*1 judgment County of the circuit of Peoria is affirmed and part part. reversed part.
Affirmed in part reversed HOLDRIDGE, RJ., SCHMIDT, J., concur. ILLINOIS,
THE PEOPLE THE OF Plaintiff-Appellee, OF STATE MILLER, Defendant-Appellant. RUSSELL C.
Fourth District No. 4 — 03—0033 Opinion filed December 2004.
APPLETON, J., dissenting. Keleigh Biggins, Appellate Daniel D. L. both of Defender’s Yuhas State Office, counsel), appellant. (Norbert Barney Bier, Attorney, Quincy Goetten, S. State’s J. J. Robert Biderman, McClain, Attorneys Appellate and Linda Susan all of State’s counsel), Office, People. Prosecutor’s for the opinion court: JUSTICE delivered KNECHT trial, stipulated at a bench the court found October (720 substance of a controlled possession guilty of unlawful defendant 2002)). 570/402(a)(6.5) (West the court In December ILCS appeals, Defendant eight years’ imprisonment. sentеnced where his motion denying erred in arguing the court body attach- arrest on a civil incident to his searched his vehicle ment. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND information, defendant, by with charged the State April In substance, a controlled intent to deliver possession unlawful with (720 containing methamphetamine grams than 15 of a substance more 2002)) (count (West 570/401(a)(6.5)(A) of I); possession unlawful ILCS chemicals, with pseudoephedrine, manufacturing methamphetamine containing grams of a substance intent to manufacture 30 to 150 (West 2002)) (count (720 570/401(a)(6.6)(A) ILCS methamphetamine II) substance, grams ; 15 to possession of a controlled and unlawful (count 570/402(a)(6.5) (West 2002)) (720 methamphetamine of ILCS III) . to the evidence
In defendant filed a motion July body to a civil attach- car, arguing pursuant an arrеst seized from his hear- September At the did a search of his car. ment not warrant following court heard the ing suppress, the to the trial on motion testimony. the Mangold Lee of 15, 2002, p.m., Inspector April
On around Frazier, drug a Trooper Patrick Quincy police department and Quincy, Force in observed investigator Drug the Illinois Task with interest, driving Jeep his of defendant, they considered a whom defendant warrants, officers learned checking for the Quincy. Upon in in court appear failurе to body a civil attachment was into a pulled as he defendant a matter. The officers followed divorce home, pulled in behind from a friend’s driveway across the street his car and Defendant exited driveway. in the and blocked his car subjеct to a civil informed him he was the doors. The officers locked hand- and Mangold immediately arrested attachment. Officer body find and did not then down defendant patted cuffed defendant. He Quincy police Wheeler, from the Officer weаpons or contraband. placed and squad in his car about time department, arrived squad in the car. defendant keys, car to take the his friend be allowed requested
Defendant the to search keys proceeded the car and but the officers took in the bag Inside a trash permission. defendant’s automobile without envelopes of containing smaller boxes box several car was cardboard to be Frazier knew 3,000 Officer pseudoephedrine pills, which of over key ingredient in the methamphetamine. manufacture of He searching continued the plastic bags vehicle found little of methamphetamine behind the front seats on the floorboard the back covered the Jeep. piecе of A of with tinfoil methamphetamine residue was later found in the console of car. the
Following testimony, parties the the trial court the asked to submit authority. supporting arguments counsel, After of additional the court its of findings Specifically, issued fact. the court found this was not an inventory search was a pursuant but search incident arrest to a bench civil warrant. The court found further defendant did not consent to the search of his vehicle. stated officers made no pretensе: they using were for contraband and the custodial found, evidence, arrest do so. The court based upon although Jeep type was covered with some covering, canvas it was trunk bag opened locked passenger portion once was revealing substances, the vehicle unlawful search further of the vehicle justified. was The court then denied suppress. defendant’s motion to II, October the State I and dismissed counts and the trial stipulated court held a bench guilty trial found defendant count (720 III, unlawful possession of a controlled substance ILCS 570/ 402(a)(6.5) (West 2002)).
In December filed trial, a motion for new which the trial court denied. The court sentenced defendant as stated. *3 appeal
This followed.
II. ANALYSIS
Defendant contends that
the search
his car violated the fourth
prohibition against
amendment’s
Specifically,
unreasonable searches.
argues
a stop pursuant
body
he
the officers orchestrated
to a
at-
civil
any
offense;
tachment when
had not
not
he
committed
trаffic
he was
offense;
engaged
the commission of
criminal
and the officers
attempting
had no reason
he
conceal a
to
weapon,
to believe was
to
detention,
escape
destroy
of a crime for the sole purpose
or
evidence
his car.
a
ruling
When trial court’s
on a motion to
involves factual
assessments,
credibility
ruling
determinations or
the court’s
will
People
is
erroneous.
v.
manifestly
be disturbed on review unless it
(2003).
Gonzalez,
220,
Where,
223,
260,
204 Ill. 2d
N.E.2d
263
as
789
here,
by the
dispute,
question posed
the facts are not in
the ultimate
v.
legal challenge
ruling
People
trial
is
de novo.
to the
court’s
reviewed
(2003).
