People v. James

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 3rd District Appellate » 2009 » People v. James

People v. James

State: Illinois

Court: 3rd District Appellate

Docket No: 3-05-0172 NRel

Case Date: 06/16/2009

Preview:No. 3--05--0172 _________________________________________________________________ Filed June 16, 2009 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the 14th Judicial Circuit, ) Henry County, Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 02--CF--325 ) ORLANDO M. JAMES, ) ) Honorable Ted J. Hamer, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. _________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the opinion of the court: _________________________________________________________________ The defendant, Orlando M. James, was charged with unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to deliver (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(B) (West 2002)) and unlawful possession of cocaine (720 ILCS 570/402(a)(2)(B) (West 2002)). his motion to suppress the evidence. The trial court denied

In a bench trial, the court The court ruled that

found the defendant guilty on both counts.

the latter count merged into the former and sentenced him, inter alia, to 17 years of imprisonment and to pay a $3,000 drug assessment fee. On appeal, the defendant argued that: (1) the

trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress; and (2) he is entitled to a $5-per-day credit against his drug assessment fee for the days he was in presentence incarceration. In a 2007

order, this court, with one justice dissenting, reversed and remanded on the motion to suppress issue. People v. James, No.

3--05--0172 (2007) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). In doing so, the majority relied on the "scope of the stop"

prong of People v. Gonzalez, 204 Ill. 2d 220, 789 N.E.2d 260 (2003). court. On November 26, 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a supervisory order directing us to vacate the 2006 order, and to reconsider in light of People v. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d 262, 898 N.E.2d 603 (2008). 1060 (2008). People v. James, 229 Ill. 2d 681, 896 N.E.2d Upon The State sought review of that order in the supreme

Accordingly, we hereby vacate the 2007 order.

reconsideration, we affirm as modified. I. BACKGROUND At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Henry County Deputy Sheriff Glenn Hampton testified that, during the early morning hours of November 14, 2002, he observed a car following another vehicle too closely on Interstate 80. Hampton stopped

the car, which was driven by Anthony Oliver, and in which the defendant was the only passenger.1 Hampton said that he approached the driver's side of the vehicle and asked Oliver for his driver's license. Hampton an Illinois state identification card. Oliver gave

The officer

placed Oliver in the passenger seat of the squad car while he ran

1

The defendant and Oliver were tried separately.

They each By

filed a motion to suppress in their respective cases.

agreement of the parties, the trial court held a joint hearing on the motions from the separate cases. 2

a background check on Oliver's card.

The dispatcher informed

Hampton that Oliver did not have a valid Illinois driver's license. In response to Hampton's questions, Oliver stated that he had problems with his license because of an error by the Secretary of State's office. Hampton did not arrest Oliver, but

instead told him that he needed to resolve the situation with the Secretary of State's office. At some point while Oliver was in the squad car, Hampton approached the defendant to determine whether he had a valid driver's license. The defendant told Hampton that he did not The defendant provided

have his driver's license with him.

Hampton with his name and date of birth. Using this information from the defendant, Hampton ran a background check to determine whether the defendant had a valid driver's license. The dispatcher informed Hampton that the

defendant had a valid license and that he was on mandatory supervised release from the Department of Corrections. was not told why the defendant had been incarcerated. Hampton After

Hampton received the information regarding Oliver, the vehicle, and the defendant, Hampton returned Oliver's card and informed him that he was free to go, but only if the defendant drove the car. Then, Hampton asked Oliver if there were any weapons or contraband in the vehicle. Hampton testified that he was

suspicious of "a very strong smell of an aroma, of some sort of fragrance, real strong," coming from inside the vehicle. 3 Hampton

stated that vehicles transporting illegal drugs sometimes use strong fragrances as masking agents. Oliver told Hampton that there were no weapons or contraband in the vehicle. certain of that. In response, Hampton asked Oliver whether he was Oliver said that he was certain, but also told Hampton

Hampton that he could search the vehicle if he wished.

took Oliver's statement as consent to search the vehicle. Hampton next approached the passenger side of the vehicle and asked the defendant to exit the vehicle. Hampton told the

defendant that Oliver had consented to a search of the vehicle and also asked the defendant for consent to search. Hampton, the defendant consented. Next, Hampton told Oliver to stand at the front of the car he had been driving. The officer also told the defendant to According to

stand at the front of the squad car, which was situated behind the vehicle in which he had been the passenger. searched the interior of the car. Hampton then

The only item Hampton found in

the passenger compartment was a liquor bottle containing the fragrance that was emanating from the vehicle. Hampton then asked both the defendant and Oliver for their consent to search the trunk. At this point, both Oliver and the

defendant were still at the respective locations where they previously had been told to stand by Hampton. Both the defendant During this

and Oliver gave their consent to search the trunk.

search, Hampton found a plastic baggie containing cocaine in a wheel well of the trunk. Oliver later gave a voluntary written statement to Hampton, 4

stating that he was taking the cocaine to a party, but that he did not intend to sell the cocaine. He also stated that he was

"ready to leave the streets" and to give up using drugs. Oliver testified that he was driving the car on Interstate 80 on the morning in question. passenger's seat. The defendant was in the

The vehicle belonged to the defendant's wife.

Oliver stated that he was in the left lane, passing a truck that was in the right lane. Hampton's squad car was turning around in Oliver passed Hampton, and Hampton then pulled the car

a U-turn area on the interstate.

