People v. Ringland

Decision Date03 June 2015
Docket Number3–13–0926,Nos. 3–13–0523,3–13–0927.,3–13–0823,3–13–0848,s. 3–13–0523
Citation33 N.E.3d 1020
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Cara M. RINGLAND, Defendant–Appellee. The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Steven Pirro, James Saxen, Steven L. Harris and Matthew P. Flynn, Defendants–Appellees.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

33 N.E.3d 1020

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
Cara M. RINGLAND, Defendant–Appellee.


The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
Steven Pirro, James Saxen, Steven L. Harris and Matthew P. Flynn, Defendants–Appellees.

Nos. 3–13–0523
3–13–0823
3–13–0848
3–13–0926
3–13–0927.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

June 3, 2015.


33 N.E.3d 1021

Brian Towne, State's Attorney, of Ottawa (Judith Z. Kelly (argued), of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

Stephen M. Komie of Komie and Associates (argued), Allan A. Ackerman, of Allan A. Ackerman, P.C., of counsel, both of Chicago, for appellee Cara M. Ringland.

Louis L. Bertrand, of Bertrand Law Office P.C., of LaSalle, for appellees Matthew P. Flynn and Steven Pirro.

Dimitri Golfis (argued), of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Ottawa, for appellee James Saxen.

Douglas B. Olivero (argued), of Louis E. Olivero & Associates, of Peru, for appellee Steven L. Harris.

OPINION

Justice SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 In these five consolidated cases, People v. Ringland, People v. Pirro, People v. Saxen, People v. Harris and People v. Flynn, defendants were each charged separately of felony drug offenses as a result of evidence obtained following traffic stops conducted by the State's Attorney's special investigator Jeff Gaither in La Salle County. Each defendant filed a motion to quash his or her arrest and suppress evidence.

¶ 2 The separate hearings on defendants' motions focused on the traffic stops and Gaither's authority as a member of the State's Attorney's Felony Enforcement (SAFE) unit to execute said stops. Each hearing was premised on substantially the same stipulated testimony; following argument, the trial court granted defendants' motions. The court found that while the State's Attorney had authority to appoint a special investigator pursuant to section 3–9005(b) of Counties Code (55 ILCS 5/3–9005(b) (West 2012)), the failure to comply with the fingerprint requirements of the statute meant that Gaither was not authorized to act as a peace officer on the date of the incidents.

¶ 3 The State appeals, claiming the trial court erred in finding that special investigator Gaither was not authorized to act as a peace officer at the time of the traffic stops where the State's Attorney substantially complied with the necessary fingerprint requirements of the statute.

¶ 4 We affirm.

¶ 5 BACKGROUND

¶ 6 At the outset, we note that the cases of People v. Pirro, People v. Saxen, People v. Harris, and People v. Flynn were all consolidated for appeal on February 7,

33 N.E.3d 1022

2014, under the name of People v. Pirro, case No. 3–13–0823. This court, sua sponte, consolidated People v. Ringland, case No. 3–13–0523, with People v. Pirro, as each case is premised on essentially the same set of facts and our disposition of the issues is identical. The following are the pertinent facts of each case.

¶ 7 In case No. 3–13–0523, the State charged defendant, Cara Ringland, via a two-count indictment with felony drug charges arising out of a traffic stop conducted by special investigator Jeff Gaither on Interstate 80 in La Salle County on January 31, 2012. Count I alleged unlawful possession with intent to deliver more than 5,000 grams of cannabis, a Class X felony in violation of section 5(g) of the Cannabis Control Act (720 ILCS 550/5(g) (West 2010)). Count II alleged unlawful cannabis trafficking for knowingly bringing 2,500 grams or more of cannabis into the State of Illinois with the intent to deliver in Illinois or any other state, a Class X felony in violation of section 5.1(a) of the Cannabis Control Act (720 ILCS 550/5.1(a) (West 2010)).

¶ 8 On February 1, 2012, the State initiated a forfeiture action against Ringland seeking forfeiture of $3,300 United States currency seized from the vehicle. The trial court consolidated the causes on May 13, 2012. Ringland filed a motion to quash her arrest and suppress evidence on August 2, 2012, alleging, inter alia, that she was placed under arrest by police officers outside their municipal jurisdiction and that she was stopped and detained without probable cause.

¶ 9 In case No. 3–13–0823, the State charged defendant, Steve Pirro, with one count of unlawful possession with intent to deliver more than 2,000 grams but less than 5,000 grams of a substance containing cannabis, a Class 1 felony in violation of section 5(f) of the Cannabis Control Act (720 ILCS 550/5(f) (West 2012)). The charge arose following a traffic stop conducted by special investigator Gaither on Interstate 80 on January 14, 2013. Defendant filed a motion to quash his arrest and suppress evidence, alleging, inter alia, that Gaither lacked the authority to effectuate a traffic stop or arrest.

