People v. Neuberger
2011 IL App (2d) 100379
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Defendant, Jacob A. Neuberger, was convicted after a stipulated bench trial of unlawful possession of cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Police stopped a red car near the Carroll County post office after an officer observed a suspect flee bushes and enter the vehicle, with Neuberger in the front passenger seat.
- A canine unit alerted to contraband in the vehicle, prompting officer Asay to frisk Neuberger and seize a cannabis-containing baggie and a burnt cannabis device from his shoe.
- Holland searched the vehicle after the alert; the nature and location of contraband in the vehicle were later described by witnesses without precise details.
- The trial court denied the motion to quash the arrest and suppress evidence, ruling the vehicle stop lawful and the search justified by probable cause and safety concerns.
- The defense argued ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging the stop, and sought a monetary credit for time in custody prior to trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the initial stop lawful under Terry v. Ohio? | Neuberger argues the stop lacked reasonable suspicion. | Neuberger contends the stop was unlawful due to insufficient suspicion. | Initial stop lawful. |
| May the officer search Neuberger’s person after the canine alerted to contraband in the vehicle? | Probable cause to search vehicle justified incidental search of occupants. | Search of occupants requires separate justification beyond dog alert. | Occupant search upheld under Stout/Boyd framework; canine alert supports search of occupants. |
| Should Fondia/Staley framework govern whether the dog sniff alone justifies occupant searches? | Fondia/Staley allow vehicle dog alert to justify occupant searches. | Fondia/Staley require additional justification or individual sniffing. | Court adopts Stout/Boyd approach; Fondia/Staley insufficient to require individual occupant sniff absent justification. |
| Is Neuberger entitled to credit under 110-14(a) for pretrial custody? | Credit applies for days incarcerated prior to conviction. | Credit should be applied to reduce fine accordingly. | Credit of $5 toward a $750 fine affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Stout, 106 Ill. 2d 77 (1985) (odors of cannabis from a stopped car may justify search of driver)
- People v. Boyd, 298 Ill. App. 3d 1118 (1998) (dog sniffing vehicle may justify searching occupants when safety concerns exist)
- Fondia v. State, 317 Ill. App. 3d 966 (2000) (dog alert to vehicle does not by itself justify searching occupants)
- People v. Staley, 334 Ill. App. 3d 358 (2002) (dog alert to vehicle may justify occupant search if safety concerns exist)
- People v. Haywood, 407 Ill. App. 3d 540 (2011) (relevance of prior cases in assessing Terry stops)
- People v. Ocampo, 377 Ill. App. 3d 150 (2007) (Terry stop standards in Illinois appellate review)
- People v. Kipfer, 356 Ill. App. 3d 132 (2005) (limits of Terry stop legality in Illinois)
- People v. Caballero, 228 Ill. 2d 79 (2008) (timing of credit for time served on appeal)
- United States v. Donnelly, 475 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2007) (probable cause to search vehicle when dog alerts)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable discovery rule abridges exclusionary rule in certain contexts)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (uprating limited investigatory stops by reasonable suspicion)