People v. Ewing

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2007 » People v. Ewing

People v. Ewing

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-07-0184 Rel

Case Date: 11/29/2007

Preview:NO. 4-07-0184

Filed 11/29/07

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES C. EWING, Defendant-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from Circuit Court of Coles County No. 07DT19 Honorable Brian O'Brien, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH delivered the opinion of the court: In January 2007, defendant, James C. Ewing, was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2006)). Defendant's driving privileges were

thereafter summarily suspended by the Secretary of State, pursuant to sections 11-501.1(e) and 6-208.1(a)(3) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-501.1(e), 6-208(a)(3) (West 2006)). In January 2007, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence and a petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension. Following a February 2007 hearing, the trial court granted

the motion and petition. The State appeals, arguing the trial court erred by granting defendant's motion to suppress because the police officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify a Terry stop (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)). We agree and reverse. I. BACKGROUND At the February 2007 hearing, Officer Michael Sanders

testified he was employed by the Coles County sheriff's department. On January 23, 2007, at approximately 12:56 p.m., Officer

Sanders overheard a dispatch from the 9-1-1 dispatch center to the Charleston police department. When asked what he heard over

the dispatch, Officer Sanders testified: "I believe it was that an employee of Crestline Veterinary Clinic believed that the defendant was intoxicated and he left in a green pickup truck with another white male heading eastbound possibly toward Paris, Illinois[,] and the driver, Mr. Ewing, was possibly intoxicated." Officer Sanders also heard a license plate number and vehicle description. Officer Sanders further testified he overheard a Charleston police officer state that he was going to try to intercept the driver of the vehicle. Officer Sanders cut short Officer

his lunch, got in his squad car, and headed eastbound.

Sanders waited for the suspect vehicle at Harrison Street and Route 16. Within a matter of seconds, Officer Sanders saw the Charleston police officer Hank Pauls was in a Officer Sanders did not However,

suspect vehicle.

vehicle behind the suspect vehicle.

notice any traffic infractions by the suspect vehicle.

Officer Sanders activated his overheard emergency lights and pulled onto Route 16 traveling eastbound ahead of Lieutenant Pauls. The driver of the vehicle, defendant, pulled over. - 2 -

Officer Sanders notified dispatch of the location. Officer Sanders walked up to the vehicle to address defendant. testing. Officer Sanders did not conduct any field-sobriety No questions were asked of Officer Sanders about what

occurred after he addressed defendant. On cross-examination, Officer Sanders further testified that the information he had when he stopped defendant's vehicle included the license plate number, the registered owner, the type of vehicle, the direction and the place the vehicle was traveling, and that the call was made by an employee of Crestline. Officer Sanders knew Crestline was a veterinary clinic between Charleston and Mattoon. Lieutenant Pauls of the Charleston police department testified that on January 23, 2007, he heard a dispatch to another officer, "Officer Craig," that two intoxicated individuals had left Crestline and were proceeding eastbound on Route 16 in a green Chevrolet pickup truck with license plate 2377GJ. The

dispatch originated from the multijurisdictional central-dispatch service located near the airport. Lieutenant Pauls asked the

dispatcher whether an employee of Crestline had made the phone call. The dispatcher informed Lieutenant Pauls that, "'Yes, Based on that dispatch,

indeed, an employee had called.'"

Lieutenant Pauls attempted to locate the vehicle. Lieutenant Pauls located the vehicle at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue (we take judicial notice of the fact that in this area of Charleston, Route 16 is also known as Lincoln - 3 -

Avenue) and First Street heading eastbound. radioed the location to dispatch.

Lieutenant Pauls

At one point, Lieutenant Pauls

was stopped at Fourth Street and Lincoln Avenue while the suspect vehicle was stopped at Ninth Street and Lincoln Avenue. Lieuten-

ant Pauls was able to get into a position to observe the vehicle closely at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Hawthorn, near the Wal-Mart Superstore. was the suspect vehicle. Lieutenant Pauls confirmed then that it Lieutenant Pauls did not observe the

vehicle commit any traffic infractions. After Officer Sanders effectuated a stop of defendant's vehicle, Officer Sanders approached the vehicle. Lieutenant

Pauls also approached the vehicle and stood at the right rear corner of the vehicle. Defendant, the driver, made a statement

that he "could not do any field[-]sobriety testing at the scene." On cross-examination, Lieutenant Pauls testified he encountered a lot of traffic on Lincoln Avenue and had difficulty catching up to the vehicle because of the traffic. The defense rested. The State called Adam Brazzell. His

Brazzell testified he was employed with Coles County 9-1-1.

