People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 07 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 3-18-0024 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lonnie WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Jason Helland, State's Attorney, of Morris (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Justin A. Nicolosi, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.
James E. Chadd, Peter A. Carusona, and James Wozniak, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Ottawa, for appellee.
¶ 1 Defendant, Lonnie Williams, was charged with a Class X felony—unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver ( 720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(A) (West 2016)). The trial court granted defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. The State appealed. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
¶ 3 Just prior to midnight on the evening of July 16, 2017, Deputy Aaron Cory stopped defendant's vehicle on Interstate 80 in Grundy County, Illinois, for failing to have a rear registration plate. After Cory stopped defendant's vehicle, Cory saw that defendant had a valid, temporary registration sticker in his rear window. Having stopped defendant, Cory requested defendant's driver's license and proof of insurance. Defendant's driver's license was suspended. During a subsequent search of defendant's vehicle, a gun and a substance suspected to be cocaine were found. Suspected cocaine was also found in the back of Cory's squad car where defendant had been seated. Defendant was charged with the Class X felony of unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, in that "defendant knowingly possessed with the intent to deliver 100 grams or more but less than 400 grams of a substance containing cocaine."
¶ 4 On October 3, 2017, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the initial stop of his vehicle was unlawful, his prolonged detention by Cory requesting his driver's license was unlawful, and his subsequent arrest was unlawful. At the motion hearing on December 12, 2017, Cory testified that at or around midnight on July 16, 2017, he saw defendant's vehicle pass him and it appeared that the vehicle did not have a rear license plate. Cory testified that, when defendant's vehicle was stopped and "once [he] approached the vehicle," he observed an Iowa temporary registration sticker in the upper left corner of defendant's rear window. Cory further testified that he also observed other motor vehicle violations on defendant's vehicle—no rear registration light (license plate light), a cracked taillight with red tape over it, and several air fresheners hanging from the rearview mirror. Cory explained to defendant that he had pulled him over for not having a rear license plate but now had observed the temporary registration sticker in the rear window. Cory requested defendant's driver's license and discovered it had been suspended. An inventory search of defendant's vehicle was conducted for the purpose of towing the vehicle.
¶ 5 At the hearing, the prosecutor conceded that the air fresheners hanging from the rearview mirror and the cracked taillight that was taped up with red tape were "clearly not going to support a stop in this case" and that neither side was making such an argument. The prosecutor argued, however, in addition to Cory stopping defendant for a missing license plate, defendant's vehicle also did not have a functioning light for the rear license plate.
¶ 6 The trial court indicated that, when it viewed the video of the traffic stop and listened to the testimony, the evidence was that it was dark outside, there was no license plate on defendant's vehicle, and once Cory stopped defendant's vehicle and walked up to it, Cory observed the valid temporary registration. The trial court noted that a different type of temporary registration is used in Iowa than in Illinois—in Illinois, a temporary registration plate is placed where the license plate would go and would be more clearly visible. The trial court found that the stop was lawful because it appeared that there was no registration on the vehicle and there was no way to know if there a valid registration "until the stop was effectuated and you were standing literally right next to the vehicle." The trial court took the matter under advisement on the narrow issue of whether Cory could ask for defendant's driver's license after he had recognized defendant's vehicle had a proper registration and continued the case.
¶ 7 On December 21, 2017, in its oral ruling (and in its subsequent written order filed on January 8, 2018), the trial court found the traffic stop was lawful because the vehicle's registration was not visible after dark to a stationary police vehicle. The trial court further found that Cory did not have the right to investigate defendant after he had made the stop and noticed the valid, temporary registration sticker in the rear window. The trial court found that the license plate light was also malfunctioning but there was no probable cause to support a stop (or prolong the stop) on that basis because no license plate was affixed to the area where the license plate light would illuminate it. The trial court granted the motion to suppress because there was not an "effective Terry stop" at the point of when Cory asked for defendant's driver's license.
¶ 8 On December 21, 2017, the trial court filed a written order that indicated the motion to quash and suppress was granted and defendant was "hereby released instanter from the Grundy County Jail." On January 8, 2018, the trial court entered a written order containing its findings of fact in support of granting defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. The trial court stated that it found as follows:
¶ 9 The trial court additionally noted in the order that it had previously found that Cory had reasonable grounds to stop defendant's vehicle because no current registration was visible. The trial court noted that the issue then became whether Cory had the right to investigate further and that the State had argued Cory had sufficient grounds to investigate further because there was not a functioning rear license plate light. The trial court found that the absence of the license plate light did not give Cory grounds to investigate further because there was no license plate affixed to the area of the license plate light. The trial court noted the registration was properly displayed in the rear windshield in a manner prescribed by the State of Iowa but that it was not visible after dark to a stationary police vehicle. The trial court granted defendant's motion to quash and suppress.
¶ 10 The State appealed.
¶ 12 The State appeals the trial court's order granting defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. Specifically, in its brief on appeal the State argues that the investigating officer, Cory, had sufficient probable cause to further investigate defendant, even after the probable cause for the stop had dissipated for lack of a proper vehicle registration being displayed, because defendant was also driving without a functioning license plate light. In support of its argument, the State cites section 12-201(c) of the Illinois Vehicle Code:
625 ILCS 5/12-201(c) (West 2016).
The State argues that defendant's temporary registration on the rear windshield was not illuminated and, as such, defendant was committing a traffic violation so that Cory was "fully justified" in asking for defendant's driver's license.
¶ 13 In response, defendant requests that this appeal be dismissed because the State did not certify that its case has been substantially impaired by the trial court's pretrial suppression order granting defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant also takes issue with the fact that the State's jurisdictional statement in its brief on appeal failed to include the date of the order being appealed, the date the State's notice of appeal was filed, and the basis for this court's jurisdiction in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h) (eff. Nov. 1, 2017). Defendant argues that the State's failure to provide both a certificate of impairment and a proper jurisdictional statement in its brief on appeal should lead this court to dismiss the State's appeal.
¶ 14 Defendant additionally argues that the trial court properly granted his motion to suppress because Cory did have not probable cause to initially stop his vehicle and, even if the initial stop was lawful, the request for his driver's license impermissibly prolonged the stop in violation of article I, section 6, of the Illinois...
To continue reading
Request your trial