People v. Barker

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2006 » People v. Barker

People v. Barker

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-05-0223 Rel

Case Date: 12/19/2006

Preview:NO. 4-05-0223 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LaDONNA M. BARKER, Defendant-Appellee.

Filed: 1/4/07

) Appeal from ) Circuit Court of ) Morgan County ) No. 04CF106 ) ) Honorable ) Richard T. Mitchell, ) Judge Presiding. _________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the opinion of the court: In 2004, the State charged defendant, LaDonna M. Barker, with unlawful possession of methamphetamine-manufacturing chemical with intent to manufacture. 2004). 720 ILCS 570/401(d-5) (West

In October 2004, defendant filed a motion to suppress The State appeals,

evidence, which the trial court granted.

arguing the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence. We reverse and remand. I. BACKGROUND In June 2004, the State charged defendant with unlawful possession of methamphetamine-manufacturing chemical with intent to manufacture. 720 ILCS 570/401(d-5) (West 2004). She was a

passenger in her own vehicle driven by Robert Shaffer on the night of June 26, 2004, when it was stopped for a traffic violation, malfunctioning headlights. 625 ILCS 5/12-201(b) (West After the traffic

2004) (two functioning headlamps required).

stop was complete, the vehicle was searched and the alleged methamphetamine-manufacturing chemical found. In October 2004,

defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence alleging, among other things, (1) no search or arrest warrant justified the search and seizure; (2) the search had no reasonable connection to the traffic stop; and (3) no reasonable, articulable suspicion existed to search the vehicle once the traffic stop was complete. In February 2005, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to suppress. witness to testify. 26, 2004. Officer Adam Mefford was the only

He was on patrol on Saturday evening, June

Officer Mefford saw a car heading toward him with only He stopped the vehicle because of the Officer Mefford informed the driver, He asked for

one headlight working.

malfunctioning headlight.

Robert Shaffer, of the problem with the headlight. Shaffer's driver's license and insurance card.

Defendant, a

passenger in the vehicle, stated she owned the vehicle and would try to find the insurance card. Shaffer told Officer Mefford he knew the headlight was not working and asked to exit the vehicle to try to get it to work. Officer Mefford agreed. He then told Shaffer he was going Officer Mefford ran a computer

to issue him a written warning.

check on Shaffer's driver's license and discovered Shaffer had a criminal history and had been convicted of a drug offense. Officer Mefford returned to the vehicle and handed Shaffer the warning ticket. As he did so, he noticed a 12-pack Officer

of beer in the backseat with some containers missing.

Mefford knew it was legal to have an opened cardboard package of beer in the car, but he asked Shaffer if any of the containers of beer were open inside the vehicle. When Shaffer said "no,"

Officer Mefford asked Shaffer if he could search the vehicle to - 2 -

ensure that fact.

Shaffer said "yes."

Officer Mefford testified

no pause occurred between the return of Shaffer's license and warning ticket and either of his two questions. in question was discovered during the search. The trial court found the initial stop was a valid, proper traffic stop. It then evaluated whether the questioning The court stated The contraband

of Shaffer was reasonably related to the stop.

even though the partial 12-pack of beer was legal, it was proper for Officer Mefford to inquire if there were any open cans in the car. However, once that question was answered in the negative,

because the officer did not testify to anything else, such as the odor of alcohol, the request to search was not proper. The

partial 12-pack in the backseat did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Thus, the stop was impermissibly Based on these

prolonged and the nature of the stop was changed.

findings, the trial court granted the motion to suppress. This appeal followed. II. ANALYSIS On appeal, the State argues the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence. A. Standard of Review Reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress involves mixed questions of fact and law. 203 Ill. 2d 165, 175, 784 N.E.2d 799, 805 (2003). People v. Gherna On review, we We agree.

give great deference to the trial court's factual findings and will reverse those findings only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. at 805. Gherna, 203 Ill. 2d at 175, 784 N.E.2d

However, we review the trial court's legal determination - 3 -

of whether suppression is warranted under those facts de novo. Gherna, 203 Ill. 2d at 175, 784 N.E.2d at 805. Defendant had the

initial burden of proving the search and seizure were unlawful on the motion to suppress evidence. 2004). 725 ILCS 5/114-12(b) (West

"However, once the defendant makes a prima facie showing

of an illegal search and seizure, the burden shifts to the State to produce evidence justifying the intrusion." People v. Ortiz,

317 Ill. App. 3d 212, 220, 738 N.E.2d 1011, 1018 (2000). B. Granting of Motion To Suppress The fourth amendment to 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. The search and seizure

language found in section 6 of article I of the Illinois Constitution is construed in a manner consistent with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the fourth amendment. Ill.

Const. 1970, art. I,

Download People v. Barker.pdf