The People Of The State Of Ill. v. Oliver

Decision Date18 March 2010
Docket NumberNo. 108089.,108089.
Citation338 Ill.Dec. 901,925 N.E.2d 1107,236 Ill.2d 448
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellantv.Anthony OLIVER, Appellee.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

236 Ill.2d 448
925 N.E.2d 1107
338 Ill.Dec.
901

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant
v.
Anthony OLIVER, Appellee.

No. 108089.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 18, 2010.


925 N.E.2d 1108
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Springfield, Terence M. Patton, State's Attorney, Cambridge (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, Michael M. Glick and Karl R. Triebel, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, and Patrick Delfino, Terry A. Mertel and Sabrina S. Henry, Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Ottawa, of counsel), for the People.

Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Robert Agostinelli, Deputy Defender, and Fletcher P. Hamill, Assistant Appellate Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Ottawa, for appellee.
OPINION
Justice KILBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

The issue in this appeal is whether a police officer's request to search the trunk of a driver's vehicle, following the consensual search of its interior after a valid traffic stop, violates defendant's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (U.S. Const., amend. IV; Ill. Const.1970, art. I, § 6). The circuit court of Henry County denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence recovered from his vehicle's trunk. Ultimately, defendant was convicted of two controlled-substance offenses. A majority of the appellate court reversed, concluding that defendant was subjected to an unlawful seizure when the officer requested to search the trunk. 387 Ill.App.3d 1045, 1052, 327 Ill.Dec. 154, 901 N.E.2d 482. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court and affirm the circuit court's judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Following a traffic stop in the early morning hours of November 14, 2002, Deputy Sheriff Glenn Hampton recovered cocaine from the trunk of defendant's vehicle. After being arrested and taken to the police station, defendant signed a statement admitting the cocaine was his, but he denied any intent to sell it. Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Defendant's passenger, Orlando James, was also charged with the same offenses.

Defendant filed a pretrial motion to quash arrest and suppress his confession, arguing, in relevant part, he was subjected to an illegal seizure. Codefendant James also filed a motion to suppress. With the parties' agreement, the trial court conducted a consolidated suppression hearing on those motions.

At the suppression hearing, Officer Hampton testified he stopped defendant's car for following another vehicle too closely in a construction zone. When Officer Hampton asked defendant for his driver's license, defendant produced an Illinois identification card. Officer Hampton did not observe anything suspicious inside defendant's vehicle, but he did notice a strong-smelling fragrance he suspected of masking the smell of contraband. While radioing defendant's information from the Illinois identification card to police dispatch, Officer Hampton placed defendant in the passenger seat of his squad car. Officer Hampton learned that defendant

925 N.E.2d 1109
was not the registered owner of the vehicle and did not have a valid Illinois driver's license. Defendant's passenger, James, however, had a valid Illinois driver's license.

After receiving this information, Officer Hampton, still inside the squad car with defendant, returned defendant's identification card, explained he was not going to arrest defendant for operating a vehicle without a license, and told defendant he was free to leave if James drove the car. Officer Hampton also asked defendant if he had any weapons or contraband inside the vehicle. Defendant replied that he did not. Officer Hampton then asked defendant if he was sure, and defendant responded, “If you want to search it, go ahead.” Officer Hampton estimated that the time between when he stopped the vehicle and when defendant gave consent to search the car was less than 10 minutes.

Officer Hampton returned to defendant's vehicle and explained to James that defendant had consented to a search of the vehicle. Officer Hampton asked James if he could search the vehicle, and James replied affirmatively. Officer Hampton estimated he searched the interior of the car for between 10 and 15 minutes. During the search, Officer Hampton had defendant stand at the front of the vehicle and James at the rear of the vehicle. Officer Hampton found no contraband inside the vehicle.

Upon completion of the interior search, Officer Hampton asked defendant and James if there was any contraband in the vehicle's trunk. Both replied negatively, explaining the trunk contained only clothing. Officer Hampton next asked to search the trunk, and defendant and James both consented. During his search of the trunk, Officer Hampton recovered a plastic bag of cocaine. Officer Hampton then arrested defendant and James. According to Officer Hampton, defendant and James never withdrew their consent for the interior and trunk searches. Defendant and James were not handcuffed during the stop, and neither asked if they were under arrest or free to leave. Officer Hampton was the only police officer present during the traffic stop and subsequent searches.

