People v. Pulido
2017 IL App (3d) 150215
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On June 5, 2013 an undercover trooper received a small tube of methamphetamine from a man later identified as Pulido, who arrived in a tan 1998 Dodge minivan with Washington plates; no arrest or money exchange occurred.
- On June 11, 2013 task-force information that a tan Dodge minivan with Washington plates would be carrying narcotics prompted state troopers to orchestrate a stop on I-80; Trooper Korando ultimately stopped Pulido for speeding (7 mph over limit).
- During the lawful traffic stop Korando ran Pulido’s information and began preparing a warning; Trooper Degraff arrived with narcotics-detection dog Rico, which performed a free-air sniff and alerted on the driver’s-side door.
- Officers conducted an initial ~15-minute hand search of the vehicle on the highway and found nothing; they then transported the vehicle and Pulido to the Channahon police department, where a redeployed sniff allegedly alerted and a subsequent search produced taped tubes from the air filter containing methamphetamine.
- The trial court denied suppression of the seized narcotics (but quashed Pulido’s roadside arrest and suppressed statements); Pulido was convicted after a bench trial and sentenced to 15 years.
- On appeal the court affirmed the lawfulness of the stop and the canine sniff on I-80, found Rico’s alert established probable cause to search on the highway, but held probable cause dissipated after the fruitless hand search and the relocation/search at the station was unlawful; conviction reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the traffic stop justified at inception? | Korando: LIDAR showed speeding (7 mph over); stop valid. | Pulido: Stop was pretextual/orchestrated without proper basis. | Held: Stop lawful — Korando’s LIDAR reading established a traffic violation. |
| Did the canine free-air sniff impermissibly prolong the stop? | State: Sniff occurred while officer was completing ordinary tasks; within mission. | Pulido: Sniff prolonged detention beyond traffic-stop mission. | Held: Sniff did not unreasonably prolong the stop (Caballes standard). |
| Did Rico’s alert provide probable cause to search on I-80? | State: Rico was trained/certified and alert established probable cause. | Pulido: Dog’s certification had expired and reliability not shown. | Held: Rico shown reliable (training, certification, handler testimony); alert gave probable cause to search on highway. |
| Was transporting the vehicle to the station and the second search lawful? | State: Either consent was given or prior information justified further search. | Pulido: Initial hand search found nothing; probable cause dissipated and subsequent consent was tainted by illegal relocation. | Held: Probable cause dissipated after the fruitless hand search; moving vehicle and station search lacked lawful basis and later consent could not cure the illegal conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Harris, 228 Ill. 2d 222 (Illinois 2008) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (framework for investigative stops: inception and scope)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (traffic stop lawful if supported by probable cause for violation)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (canine sniff during lawful traffic stop not Fourth Amendment search if it does not prolong stop)
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013) (dog alert can supply probable cause; reliability shown by certification/training)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (scope of warrantless automobile searches when probable cause exists)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (scope of consent measured by objective reasonableness)