon an invalid search and seizure and thus the statement was tainted and inadmissible.

In ruling on a motion to suppress, it is the trial court's province to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, and its findings will not be disturbed upon review unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Wiggins (1976), 45 Ill.App.3d 85, 3 Ill.Dec. 616, 358 N.E.2d 1301.

The resolution of the instant case hinges on two of the Illinois appellate court decisions discussed in the trial court's memorandum opinion. In People v. Watkins (1974), 23 Ill.App.3d 1054, 320 N.E.2d 59, police officers stopped an automobile at approximately 4 a. m. in Chicago for improper use of bright lights. After the driver had left the vehicle to talk with one of the two officers, the other officer observed a passenger in the front seat reach or bend toward the floor of the auto. The officer ordered the passenger, later identified as Watkins, out of the car, and, as he was stepping out, the police officer noticed a small caliber derringer lying on the floor under Watkins' feet. Watkins was searched by the officer and the gun lying on the floor of the auto was seized as evidence. The defendant's motion to suppress this evidence was denied by the trial court, and the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court held that this search was proper on the basis of Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889,...