People v. Reedy
| Decision Date | 26 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | 3–13–0956.,Nos. 3–13–0955,s. 3–13–0955 |
| Citation | 39 N.E.3d 318 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Corey REEDY, Defendant–Appellee. The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Jesus Chavez, Defendant–Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James Glasgow, State's Attorney, Joliet (Mark A. Austill, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.
Steven A. Greenberg and Adam Altman, both of Steven A. Greenberg & Associates, Ltd., Chicago, for appellees.
delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
¶ 1 Pursuant to a traffic stop, defendants, Corey Reedy and Jesus Chavez, were found in possession of at least 900 grams of heroin. Each was charged by indictment with unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(1)(D)
(West 2012)). The trial court subsequently granted dual motions to suppress the heroin. The State appeals, arguing that the traffic stop was lawful under the fourth amendment. We reverse.
¶ 3 On June 28, 2012, defendants were each charged by indictment with unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Id. Each indictment alleged that defendants were found in possession of at least 900 grams of a substance containing heroin. Each defendant subsequently moved to suppress physical evidence, arguing that they were unlawfully seized in violation of the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution, and that any evidence found as a result of that seizure should be suppressed. A hearing on the motions was held on October 10, 2013.
¶ 4 It was adduced at the suppression hearing that on June 17, 2012, Deputy Robert Denny and Sergeant Joe Boers were working patrol for the Will County sheriff's department's gang suppression unit. Denny and Boers were parked on the shoulder of the entrance ramp from Route 53 to northbound Interstate 55. At approximately 12 p.m., the officers observed a white Buick enter onto the ramp. On two occasions the car's passenger-side tires completely crossed over the solid white fog line on the right side of the road. According to Denny, on at least one of these occasions, the tires remained over the fog line for a period of four or five seconds. Denny also testified that the latter of these two occasions occurred once the car was fully onto the interstate, but admitted that he indicated in his report that both instances occurred on the entrance ramp.
¶ 5 Denny and Boers effectuated a traffic stop. The officers exited their cruiser; Denny approached the driver's side of the Buick while Boers approached the passenger. Denny requested identification and proof of insurance from the driver, whom he identified as Reedy. Reedy produced the documents immediately, but Denny observed that Reedy's hand was shaking as Reedy handed the documents to him. Denny testified that while he initially believed that the driver may have been intoxicated due solely to the multiple veers over the fog line, this suspicion was immediately dispelled upon his contact with Reedy. Boers requested identification from the passenger, Chavez, who produced it immediately. Denny retrieved Chavez's license, and then returned to the cruiser to run the names through the Law Enforcement Agencies Data System (LEADS). Denny testified that only “[a] couple of minutes” had elapsed from the time he approached the Buick to the time he returned to his cruiser with the licenses.
¶ 6 While Denny ran the names through LEADS, Boers remained at the passenger side of the Buick. Boers asked defendants if there were any weapons in the vehicle; they responded that there were not. Boers then asked if there were any drugs in the vehicle. Boers observed that both defendants hesitated before answering “no” to the question. Denny testified that in addition to the hesitation, Boers relayed to him Boers' observation that Reedy looked directly at a black duffel bag on the front passenger-side floorboard during that hesitation.
¶ 7 At some point during the traffic stop, Sergeant Joel Mantia of the Will County sheriff's department arrived on the scene, along with a narcotics canine, Nina. Denny testified that Mantia arrived while he was still in the cruiser, but could not recall if he was still running the names through LEADS or had just finished. Denny agreed that his report indicated that Mantia arrived and assisted Boers while Denny was running defendants' names through LEADS. Boers could not recall precisely when Mantia arrived, but estimated that he arrived “within 2 to 3 minutes. 3 tops.”
¶ 8 Denny estimated that the process of running defendants' names through LEADS took between three and five minutes. After ascertaining that both licenses were valid and there were no outstanding warrants for either defendant, Denny decided that he would issue a warning ticket to Reedy. Denny then exited his cruiser and returned to the Buick. He did not bring his ticket book with him at that time.
¶ 9 With all three officers at the Buick, Denny asked Reedy to step out of his vehicle so that he could explain the traffic infraction. Mantia then requested to pat Reedy down for the purpose of officer safety; Reedy consented. In patting Reedy down, Mantia found $1,700 in Reedy's pocket. Reedy explained that he got the money from his business detailing cars. No more than one minute after this pat-down, Denny asked Reedy how long he had known Chavez. Reedy said that Chavez had previously lived in Illinois, and they had known one another for six or seven years.