duties included receiving emergency and nonemergency calls, some of which go to law enforcement and other emergency agencies. Brazzell testified that on January 23, 2007, at approximately 12:45 p.m., he received a call. calls are recorded in the database. Brazzell testified that

He listened to the recording

of the call before coming in to court, and it accurately depicted the conversation he had with the caller at that time. - 4 -

After receiving the phone call, Brazzell "disseminated that to our Charleston officers with the Charleston radio frequency." When asked whether he gave the officers any information

about who placed the call, Brazzell testified he "advised them that it was an employee of Crestline." The State sought to admit the audiotape of the 9-1-1 call and resulting dispatch. Defendant objected, arguing that

the only relevant evidence is what the officers said was the basis of their stop. The State argued the tape was relevant to The State also argued

the question of the caller's reliability.

that information known to the dispatcher could be imputed to the officers. The trial court overruled the objection, subject to

reconsideration after hearing the tape. The tape was not transcribed but is included in the record on appeal. On the tape, a female states she is calling to The caller stated the driver, who is in a

report a drunk driver.

green Chevy 4x4 with license plates 2377GJ, is "going to be on Route 16" heading east. drunk!" The caller then states, "They are "they just [sic] actually just

The caller indicated

left here." identity.

The 9-1-1 operator, Brazzell, asked for the caller's The caller gave her name as Melissa from Crestline.

Melissa stated "they" dropped off a dog that was "put down." Melissa again stated, "They are drunk!" and that they did not need to be driving. persons' identities. Brazzell asked Melissa whether she knew the Melissa stated the driver was James Ewing Melissa then

and that "they" lived in Paris or around that area. - 5 -

stated that they were getting ready to turn onto Route 16 and repeated that they did not need to be driving. repeated the car identification information. The tape also contains the dispatch of the information to "Lincoln 88." Brazzell reported he had just received a report Brazzell stated that the Melissa also

of a possible "10-55" from Crestline.

subject came in to leave an animal there and "they were extremely intoxicated." Brazzell stated the two male subjects were just

leaving Crestline, heading eastbound on Route 16, in a green Chevrolet pickup. Brazzell reported the men resided in Paris and The tape contains

would probably travel through Charleston.

transmissions apparently between dispatch and various police officers, including the inquiry Lieutenant Pauls testified he made to confirm that the report was made by an employee of Crestline. It is unclear from the tape whether Brazzell also

gave the license plate number. After hearing the arguments of counsel, the trial court took the matter under advisement. On February 21, 2007, the

court entered the following docket entry: "The [c]ourt finds the facts and evidence in this case to be analogous to the facts and evidence in Village of Mundelein v. Minx, 352 Ill. App. 3d 216, *** 815 N.E.2d 965 [(2004).] The citizen-informant in the

case before the court did have an indicia of reliability due to the fact that she identi- 6 -

fied herself and provided some details about the [defendant's] vehicle. The information

provided by the citizen-informant was not, however, specific enough to justify an investigatory stop. In addition, the arresting

officers did not witness any behavior by the [defendant] to corroborate the information provided by the citizen-informant. Based

upon the totality of the circumstances in this case, the court finds that the arresting officers lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant had committed a crime. Accordingly, the [defendant's]

[m]otion to *** [s]uppress [e]vidence and [m]otion to [r]escind [s]tatutory [s]ummary [s]uspension are granted." This appeal followed. II. ANALYSIS On appeal, the State argues the police lawfully stopped defendant because the 9-1-1 call gave the police reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant was driving under the influence. As such, the State argues, this court should reverse the

trial court's order granting the motion to suppress evidence and the petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension.

- 7 -

A. Trial Court Erred by Granting Defendant's Motion To Suppress Evidence 1. Standard of Review The State argues this court should reverse the trial court's factual determinations only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence but should review the ultimate legal questions of whether reasonable suspicion existed and whether the evidence should have been suppressed de novo. At

oral argument, defendant conceded the State's position is correct. Reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress involves mixed questions of fact and law. People v. On

Gherna, 203 Ill. 2d 165, 175, 784 N.E.2d 799, 805 (2003).

review, this court gives 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 175, 784 N.E.2d at 805. Gherna, 203 Ill. 2d

"This deferential standard of review

is grounded in the reality that the [trial] court is in a superior position to determine and weigh the credibility of the witnesses, observe the witnesses' demeanor, and resolve conflicts in their testimony." People v. Pitman, 211 Ill. 2d 502, 512, 813 However, we review de novo the trial

N.E.2d 93, 100-01 (2004).

court's legal determination of whether suppression is warranted under those facts. 805. Gherna, 203 Ill. 2d at 175, 784 N.E.2d at

- 8 -

2. Terry Stops Are Permissible Based Upon Reliable Information From a Third Party Informant 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. Ewing.pdf