*1 Instead, Reno, leaving immediately upon after Illinois. mechanic, regular looked for work as an automobile which was not his that, best, line of work. Since the evidence established defendant had Nevada, permanently no more than conditional intent to reside error for the court to conclude that he established a bona fide domicile there. given, reasons we hold that the Nevada decree was void for jurisdiction
lack of is not entitled to full faith and credit in Illinois. judgment reversed and this cause is remanded plaintiff. directions to enter for Reversed and remanded directions. BARRY,JJ.,
STOUDER and concur. ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, THE PEOPLE OF THE OF STATE al., MARIANNE Defendants-Appellees. BLIXT et District Third No. 75-83 April Opinion filed 1976.
BARRY, J., specially concurring. Morris, Sloan, (Edward State’s Attorney, N. of Illinois D. State’s of Aledo John Association, counsel), People. Attorneys Shoemaker, Aledo, appellees. Dwight L. opinion of the court: ALLOY delivered JUSTICE the Circuit Court of appeal by This is an the State from order of contraband suppress the motion to certain granting
Mercer (cannabis) by police seized officers. The motion to *2 had no on officers granted ground in cannabis found. to search area which the wife, and Blixt and Marianne husband Defendants Harland marijuana in of possession grams of 2.5 to 10 of violation charged 56%, par. (Ill. Act Stat. ch. 4(b) of Cannabis Rev. section Control of as 704(b)). They moved to introduction of it as a result an acquired by evidence and contended was (see 12(a)(1)). The trial iEegal par. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 114— motion, appeals the State which order 110A, par. 604(a)(1)). 3,1974, evening of it is shown that on December From record rural Mercer and Loretta Sward to authorities their David deputies investigated Sheriffs burglarized. home had parents, Boughtons, Mrs. area and then to the home of went Boughton present who lived down the road. The defendants were they home since friends the Swards. of p.m. squad left 10:15 Deputy Swards at about Thompson in car to return foEowed their to the defendants down the road and Volkswagen. deputy some distance way go they might get along asked defendants not to request and complied deputy’s defendants with the to the Boughton returned p.m., again
At 11:15 started for the Sward approximately home, taking long. so The Swards as to what was were concerned home, they approached have a As the Sward saw telephone. cars, saw the they just Deputy Thompson so on. several drove them, couple them miles drive and went after farther down the road. were at the the Swards
Deputy testified that while he and Thompson small, wooden that a latter’s Mr. Sward mentioned had Thompson missing, among the back remembered seen simEar Also, course evening. seat of the Blixt car earlier Thompson and the other burglary, which had carpeting and other articles shag came across some roEs arrested as The Swards were another discovery. result of that Thompson testified he the rear of defendants’ knew, by, when that the Blixts were friends of the perhaps implication that defendants had some connection with property the stolen found the Sward home. car,
When if Thompson stopped the Blixts their he asked get if speakers. They out and he could look at the look at in response question but to a said purchased had from a friend verify who could that fact. Thompson After briefly inspected began to shine flashlight elsewhere in the car and asked he could look around. He then noticed whát he described as a seed or seeds on the rear floor which he thought might marijuana permission seeds and asked for to search the consent, entire vehicle. Defendants refused nevertheless search, continued his eventually open attempting to compartment. open When it readily deputy would not asked for and got keys opened from Harland Blixt. He and found a small wooden x x measuring box 4" 6" 2". Marianne identified the as belonging box responded negatively to her and when requested permission to it. open personal She said that it contained items. opened marijuana, nevertheless it and which the basis charge the instant case and of the motion to
The trial court expressed grave doubt about the officer’s *3 the Blixt car in place, the first thought significant that the officer did not inform the Blixts that had the to refuse search. The the court found that the consent to examine the did not amount to consent to search the entire car and that discovery the of a few seeds on the floor which marijuana were to be seeds was not sufficient that rural area to a authorize further search of the car. For such reasons, the court the motion to State, vehicle,
The
in attempting
justify
the
stopping of the
contends it
probable
was based on
suspicions
cause or at least reasonable
as required
1,
for temporary questioning (Terry
(1968),
v.
392 U.S.
Ohio
889,
20
1868),
(United
L.Ed.2d
88 S. Ct.
applied
and as
to motor vehicles
v.
States
Felix
Brignoni-Ponce (1975),
Humberto
45 L. Ed.
2d
613 steal couple a conclusion that the hardly reasonable have view in front plain parade and then them around their friends’ the incident. at the scene friends while just that fact part acted on the Thompson apparently Officer investigating a premises while property at the Sward discovered stolen case, if this were the there, testimony but it not clear from a basis to why might or this was sufficient event, taken any In not from by. were they home nor stolen. inspecting speakers permissibly, Assuming that the was clearly came the seed or seeds on the record does not show that he across trial court inspecting speakers. rear floor in the course of or as shown discovery that the of the seed seeds concluded give cause to a full-blown search probable conduct vehicle, taken certainly not of the box which glove compartment. officer smelled courts have allowed searches where well-trained marijuana
an odor for other reasons. smoke when the vehicle 368; (People (3rd Dist. Ill. 306 N.E.2d 1973), App. v. Loe 3d People (3rd 1973), App. affd, Dist. 15Ill. 3d N.E.2d Wolf Ill. smelling marijuana the instant 2d 230 There was no case properly and we believe trial court could conclude that tiny in a discovery of a few on the floor of back seat of car seeds rural not in itself cause to give area would the officer sufficient believe that marijuana there was somewhere else the vehicle. From record it is were in fact specifically not established that the seeds or, seeds, marijuana were not seeds (and unlawful). sterile thereby would not be On instant we existing the basis of factual situation believe that no find belonged compartment, box located which open, defendant Marianne she refused to have the officer and which record, On opened despite which he her refusal. the basis of issue sufficiently and makes us reluctant to reverse doubtful court, decision taken the evidence suppressed pursuant illegal to an search. stated, therefore, the reasons the Circuit Court
Mercer County is affirmed.
Affirmed.
STOUDER, J., P. concurs. BARRY, concurring: specially Mr. JUSTICE I in this agree fully majority result reached feel however, briefly upon validity of the inital compelled, comment stop majority “questionable.” vehicle which labels as Thompson’s burglary was that of small mentioned that a Sward missing, speakers among a similar point having that at that he remembered seen stated time speakers Boughton’s in the back car of the defendants’ investigation Incidental to of the Sward uncovered suspected burglars, many evidence that the Swards themselves were stolen articles were discovered. by the driving
When the defendants’ car was observed Sward police they stay away, Deputy instructions that direct contravention he had seen testified I that Mr. defendants’ car. believe the connection between the and the similar his home in the Blixtauto was sufficient the officerobserved stop be investigation. the Blixts for further inferred presented from the circumstances to Officer that the Blixtshad Under the committed an offense connection arrest allowing temporary questioning statute without Illinois stopping the 14) justified officerwas §107— fleeting target presented a The Blixt mobile Blixts’vehicle. that if not then stereo strong likelihood any further be and secreted from removed stop of justified These circumstances exigent moving that their defendants on the basis believe might of a recent vehicle contained fruits (See forthwith. if the was not conducted destroyed investigation States, 69 L. S. Ct. Ed. Carroll United I, therefore, automobile and the initial of the defendants’ believe justified. further concerning legally locked including searching action the entire vehicle disposition justifiable, and I concur with was not majority opinion. presented of the case as aspects those