Bunch,
7, 13,
1024,
207 Ill. 2d
796 N.E.2d
1028
The
and the Illinois Constitution
United States Constitution
U.S.
every
searches and seizures.
protect
person frоm unreasonable
479
or
1970,
I, § 6. A
search
Const.,
IV; Ill. Const.
art.
warrantless
amend.
falls within one of several
unreasonable unless it
per
seizure is
se
Stehman,
26,
203 Ill. 2d
exceptions. People v.
recognized and limited
443,
34,
1,
(2002);
Hampshire,
New
403 U.S.
Coolidge
5
v.
783 N.E.2d
(1971).
576,
2022,
such
454-55,
564,
2d
91 S. Ct.
2032
One
29 L. Ed.
under the fourth amend-
exception that has been found reasonable
Stehman,
34,
203 Ill. 2d at
ment is a search incident to a lawful arrest.
Robinson,
218, 224-26,
L.
5;
414 U.S.
38
783 N.E.2d at United States v.
(1973).
427, 434-36,
467,
behind
Ed. 2d
94 S. Ct.
471-73
The rationales
exception
requirement
the
are
the search-incident-to-arrest
warrаnt
(2)
(1)
custody
him
suspect
the need to
disarm the
to take
into
439-40,
Robinson,
234,
L. Ed. 2d at
preserve evidence.
a civil warrant. Defendant argues rationales behind search inсident apply to arrest do not because he was arrested on a civil war- rant and not probable based on cause he had committed a crime. Clearly, offense, had defendant been arrested for criminal search question of his car would have been under lawful Belton. police may person’s person’s whether search a incident to that vehicle In People Allibalogun, App. arrest on a civil warrant. 518, Ill. (2000), police may 727 N.E.2d this court held the conduct wrongly suсh a argues Allibalogun search. Defendant was decided disagree. should be reversed. We Allibalogun, 312 Ill. at at App. 3d initially stopped speeding
defendant was
when the officer learned
taking
he
the defendant
into
was
civil warrant. After
custody
on the civil
officers searched his car while he sat
car,
marijuana.
handcuffed in
squad
finding bags
Allibalogun,
bright-
312 Ill. App.
Relying
480 here,
Similarly,
may
while the officers
not have had a need to
prevent
destroying evidence,
defendant from
they did
legitimate
have a
determining
interest
whether defendant had a weapon. See Alliba-
logun,
App.
312 Ill.
Moreover,
disagree
we
with defendant’s
claim the officers
orchestrated or contrived the stop of his vehicle to search for еvidence
of a crime.
may
While the officers
pleased
have been
find
warrant,
was the
of a civil
did
they
contrive
existence
warrant or orchestrate its issuance.
defendant exited his
police
car after
by pulling
initiated contact with him
in behind
and they
did so to take him
custody
outstanding
into
on the
(“
Stehman,
legal
reason. See
III. CONCLUSION stated, For the reasons we affirm the judgment. trial court’s Affirmed. J.,
STEIGMANN, concurs. APPLETON, dissenting:
JUSTICE I dissent from the sup- affirmance of the trial court’s refusal press gathered by I arresting primarily evidence officers. dо so my to state disagreement precedents by with the relied upon majority.
As the court stated in beginning analysis of its People Bailey, (1994), 159 Ill. 2d “[t]he amendment controlling legal principles quite are settled. The fourth prohibit the United States Constitution doеs not all State-initiated seizures; searches and it prohibits only those that are unreasonable.” opinion proposition agree: The then cites Chimel for the I with which weapons “It is reasonable for to search [an] arrestee escape, the arrestee could use to resist arrest or or for evidence that destroy. the arrestee could restricted to the conceal or search is of the arrestee and area into the arrestee cаn reach.” which *5 Chimel, citing at 395 U.S. Bailey, 159 Ill. at 762-63, Ed. 2d at S. Ct. at 2040. at 23 L. however, further, using then supreme Bailey,
Our
went
There, a
Supreme
the United States
Court in Belton.
rationale of
policeman
has made a
“bright-line”
“[W]hen
rule was established:
automobile,
ocсupant
may,
lawful custodial arrest of the
of an
he
as
contemporaneous
passenger
incident of that
search the
Belton,
Ed.
of that automobile.”
Thе difficulty bright-line despite with a questionable foundations such approach jurisprudence, an in constitutional illuminating rather than principle, constitutional it is used like a laser to greater greater exceptions carve out to the existence of personal upon liberty which the framers rested the construction and philosophical underpinnings government. of our This case is a classi- cal example fallacy approach. of such an car, locked, was outside of his with the doors when he was by police. arrested While the had followed they had no opportunity stop him in his vehicle. To extend the Belton, rationale of Bailey, Allibalogun to such circumstances completely contrаdicts the underlying rationale for such searches as explained by Supreme logic Court in Chimel. employed fails to cross the chasm between the acknowledged need for safety officer a vehicle extension, search. Under suсh an standing a defendant outside his house at the time of his arrest could have his home searched incident to the arrest without a not based on existing authority case underpinning but rather on the theoretical this precedents decision and the upon which it relies.