People v. Pulido
2017 IL App (3d) 150215
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On June 5, 2013 an undercover trooper received a tube of methamphetamine placed on the hood of a tan 1998 Dodge minivan; no money changed hands and defendant was not detained.
- On June 11, 2013 NARCINT relayed a tip identifying a tan Dodge minivan with Washington plates; Trooper Korando stopped that vehicle on I‑80 for speeding (LIDAR showed 7 mph over).
- While Korando ran LEADS and spoke with defendant, Trooper Degraff arrived with canine Rico; a free‑air sniff produced an alert on the driver’s side door.
- Officers conducted a ~15‑minute hand search on I‑80 (found nothing); officers then transported the vehicle and defendant to the Channahon police department, redeployed the dog, and recovered taped tubes from the air filter containing methamphetamine.
- The trial court denied suppression of the seized narcotics (but quashed arrest and suppressed statements); defendant was convicted at bench trial and sentenced to 15 years.
- The appellate court reversed: it held the initial stop and on‑scene dog sniff/search on I‑80 were lawful, but probable cause dissipated after the fruitless hand search and the transport to the PD for a second search was unlawful (so the later search/consent could not cure the defect).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the traffic stop justified at inception? | Korando had working LIDAR showing defendant speeding 7 mph; stop lawful. | Stop was part of an orchestrated stop based on a tip and not supported by individualized suspicion. | Held lawful: LIDAR established the speeding violation, so stop justified. |
| Did the canine sniff impermissibly prolong the stop? | Sniff occurred while Korando was completing ordinary tasks (LEADS, warning); did not prolong mission. | Sniff impermissibly extended the seizure beyond traffic duties. | Held did not unreasonably prolong the stop; Caballes permits a sniff during a lawful stop. |
| Did Rico’s alert supply probable cause to search on I‑80? | A positive alert from a trained dog provides probable cause; Rico’s training/certification and field experience established reliability. | Rico was unreliable (certification expired; training gaps); alert insufficient for probable cause. | Held Rico was sufficiently reliable and his alert established probable cause to search on I‑80. |
| Was transporting the vehicle to the PD and the subsequent search lawful / cured by consent? | Moving for officer safety/weather and obtaining later consent justified further search; earlier transaction and dog alerts supported continued investigation. | After the hands‑on search on I‑80 found nothing, probable cause dissipated; the move and PD search exceeded scope of consent and were tainted by illegality. | Held unlawful: probable cause dissipated after a fruitless hand search, relocation and second search lacked independent probable cause and later consent was tainted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes investigatory stop (Terry) framework)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (traffic stop based on observed violation is a seizure)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (canine sniff during lawful traffic stop does not independently trigger Fourth Amendment if it doesn’t prolong the stop)
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (dog alerts evaluated under totality of circumstances; certification/training evidence can establish reliability)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (scope of consent measured by objective reasonable person standard)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (probable cause is a practical, totality‑of‑circumstances standard)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (scope of automobile search with probable cause includes compartments that may contain contraband)
- People v. Jones, 215 Ill. 2d 261 (Illinois precedent on scope and reasonableness of traffic stops)