People v. Oliver

SUPREME COURT CASES

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

People v. Oliver

State: Illinois

Court: 3rd District Appellate

Docket No: 3-04-0427 Rel

Case Date: 01/20/2009

Preview:No. 3--04--0427 _________________________________________________________________ Filed January 20, 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--326 ) ANTHONY P. OLIVER, ) Honorable ) Ted J. Hamer, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. _________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE McDADE delivered the opinion of the court: _________________________________________________________________ The defendant, Anthony P. Oliver, was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(B) (West 2002)) and unlawful possession of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/402(a)(2)(B) (West 2002)). filed pretrial motions to suppress his confession and to quash his arrest, which the circuit court denied. After a bench trial, He

the court found the defendant guilty on both counts, but that the latter count would merge into the former count. The court

sentenced the defendant to 10 years of imprisonment on the former count. On appeal, the defendant argued that the arresting

officer illegally detained him following a traffic stop, thereby tainting the subsequent search that resulted in the discovery of cocaine in the trunk of the vehicle. The defendant also argued,

in the alternative, that he was entitled to $65 credit against his fines for presentence incarceration. reversed and remanded. In prior decisions, we

The Illinois Supreme Court has entered a

supervisory order directing this court to vacate our judgment and reconsider our decision in light of People v. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d 262 (2008). After reconsideration, we reverse and remand. FACTS At the suppression hearing, Henry County Deputy Sheriff Glenn Hampton testified that, during the early morning hours of November 14, 2002, he observed a vehicle following another vehicle too closely on Interstate 80. traffic stop of the offending vehicle. Hampton approached the driver's side of the vehicle, where he found the defendant in the driver's seat and Orlando James in the passenger's seat. Hampton asked for the defendant's license; Hampton initiated a

however, the defendant gave Hampton a state identification card. Hampton placed the defendant in the passenger's seat of the squad car while he ran the defendant's card. The dispatcher informed

Hampton that the defendant did not have a valid driver's license. In response to Hampton's inquiry, the defendant stated that he had problems with his license due to an error attributable to the Secretary of State. Hampton did not arrest the defendant; he

merely stated that the defendant needed to resolve that situation. At some point while the defendant was in the squad car, Hampton approached James to make sure he had a valid driver's

2

license.

The dispatcher informed Hampton that James was on

mandatory supervised release from the Department of Corrections, although Hampton was not told for what James had been incarcerated. After Hampton received the information regarding

the defendant, the vehicle, and James, Hampton returned the defendant's card and informed the defendant that he was "free to go" as long as James drove. At that time, Hampton asked the defendant 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. Hampton stated that vehicles transporting contraband sometimes use strong fragrances as masking agents. The defendant answered that there were no weapons or contraband in the vehicle. In response, Hampton asked the The defendant said yes, he

defendant if he was certain of that.

was certain, but also told Hampton that he could search the vehicle if he wanted. Hampton took the defendant's statement as

consent to search the vehicle. Hampton next approached the passenger's side of the vehicle and asked James to exit the vehicle. Hampton informed James that

the defendant consented to a search of the vehicle and asked James for consent to search. James consented. After placing

James near the rear of the vehicle and the defendant at the front of the vehicle, Hampton began his search. The only item Hampton

found in the vehicle's interior was a liquor bottle containing

3

the same fragrance emanating from the vehicle. Hampton then asked James for consent to search the trunk. James consented. search the trunk. Hampton also asked the defendant for consent to The defendant also consented. During his

search of the trunk, Hampton found a plastic baggie containing cocaine in the wheel well of the vehicle. The defendant later gave a voluntary written statement to Hampton, stating that he was taking the cocaine to a party, but that he was not intending to sell the cocaine. He also stated

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

The vehicle belonged to James' wife.

defendant stated that he was in the left lane, passing a truck that was in the right lane. Hampton's squad car was turning The defendant passed Hampton then

around in a u-turn area on the interstate.

Hampton, and Hampton began following the defendant. pulled the defendant over.

