962 F.3d 353
7th Cir.2020Background
- On Sept. 18, 2018, Chicago Officer Melissa Petrus observed a tree-shaped air freshener (≈4.7" × 2.75") hanging from Napoleon Jackson’s rearview mirror; it hung near the driver’s face and was moving/shaking.
- Petrus followed Jackson, then stopped him for violating Chicago Municipal Code § 9-40-250(b) (obstruction of driver’s clear view).
- During the stop officers recovered three loaded firearms; Jackson and passenger Kittrell Freeman were charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Jackson and Freeman moved to suppress, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion and rested on an alleged officer mistake of law (that “anything” may not hang from a mirror).
- The district court credited Officer Petrus, denied suppression (citing United States v. Garcia-Garcia), and both defendants pleaded guilty with conditional appeals preserving the suppression issue.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the stop was supported by objective reasonable suspicion that the air freshener obstructed the driver’s clear view.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was unlawful because Officer Petrus was mistaken about the law (thought “anything” hanging was prohibited) | Petrus believed the law banned anything hanging from the mirror, so she lacked reasonable suspicion of a violation | Officer’s subjective wording aside, the objective facts known supported reasonable suspicion; officer was credible | The officer’s subjective belief is irrelevant to the objective reasonable-suspicion inquiry; stop lawful |
| Whether the court needed to find a “material” obstruction before upholding the stop | The air freshener was not a material obstruction, so the stop was unjustified | Chicago’s code prohibits obstruction of the driver’s “clear view”; a materiality finding (as in Illinois statute) is not required and facts here supported a reasonable belief of obstruction | No material-obstruction finding required; facts justified an objective belief the air freshener obstructed the clear view |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Garcia-Garcia, 633 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2011) (similar facts — an air freshener of comparable size justified a stop for obstructing driver’s view)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (an officer’s objectively reasonable mistake of law can support reasonable suspicion)
- Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014) (reasonable suspicion standard for investigatory stops requires particularized, objective basis)
- Kansas v. Glover, 140 S. Ct. 1183 (2020) (reasonable-suspicion standard is lower than probable cause)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (traffic stops are subject to the Terry/reasonable-suspicion framework)
- United States v. Haldorson, 941 F.3d 284 (7th Cir. 2019) (standard of review for suppression rulings: legal questions de novo, factual findings for clear error)
- United States v. Bullock, 632 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2011) (officer’s subjective motivations are irrelevant to objective reasonable-suspicion inquiry)