¶ 10 In case No. 3–13–0848, the State charged defendant, James Saxen, via a two-count indictment with unlawful possession with intent to deliver 15 grams or more but less than 100 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine, a Class X felony in violation of sections 55(a)(1) and 55(a)(2)(C) of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act (720 ILCS 646/55(a)(1), 55(a)(2)(C) (West 2010)). Count II charged defendant with unlawful possession with intent to deliver 900 or more grams of a substance containing methamphetamine, a Class X felony in violation of sections 55(a)(1) and 55(a)(2)(F) of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act (720 ILCS 646/55(a)(1), 55(a)(2)(F) (West 2010)).

¶ 11 In case No. 3–13–0926, the State charged defendant, Steven Harris, with unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver more than 15 grams but less than 100 grams of a substance containing cocaine, a Class X felony in violation of section 401(a)(2)(A) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(A) (West 2010)).

¶ 12 Lastly, in case No. 3–13–0927, the State charged defendant, Matthew Flynn, with unlawful possession with intent to deliver more than 2,000 grams but less than 5,000 grams of a substance containing cannabis, a Class 1 felony, in violation of section 5(f) of the Cannabis Control Act (720 ILCS 550/5(f) (West 2010)).

¶ 13 As was the case with defendants Ringland and Pirro, the charges against defendants Saxen, Harris, and Flynn arose

33 N.E.3d 1023

following three separate traffic stops conducted by special investigator Gaither on Interstate 80 in La Salle County. Gaither initiated the stop against Saxen on December 12, 2012; against Harris on November 20, 2012; and against Flynn on March 12, 2013.

¶ 14 Like Ringland and Pirro, defendants Saxen, Harris, and Flynn each filed a motion to quash his arrest and suppress evidence, alleging Gaither lacked the authority to conduct a traffic stop or arrest.

¶ 15 Each cause proceeded to a separate hearing on the individual defendant's motion to suppress. The trial court conducted the hearing on defendant Ringland's motion to suppress first. This is significant, insofar as the other four defendants stipulated to the testimony given by La Salle County State's Attorney Brian Towne and by special investigator Jeff Gaither at Ringland's hearing on February 8, 2013.

¶ 16 At the outset of Ringland's suppression hearing, the parties tendered certain documents obtained pursuant to subpoenas. The hearing itself focused on the traffic stop, and the authority of SAFE investigator Jeff Gaither to execute said stop. The trial judge noted on the record that based on hearings in other cases, SAFE investigators were not sworn in as deputies by the sheriff's department. The parties then stipulated to the transcripts of conversations between Gaither, Peru police officer Jeremiah Brown, and defendant Ringland.

¶ 17 Officer Brown testified that on January 31, 2012, he was doing a “ride along” with Gaither of the SAFE unit. He was not in uniform at the time. They were stationary in the Interstate 80 median when they proceeded to go eastbound on Interstate 80 following a U–Haul vehicle that contained only a driver. They pulled to the left of the U–Haul, observing that the seatbelt appeared to be in use and that the driver kept her eyes facing forward. Gaither explained to Brown that he had a specialty in “truck enforcement” and he would be executing a traffic stop for inadequate mud flaps. Brown also noticed that the U–Haul's license plate was partially obstructed by its frame.

¶ 18 Gaither stopped the U–Haul and approached the passenger-side window while Brown approached the driver's window. Less than two minutes later, Gaither signaled Brown to call the canine unit and had defendant exit her vehicle and sit in his squad car. Brown believed that the Peru canine unit was required to respond whenever SAFE executed a traffic stop.

¶ 19 Gaither testified that he had been employed by the Illinois State Police from 1987 to 2011, before retiring in July 2011 as a master sergeant. He then accepted a position as an investigator with the SAFE team to look for narcotic traffickers traveling along Interstate 80 in La Salle County. He did not have his fingerprints taken in connection with accepting the position with SAFE....

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Ringland
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 29, 2017
    ...holding that the conduct of the special investigator exceeded the scope of section 3–9005(b). 2015 IL App (3d) 130523, 393 Ill.Dec. 276, 33 N.E.3d 1020. This court allowed the State's petition for leave to appeal ( Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015)), and we now affirm the judgment of t......
  • People v. Hayes
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 15, 2018
    ...because of the defendant's actual or implied consent. See People v. Ringland , 2015 IL App (3d) 130523, ¶ 33, 393 Ill.Dec. 276, 33 N.E.3d 1020 (noting that an appellate court may affirm a trial court's ruling on any basis appearing in the record, even if it was not the basis relied upon by ......
  • People v. Norris
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 31, 2018
    ...case did not err when it denied defendant's motion to suppress. See People v. Ringland , 2015 IL App (3d) 130523, ¶ 33, 393 Ill.Dec. 276, 33 N.E.3d 1020 (reviewing court may affirm on any grounds in the record).¶ 47 D. Booking Video ¶ 48 Defendant next argues that the circuit court erred in......
  • People v. Massamillo
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • November 9, 2020
  • 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