People v. Watts

Decision Date20 February 1981
Docket NumberNo. 80-101,80-101
Citation93 Ill.App.3d 420,417 N.E.2d 247,48 Ill.Dec. 845
Parties, 48 Ill.Dec. 845 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Clay WATTS, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

William G. Schwartz, State's Atty., Murphysboro, Martin N. Ashley, Deputy Director, Stephen E. Norris, Staff Atty. State's Attys. Appellate Service Commission, Mount Vernon, for plaintiff-appellant.

John H. Reid, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Brian Lewis, Research Asst., Mount Vernon, for defendant-appellee.

WHITE, Justice:

The defendant was charged by information with unlawful possession of cannibis in that on the second of September of 1979, he knowingly possessed more than 500 grams of a substance containing cannabis (Ill.Rev.Stat. (1977) Chap. 56 1/2, par. 704(e)). A preliminary hearing was held and probable cause found. Subsequently, a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence was filed by the defendant, evidence was heard and the motion to suppress evidence was allowed. The People appeal.

It was stipulated at the hearing on the defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence that the search and seizure were without a search warrant. The state then called Officer Ralph Pearce, Southern Illinois Security Police, as a witness. He testified that on September 2, 1979 at approximately 2:50 a. m., he was traveling north on South Illinois Avenue in Carbondale, Illinois where he observed a 1949 Chevrolet pick-up truck traveling east on old Hospital drive. His attention was called to the truck "because of the noise the truck was making, and the excessive speed". The truck then cut across the Dairy Queen parking lot, turned right onto Cherry Street, and then turned north from Cherry onto South Illinois Avenue. The officer continued to observe the pick-up for several blocks because he was "suspicious" of the vehicle and decided to follow it. After following for approximately four blocks, the officer stopped the vehicle for an alleged speeding violation. The officer testified that he had clocked the vehicle in question and at one point it was going 46 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour speed zone.

Both the officer and the defendant got out of their vehicles and the defendant showed the officer a valid drivers license. A second officer arrived and watched the defendant at the police car as the arresting officer approached the defendant's vehicle. Officer Pearce testified that he could smell beer on the defendant's breath; however, according to the officers, the defendant was not intoxicated nor was he given a ticket for "D.W.I.", nor was he requested to undergo a breathalyzer analysis.

According to Officer Pearce, as he approached the defendant's vehicle, the driver's door was open, he looked in with the aid of a flashlight and saw a six-pack container of Miller's beer with two bottles in the original carton, in the middle of the floor of the truck. At that time the officer had no knowledge of whether the bottles were capped or uncapped or whether there was any alcoholic beverage in the bottles. He could not see the top of the bottles because of the carton in which the bottles were situated. The officer then entered the truck to examine the bottles at which time he noticed the odor of cannabis. He found the bottles to be capped but also observed what he believed to be a marijuana leaf on the floor. As he moved the carton containing the beer bottles, he observed a wooden box next to the beer carton. The lid of the box was open approximately an inch, and the officer testified he was able to observe a plastic bag with the green leafy substance by using his flashlight and peering through the one inch opening. Immediately thereafter, he arrested the defendant. The officer had the defendant's vehicle towed, inventoried and secured. During the inventory of the vehicle, the officer noticed a space in front of the bench-type seat. With the use of his flashlight, he could observe objects under the seat by getting down and looking through the space. He lifted the bench-type seat in the cab of the pick-up truck and found another plastic bag containing several more plastic bags, some of which contained leafy materials. He also found a small cardboard box containing more plastic bags with leafy material and one plastic bag full of brown seeds.

The defendant testified in his own behalf that he was at a party in a house behind the Dairy Queen, that he had left the house after 2:00 a. m. and that as he approached his vehicle there were individuals sitting on and in the truck drinking beer. After he advised them to leave, he threw out the empty bottles of beer but left two unopened Miller bottles inside the six-pack container on the passenger side on the floor. The defendant drove across the parking lot to Cherry Street and then turned north onto South Illinois Avenue. He drove one block, stopped at a stop light, then drove at a speed not greater than 25 miles per hour until he was stopped by Officer Pearce four blocks later. Defendant further testified because of the construction on South Illinois Avenue he had to change lanes to proceed north. According to defendant, after he was stopped, he got out of this vehicle, closed the door, showed the officer his valid drivers' license and was detained by a second officer in front of the police car while Officer Pearce placed the upper portion of his body into the driver's window of the defendant's vehicle. Officer Pearce then walked around to the passenger side, opened up the door, entered, got out, and then placed the defendant under arrest. The defendant never gave permission to, nor was asked for, permission by the officer to enter the vehicle. The defendant's vehicle was towed and inventoried without his permission. The defendant admitted that he consumed one beer at the party in a period of 2 1/2 to 3 hours.

The trial court found that the officer had probable cause to stop the defendant's vehicle, that the officer had the right to approach the vehicle, and that the officer could look into the vehicle from outside, but the court further found that the officer could not enter the automobile in absence of any evidence that there was a violation of any law, and in particular, a violation of Ill.Rev.Stat. Chap. 95 1/2, par. 11-502 (1977) which states, "no person shall transport, carry, possess or have any alcoholic liquor within the passenger area of any motor vehicle except in the original package and with the seal unbroken".

The trial judge based his ruling upon People v. Thomas, (1979) 75 Ill.App.3d 491, 31 Ill.Dec. 422, 394 N.E.2d 624. He specifically found that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • People v. Bradford
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 25 de agosto de 1989
    ...proceed in the same manner. People v. Worlow (1982), 106 Ill.App.3d 112, 61 Ill.Dec. 954, 435 N.E.2d 795; People v. Watts (1981), 93 Ill.App.3d 420, 48 Ill.Dec. 845, 417 N.E.2d 247. Probable cause exists where the police have knowledge of facts which would lead a reasonable person to believ......
  • United States ex rel. Brown v. McGinnis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 28 de fevereiro de 1984
    ... ... Although mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, People ex rel. Hoagland v. Streeper, 12 Ill.2d 204, 145 N.E.2d 625, 632 (1957), that will issue only upon a clear showing of rights to an official's ... ...
  • United States ex rel. Isaac v. Franzen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 10 de fevereiro de 1982
    ... ... 65, §§ 1, et seq., provides petitioner with one possible means of redress for his claims of constitutional deprivations. In People ex rel. Ponder v. Bensinger, 57 Ill.2d 55, 310 N.E.2d 161 (1974), the Illinois Supreme Court entertained an original jurisdiction petition for a ... ...
  • People v. Wetherbe
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 26 de março de 1984
    ...a search of the car. People v. Kelly (1979), 76 Ill.App.3d 80, 85, 31 Ill.Dec. 537, 394 N.E.2d 739; see People v. Watts (1981), 93 Ill.App.3d 420, 425, 48 Ill.Dec. 845, 417 N.E.2d 247. 2. When a person is subjected to a lawful custodial arrest, the police, acting without a warrant, may make......
  • 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