¶ 10 While the officers spoke to Reedy, Chavez was asked to exit the vehicle. Chavez also consented to a pat-down. After Chavez was patted down, Denny asked Chavez where he lived. Chavez replied that he lived in Los Angeles and had never lived anywhere else. Denny testified that at some point after questioning Chavez, he returned to his cruiser to begin writing the warning ticket. Denny admitted that his report did not indicate that he began writing a ticket. As Denny returned to his cruiser, Mantia retrieved Nina. Denny estimated that “[m]aybe five minutes” had elapsed between his second approach to the Buick and his return to the cruiser to begin writing the warning ticket.
¶ 11 During the ensuing dog sniff of the exterior of the Buick, Nina alerted to the presence of narcotics. Denny testified that Mantia is a trained narcotics officer and Nina is a trained narcotics dog. The subsequent search of the vehicle led to the discovery of a duffel bag—found on the front passenger-seat floorboard—containing the heroin that stood as the basis of defendants' indictments. Defendants were placed under arrest. Denny testified that, according to the computer-aided dispatch notes, either he or Boers called for the Buick to be towed at 12:09 p.m. Denny estimated that seven minutes had passed between his first observation of defendants' vehicle and defendants being placed under arrest. Boers estimated that less than 10 minutes had elapsed from the time the vehicle was pulled over to the time defendants were placed under arrest.
¶ 12 Following arguments, the trial court took the matter under advisement. On November 15, 2013, the court granted defendants' motions to suppress. In ruling, the court stated as follows:
The court later entered a written order reflecting this ruling, with reference to “reasons stated on record.”
¶ 13 The State appeals the court's granting of defendants' motions to suppress, arguing that the traffic stop was not unduly prolonged in violation of the fourth amendment, and that the drugs should not be suppressed on any other grounds. Defendants argue that the traffic stop was unnecessarily prolonged and the nature of the traffic stop was fundamentally changed, both in contravention of the fourth amendment. Defendants also argue that the officers initially lacked probable cause to effectuate any traffic stop and that the State failed to prove that Nina was a reliable canine dog or that Nina ever alerted to the presence of narcotics.
¶ 14 On April 10, 2015, we issued an order reversing the ruling of the trial court. Eleven days later, the United States Supreme Court published its decision in Rodriguez v. United States, a case in which it concluded that “a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. ––––, ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1612, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015)
. We subsequently granted defendants' petition for rehearing, and allowed both parties to rebrief the issues on appeal with Rodriguez in mind.
¶ 16 “In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we apply a two-part standard of review.” People v. Cummings, 2014 IL 115769, ¶ 13, 379 Ill.Dec. 397, 6 N.E.3d 725
. Findings of fact made by the trial court are reviewed for clear error, and only reversed if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. However, the ultimate decision of whether or not suppression is warranted is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.
People v. Harris, 228 Ill.2d 222, 230, 319 Ill.Dec. 823, 886...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hill
...deciding what relief should be granted." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Reedy , 2015 IL App (3d) 130955, ¶ 16, 395 Ill.Dec. 851, 39 N.E.3d 318 (quoting People v. Luedemann , 222 Ill. 2d 530, 542, 306 Ill.Dec. 94, 857 N.E.2d 187, 195 (2006) ); see also People v. Hackett , 2012......
-
People v. Musgrave
...was unduly prolonged requires an analysis of a totality of the circumstances." People v. Reedy , 2015 IL App (3d) 130955, ¶ 27, 395 Ill.Dec. 851, 39 N.E.3d 318 ; see also People v. Baldwin , 388 Ill. App. 3d 1028, 1034, 328 Ill.Dec. 683, 904 N.E.2d 1193, 1199 (2009). "Among the circumstance......
-
People v. Sadeq
...prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to satisfy its initial purpose" ( People v. Reedy , 2015 IL App (3d) 130955, ¶ 25, 395 Ill.Dec. 851, 39 N.E.3d 318 ). The United States Supreme Court has observed that "the tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is de......
-
People v. Sanchez
...beyond the time reasonably required to complete the seizure's mission. People v. Reedy , 2015 IL App (3d) 130955, ¶ 25, 395 Ill.Dec. 851, 39 N.E.3d 318. Authority for the seizure "ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed." Rodriguez , 575 U......