Hampton began to follow the vehicle. over.

Hampton approached the driver's side and asked Oliver for his license. Oliver responded that he only had a state

identification card because someone in Connecticut had been using his name. Hampton then placed Oliver in the squad car.

Hampton ran a background check on Oliver's card, which came back as suspended. Hampton exited the squad car and approached

the defendant, who gave Hampton his information orally because he did not have his driver's license with him. Hampton returned to

the squad car and ran a background check on the defendant's information. Hampton then returned Oliver's card and told him Oliver stated that he felt free to go at

that he was free to go. that point.

Hampton next informed Oliver that he was going to search the vehicle, and that, if there was nothing illegal in the vehicle, the defendant would have to drive. Hampton then asked Oliver if Oliver said Hampton

there were guns or drugs in the vehicle. 5

never asked him whether he could search the vehicle.

Oliver

stated that his door was locked and that he no longer felt free to leave after Hampton said he was going to search the vehicle. Hampton exited the squad car and approached the defendant, whom he asked to exit the vehicle. Oliver to exit the squad car. Hampton returned and asked

Hampton placed Oliver at the front Hampton then began

of the vehicle and the defendant at the rear. to search the vehicle.

After Hampton searched the passenger compartment, he opened the trunk and began to search it. Oliver stated that Hampton did

not ask him for consent to search the trunk and that he did not hear Hampton ask the defendant for consent to search the trunk. During his search of the trunk, Hampton rose up with his gun drawn and told Oliver to "freeze" and to put his hands on his head. Hampton then made Oliver walk around to the back of the

vehicle, where he cuffed Oliver and the defendant. Oliver stated that his written statement was untrue. He

stated that Hampton told him what to write because he wished to "impress the State" in order to get the intent charge dropped. Additionally, Oliver stated that Hampton encouraged him to talk to the defendant regarding the incident to ensure they had the same version of what happened. In rebuttal, Hampton denied

telling Oliver what to write and denied encouraging Oliver to talk to the defendant regarding the incident. The defendant testified that, on the morning in question, he was the passenger in his wife's vehicle. Oliver was driving.

Hampton pulled them over and approached the driver's side of the 6

vehicle.

Oliver rolled the window down, and Hampton said he

pulled the car over for following another vehicle too closely. Oliver gave Hampton a state identification card, and Hampton took Oliver back to the squad car while he ran the check on Oliver's card. About 10 minutes later, Hampton approached the The defendant

defendant and asked him for his driver's license.

said that he had a license, but that he did not have it on him. The defendant then gave Hampton his personal information, and Hampton returned to the squad car. Hampton returned about 10 minutes later with Oliver walking slightly behind him. Hampton asked the defendant to exit the

vehicle and told Oliver to go to the front of the vehicle. Hampton then asked the defendant if he had any contraband on him, to which the defendant said, "No." Hampton asked for and Hampton

received the defendant's consent to search his person. then placed the defendant at the rear of the vehicle.

Next, Hampton began searching the vehicle's interior.

The

defendant stated that Hampton never asked if the officer could search the vehicle and that he never heard Hampton ask Oliver if the officer could search the vehicle. After searching the He opened the trunk

interior, Hampton began searching the trunk. with the key.

Again, the defendant stated that Hampton did not

ask for consent to search the trunk and that he did not hear Hampton ask Oliver for consent to search the trunk. With regard to the events surrounding Oliver's written statement, the defendant stated that Hampton told him that Hampton knew the State's Attorney personally and that Hampton was 7

going to try to help them out by getting the intent charge dropped. The defendant also stated that Hampton told him that he

needed to "follow-up" with Oliver's version of what happened in order to convince the State's Attorney to drop the intent charge and that Hampton actually told him several parts of Oliver's version. The defendant stated that Hampton placed him in the

same room with Oliver for five minutes to "talk it over." On April 4, 2003, the trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress. In its written order, the court made a

number of factual findings that were consistent with Hampton's testimony. Among these findings, the court stated that both

Oliver and the defendant had given their consent to the search of the car, contrary to their testimony. The court also said that

both Oliver and the defendant were free to go when Hampton made the request to search the vehicle and that Hampton did not illegally detain them prior to requesting consent to search. Accordingly, the court held that the consents of both Oliver and the defendant had been voluntarily given. At the bench trial, Hampton offered testimony similar to his testimony at the suppression hearing. At the conclusion of the

bench trial, the court found the defendant guilty on both counts. The record shows that the defendant was in custody for 501 days before he was sentenced. II. ANALYSIS A. Motion to Suppress On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because Hampton illegally 8

detained him following the traffic stop, thereby tainting the subsequent search that resulted in the discovery of cocaine in the trunk of the vehicle. In Cosby, our supreme court reiterated that the ruling of a trial court on a motion to suppress frequently presents mixed questions of fact and of law. 603. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d 262, 898 N.E.2d

A trial court's findings of fact will not be disturbed

unless they are manifestly erroneous, and its ultimate decision concerning whether to grant the motion is reviewed de novo. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d 262, 898 N.E.2d 603. The fourth amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const., amend. IV. Article I,

section 6, of the Illinois Constitution provides similar protections. Ill. Const. 1970, art. I,

Download People v. James.pdf