People v. Reedy, 2015 IL App (3d) 130955

Background

On June 17, 2012, deputies stopped a white Buick after observing its passenger-side tires cross the solid white fog line twice while entering I‑55. Officers approached, obtained IDs, and ran checks via LEADS.
While one deputy ran the checks (3–5 minutes), another questioned the occupants and observed hesitations and one occupant glance at a black duffel bag on the passenger‑floorboard. A narcotics sergeant and his trained canine (Nina) arrived within minutes.
Both occupants consented to pat‑downs; $1,700 was found on Reedy during a frisk. As one officer began writing a warning, the canine sniffed the exterior and alerted to narcotics. A search produced a duffel bag with ~900 grams of heroin; arrests followed.
Defendants moved to suppress evidence, arguing the stop lacked probable cause, was unreasonably prolonged or converted into a general investigation, and that the canine’s reliability/alert was not established. The trial court granted suppression.
The State appealed. After initial reversal, the court rebriefed the case in light of Rodriguez v. United States and ultimately reversed the trial court, holding the stop lawful and the search supported by the canine alert.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the traffic stop supported by probable cause?	Officers had probable cause: vehicle crossed fog line twice, including on interstate, violating lane/shoulder rules.	Officer testimony was insufficient to show it was practicable to stay in one lane or that violations occurred off the ramp; stop therefore unlawful.	Held: Stop was supported by probable cause based on observed breaches of the fog line (and alternatively shoulder statute).
Was the stop unreasonably prolonged by questioning, pat‑downs, and the dog sniff?	Stop lasted under 10 minutes; officers acted diligently; canine arrived quickly; questioning did not measurably extend the detention.	Officers extended and transformed the stop into a drug investigation, impermissibly prolonging it.	Held: Not unreasonably prolonged. Brief investigative acts and immediate canine arrival rendered detention reasonable.
Did officer conduct alter the fundamental nature/scope of the stop under Terry/Gonzalez?	Asking unrelated questions and pat‑downs did not change the stop’s nature so long as they didn’t extend detention; scope inquiry narrowed by later precedent.	Officers’ actions were unrelated to traffic enforcement and effectively converted the stop into a drug search.	Held: Under Muehler/Harris, scope analysis is limited to duration; unrelated questioning alone did not render the stop unlawful.
Was there a sufficient foundation that the canine was reliable and that an alert gave probable cause to search?	Testimony established Nina and handler were trained and that Nina alerted; defendants bore burden to raise a prima facie showing of unreliability.	State failed to prove canine reliability or show an actual alert.	Held: Defendants forfeited challenge by not eliciting evidence of unreliability; record supports a canine alert and provides probable cause for search.

Key Cases Cited

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (establishes that traffic stops are reasonable if supported by probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (allows dog sniff during lawful traffic stop so long as the stop is not prolonged)
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (reiterates that extending a stop beyond time needed to handle the traffic matter violates the Fourth Amendment)
Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (officers may ask questions unrelated to the seizure’s purpose so long as they do not extend the detention)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (unrelated questioning during a traffic stop is permissible if it does not measurably extend the stop)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (framework for investigatory stops and frisks)
Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. _ (canine alert by a properly trained dog can provide probable cause to search)