2016 IL App (4th) 140469
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- On August 5–6, 2013 officers stopped a car after learning its registration was suspended; defendant Pettis was a rear passenger. Driver Steven Johnson’s license was revoked; Ashley Johnson was front passenger and vehicle owner.
- Officers called a police dog for an open-air sniff; the dog alerted positively on the vehicle while the occupants remained inside.
- Officers removed and pat-searched occupants; initial consensual searches of Pettis and the others produced no contraband. Pettis was handcuffed and placed in a squad car after the dog alert.
- Passengers (Ashley and Steven) told officers Pettis had concealed something between his buttocks and asked whether the dog could smell it. Officers searched Pettis two additional times; on the third search an officer slid a “bladed” hand between his buttocks and retrieved a baggie of drugs.
- Pettis moved to suppress the evidence; after a suppression hearing the trial court denied the motion. Following a stipulated bench trial based on the suppression hearing record, Pettis was convicted of possession with intent to deliver and sentenced to probation.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Pettis's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continued detention and canine sniff during the traffic stop was lawful | Canine sniff occurred during the time reasonably needed to complete the stop; dog alerted giving reasonable suspicion to continue detention | After initial consensual search, Pettis should have been free to leave; no further reasonable suspicion to detain him | Held lawful: dog alert during stop justified continued detention and investigation |
| Whether searches of Pettis’ person (second and third searches) violated Fourth Amendment | Dog alert plus passenger statements that Pettis concealed something between his buttocks gave probable cause to search his person | Searches exceeded consent and were unlawful because initial consensual search found nothing; intrusive search (hand between buttocks) exceeded scope | Held lawful: passenger statements + dog alert (and later discovery of contraband in vehicle) supplied probable cause for the searches |
| Whether handcuffing and placing Pettis in squad car constituted an unlawful de facto arrest | State would have shown reasons supporting temporary restraint given dog alert and investigation (forfeited below) | Handcuffing was an arrest without probable cause, so subsequent evidence should be suppressed | Issue forfeited on appeal for failure to raise in trial court; not reached on merits |
| Whether officer exceeded scope of Pettis’s consent by conducting additional/invasive searches | Court found searches were not justified by consent but by probable cause and thus lawful | Pettis contends a reasonable person would not have consented to further searches or invasive touching (bladed hand between buttocks) | Held lawful under probable cause; court did not rest on consent theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (standard of review for suppression rulings and de novo review of ultimate legal question)
- People v. Gipson, 203 Ill. 2d 298 (burden of proof at suppression hearing rests on defendant to make prima facie case)
- People v. Fondia, 317 Ill. App. 3d 966 (canine alert on vehicle alone does not automatically justify search of occupants; limited to its facts)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (dog sniff during lawful traffic stop does not violate Fourth Amendment if done within time reasonably required to complete stop)
- People v. Melock, 149 Ill. 2d 423 (definition of arrest as restraint on freedom of movement by physical force or show of authority)