People v. West
76 N.E.3d 60
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Trooper Jarrod Johnson stopped John West on I‑80 for speeding and not wearing a seat belt; the stop was recorded on squad‑car video.
- During a ~14‑minute stop, Johnson asked numerous questions about West’s travel plans, luggage, a hanging shirt, and a camera; West was moved to the trooper’s car while Johnson checked his documents.
- Johnson returned West’s documents, issued a warning, told him he was "free to go," and seconds later asked for more questioning; West consented twice to a vehicle search.
- A backup officer arrived; officers found 16 duct‑taped bundles in vehicle doors, totaling 12,204 grams; lab tested 8 bundles as cannabis.
- West was convicted after a bench trial of cannabis trafficking, possession with intent to deliver, and possession; he received 12 years’ imprisonment, a $3,000 drug assessment, and an $87,000 street‑value fine.
- On appeal the main contested points were (1) whether the stop was unlawfully prolonged and consent involuntary, (2) the street‑value fine, and (3) entitlement to presentence‑custody credit against fines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (West) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was unreasonably prolonged | Trooper’s questions did not prolong the stop; mission concluded when driver was told he was free to go | Questions unrelated to traffic impermissibly extended detention beyond mission | Affirmed: court found stop ended when documents returned and defendant told he was free to go; ensuing encounter was consensual |
| Whether consent to search was voluntary | Consent was voluntary and given after stop ended; defendant twice consented | Consent was mere acquiescence to continued show of authority following an unlawful detention | Affirmed: consent held voluntary under totality of circumstances |
| Validity of street‑value fine (based on total weight) | Fine may be based on entire weight of suspected narcotics even if only part tested | Fine should be reduced; challenge to weight/fine | Forfeited by defendant (no contemporaneous objection); no plain‑error relief granted |
| Credit for presentence custody against fines | State concedes defendant is entitled to credit under 725 ILCS 5/110‑14 | Defendant sought $5/day for 221 days (total $1,105) credited against fines | Remanded: sentencing order to be amended to reflect $1,105 credit toward fines |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Harris, 228 Ill. 2d 222 (Illinois Supreme Court) (standard of review and limits on prolonging traffic stops)
- People v. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d 262 (Illinois Supreme Court) (when motorist is free to leave and consensual encounters)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. Supreme Court) (no seizure when a person reasonably believes he is free to leave)
- People v. Brownlee, 186 Ill. 2d 501 (Illinois Supreme Court) (show of authority after return of documents can constitute continued seizure)
- People v. Anthony, 198 Ill. 2d 194 (Illinois Supreme Court) (acquiescence to a show of authority is not consent)