In response, defendant testified that after Officer Hampton received the information from the radio dispatch, he told defendant he was free to go. Defendant denied, however, that he gave Officer Hampton permission to search the car. Instead, defendant stated that Officer Hampton simply told defendant he would search the car and, if he did not find any contraband, he would let them leave if James drove. Officer Hampton did not ask defendant for his consent to search. During this conversation, defendant was locked inside the police car alone with Officer Hampton. Although defendant felt free to leave when Officer Hampton told him he could go, he no longer believed he was free to leave when Officer Hampton told defendant he was going to search the vehicle.

Officer Hampton made defendant stand at the front of the vehicle during the search. According to defendant, Officer Hampton opened the trunk from inside the vehicle during the interior search. Officer Hampton then searched the trunk of the vehicle. Defendant testified Officer Hampton did not ask for permission to search the interior or the trunk. Defendant did not hear Officer Hampton ask James for permission to search the interior and trunk.

James also testified, and he denied that Officer Hampton asked him for permission to search the vehicle's interior and trunk. James could not hear the conversation between defendant and Officer Hampton when they were inside the police car. After

925 N.E.2d 1110
the interior search, James saw Officer Hampton remove the key from its ignition and use the key to open the trunk.

Upon hearing the disputed evidence, the trial court entered a detailed written order, including factual findings, and denied defendant's motion to suppress. The court found that the traffic stop was justified and did not constitute an illegal detention. After observing the credibility of the witnesses, including their demeanor during testimony, and making reasonable inferences from the evidence, the court further found that defendant and James felt free to leave when Officer Hampton asked for consent to search, and defendant voluntarily consented to a search of his vehicle's interior and trunk.

The appellate court reversed, holding that defendant's motion to suppress should have been granted. People v. Oliver, No. 3-04-0427, 363 Ill.App.3d 1216, 334...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • People v. Tyreke H. (In re Tyreke H.)
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 28 Septiembre 2017
    ...the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe he was not free to leave." People v. Oliver , 236 Ill. 2d 448, 456, 338 Ill.Dec. 901, 925 N.E.2d 1107 (2010). The officer's subjective intent or reasoning has no place in the analysis. See Mendenhall , 446 U.S. at 555 n.6,......
  • People v. Almond
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 20 Febrero 2015
    ...the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave. People v. Oliver, 236 Ill.2d 448, 456, 338 Ill.Dec. 901, 925 N.E.2d 1107 (2010). Generally, the following Mendenhall factors indicate a seizure without the person attempting to leave: (1) the threa......
  • People v. Colyar
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 3 Octubre 2013
    ...and handgun. This court reviews a trial court's order suppressing evidence using a two-part standard. People v. Oliver, 236 Ill.2d 448, 454, 338 Ill.Dec. 901, 925 N.E.2d 1107 (2010). We afford great deference to the trial court's factual findings, and will reverse those findings only if the......
  • People v. Collins
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 16 Septiembre 2015
    ...a consensual search is inherent in his consent, the duration of the search does not change the result. People v. Oliver, 236 Ill.2d 448, 458, 338 Ill.Dec. 901, 925 N.E.2d 1107 (2010).¶ 25 We are unpersuaded by defendant's reliance on People v. Al Burei, 404 Ill.App.3d 558, 344 Ill.Dec. 591,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • THE ORIGINS AND LEGACY OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT REASONABLENESS-BALANCING MODEL.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 71 No. 1, September 2020
    • 22 Septiembre 2020
    ...Mann, 857 A.2d 329, 339 (Conn. 2004) (frisk); State v. Doe, 233 P.3d 1275, 1280 (Idaho 2010) (administrative search); People v. Oliver, 925 N.E.2d 1107, 1112-13 (111. 2010) (stop); State v. Tyler, 830 N.W.2d 288, 293-94 (Iowa 2013) (probable cause); State v. Watts, 126 A.3d 1216, 1223 (N.J.......

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