2019 IL App (3d) 180396
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- At ~5 p.m. on Sept. 10, 2017, Officer Terry Bailey stopped Benjamin Bailey for speeding; defendant cooperated and indicated he would pull off the road.
- On approach, Bailey noticed orange food residue in defendant’s beard, slow hand movements, and a “sweet odor” in the vehicle; he observed a purple can in the cupholder but did not ask its contents.
- Bailey asked distracting questions, requested defendant’s license and insurance; defendant produced an expired insurance card; Bailey waited in his squad and requested a second officer, Daniel Ponzi.
- Upon Ponzi’s arrival, Ponzi asked about open cans on the back floorboard; Bailey used a remote on the keys (after defendant declined to unlock doors) to open the rear door and saw several open flavored-alcohol cans, one about half full.
- Bailey conducted nonstandardized tests (counting, alphabet, finger movements) which defendant performed poorly on; defendant refused standardized field sobriety tests and Bailey arrested him for DUI.
- The circuit court granted defendant’s motion to suppress, finding that Bailey’s taking of the keys amounted to an arrest requiring probable cause and that officers lacked probable cause when they entered the vehicle and seized the cans; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had probable cause to arrest when Bailey took defendant’s keys/unlocked the vehicle | Evidence (open cans, residue, odors, poor task performance, refusal of SFSTs) established probable cause for DUI | Taking the keys changed the stop into an arrest; no probable cause at that moment to search or arrest | Court: Taking keys constituted a seizure/arrest; no probable cause at that time; suppression affirmed |
| Whether open cans in plain view justified warrantless search of vehicle | Ponzi and Bailey saw open alcoholic beverage cans in backseat, so plain-view probable cause existed | From outside, officers could not tell if cans contained alcohol; not immediately apparent contraband | Court: Incriminating nature was not immediately apparent; plain-view probable cause lacking |
| Whether pre-entry observations supported probable cause to search/ arrest | Observations (beard residue, slow movements, stare, odor, sunglasses/gum) cumulatively indicated impairment | These observations were vague, subjective, or occurred after initial contact; insufficient to show impairment or alcohol in cans | Court: Observations were minimal/ambiguous and did not supply probable cause |
| Whether circuit court applied obsolete legal standard regarding stop’s scope | State argued court erred by referencing a superseded second prong of Terry in changing-nature analysis | Court maintained it suppressed evidence based on seizure/arrest and lack of probable cause, not on outdated test | Court: State forfeited the argument; regardless, affirmance may rest on other grounds in record |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (seizure occurs where show of authority restrains liberty)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (reasonableness of police seizures under Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (balancing public interest and individual liberty)
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (plain-view requires incriminating character to be immediately apparent)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (plain-view doctrine principles)
- People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530 (standard of review on suppression rulings)
- People v. Harris, 228 Ill. 2d 222 (Fourth Amendment review principles in Illinois)
- People v. James, 163 Ill. 2d 302 (automobile exception to warrant requirement)
- People v. Nadermann, 309 Ill. App. 3d 1016 (application of automobile exception in Illinois)