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

state identification card because someone in Connecticut had been using his name. car. Hampton ran the defendant's card, which came back as suspended. Hampton exited the squad car and approached James, Hampton then placed the defendant in the squad

who gave Hampton his information verbally because he did not have

4

his license on him. James's license. parole.

Hampton returned to the squad car and ran

The dispatcher told Hampton that James was on

Hampton then returned the defendant's card and told him The defendant admitted that he felt free

that he was free to go. to go at that point.

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

defendant if there were guns or drugs in the vehicle.

defendant said Hampton never asked him whether Hampton could search the vehicle. The defendant 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 James, whom he had exit the vehicle. exit the squad car. Hampton returned and had the defendant Hampton placed the defendant at the front of Hampton then began to search

the vehicle and James at the rear. the vehicle.

After Hampton searched the interior, he opened the trunk and began to search it. The defendant stated that Hampton did not

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

back of the vehicle, where he cuffed the defendant and James.

5

The defendant stated that his written statement was untrue. He stated that Hampton told the defendant what to write because the defendant had to "impress the State" in order to get the intent charge dropped. Additionally, the defendant stated that

Hampton encouraged him to talk to James regarding the incident to ensure they had the same version of what happened. On recall,

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

Hampton pulled them over and approached the driver's The defendant rolled the window down, and

side of the vehicle.

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

He asked for James' license.

license, but that he did not have it on him.

Hampton his personal information, and Hampton returned to the squad car. Hampton returned about 10 minutes later with the defendant walking slightly behind him. Hampton asked James to exit the

vehicle and told the defendant to go to the front of the vehicle. Hampton then asked James if he had any contraband on him, to

6

which James said no.

Hampton asked for and received James's Hampton then placed James at

consent to search James' person. the rear of the vehicle.

Hampton then began searching the vehicle's interior.

James

stated that Hampton never asked if he could search the vehicle and that he never heard Hampton ask the defendant if he could search the vehicle. searching the trunk. After searching the interior, Hampton began He opened the trunk with the key. Again,

James stated that Hampton did not ask for consent to search the trunk and that he did not hear Hampton ask the defendant for consent to search the trunk. With regard to the alleged events surrounding the defendant's written statement, James stated that Hampton told him that Hampton knew the State's Attorney personally and that Hampton was going to try to help them out by getting the intent charge dropped. James also stated that Hampton told him that he

needed to "follow up" with the defendant'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 the defendant's version. James stated that Hampton placed him

in the same room with the defendant for five minutes to "talk it over." On April 4, 2003, the circuit court denied the defendant's motions to suppress. The court found that the defendant and

James felt that they were free to go when Hampton made the request to search the vehicle, and that Hampton did not illegally

7

detain them prior to requesting consent to search.

Accordingly,

the court held that the defendant and James voluntarily consented to the search. At the bench trial, Hampton and the defendant offered testimony similar to their testimony from the suppression hearing. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the court found

the defendant guilty on both counts. On appeal, the defendant argued that Hampton illegally detained him following the traffic stop, thereby tainting the subsequent search that resulted in the discovery of cocaine in the trunk of the vehicle. circuit court's judgment. This court agreed, and we reversed the The State appealed.

In a supervisory order issued on November 26, 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court denied the State's petition for leave to appeal but remanded the case to this court for reconsideration in light of People v. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d 262 (2008). ANALYSIS On appeal, the defendant argues that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. Specifically, the

defendant argues that he was illegally seized after the traffic stop had ended, thereby tainting the evidence found in the trunk of the vehicle. The ruling of a trial court on a motion to suppress evidence frequently presents mixed questions of fact and of law. v. Smith, 214 Ill. 2d 338, 827 N.E.2d 444 (2005). People

Because the

trier of fact is in the best position to review the evidence and

8

weigh the credibility of the witnesses, the findings of fact of the trial court will not be disturbed unless they are manifestly erroneous. (2001). People v. Anthony, 198 Ill. 2d 194, 761 N.E.2d 1188

However, the circuit court's ultimate determination of

whether the evidence should be suppressed is subject to de novo review. (2003). 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. Likewise, See People v. Gipson, 203 Ill. 2d 298, 786 N.E.2d 540

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

Download People v. Oliver.pdf