People v. Duran

64 N.E.3d 1168

408 Ill.Dec. 83

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Jose DURAN, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 1–15–2678.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division.

Oct. 7, 2016.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, John E. Nowak, and Kathryn F. Sodetz, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

John Paul Carroll, of Naperville, for appellee.

OPINION

Presiding Justice HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The defendant, Jose Duran, was charged by indictment with one count of possession with intent to deliver 900 or more grams of methamphetamine in violation of sections 55(a)(1) and 55(a)(2)(F) of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act (720 ILCS 646/55(a) (1), (a)(2)(F) (West 2012)). The defendant filed a motion to quash his arrest and suppress evidence, contending, inter alia, that the search of the vehicle in which he was riding and the attaché bag in which the methamphetamine was found was conducted without consent, articulable factual justification or probable cause. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the defendant's motion, finding that the defendant was arrested without probable cause and, as a consequence, the seizure of the methamphetamine was unlawful. The State filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court's order, which was denied. Thereafter, the State filed a notice of substantial impairment and a notice of appeal. For the reasons which follow, we reverse the trial court's order granting the defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence.

¶ 2 When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we accord great deference to the trial court's factual findings, which we will reverse only if those findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence; however, we review de novo the ultimate question of the legal challenge to the trial court's ruling. People v. Sutherland, 223 Ill.2d 187, 196–97, 307 Ill.Dec. 524, 860 N.E.2d 178 (2006).

¶ 3 After conducting an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, the trial court found the testimony of the State's witnesses to be credible. The following factual recitation is based upon that testimony.

¶ 4 On February 26, 2013, Chicago police officers and agents of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) were assigned to the DEA Airport Task Force Group. On that date, Chicago Police Sergeant Dennis O'Connor received a telephone call from DEA Special Agent Leach stationed in San Diego, California, informing him that information had been received from a confidential informant that a woman named Valerie Santos "would be transporting narcotics from San Diego to Chicago O'Hare Airport." Agent Leach did not disclose the date that the transportation was to take place or the type of narcotics involved. He did, however, inform Sergeant O'Connor that Santos would be staying at the Whitehall Hotel located at 105 East Delaware Place in Chicago but did not specify the date that she would be checking in. Agent Leach never gave Sergeant O'Connor any information as to the reliability of the confidential informant.

¶ 5 Sergeant O'Connor relayed the information that he received to DEA Agent Glynn, DEA Agent Aristidis Karabinas, and Chicago Police Officer Raymond Caballero; all of whom are members of the DEA Airport Task Force Group. Based upon that information, Agents Glynn and Karabinas and Officer Caballero went to the Whitehall Hotel to watch for Santos. Upon arrival at the hotel, Agent Karabinas ascertained from the hotel manager that a Ms. Santos was registered for that day. At approximately 4:45 p.m., a taxi arrived at the hotel and a woman exited. Agent Karabinas recognized the woman as Valarie Santos from a picture he had received from the DEA's California office. At the time that Santos exited the taxi, she was carrying a black attaché bag. Agent Karabinas stationed himself in a room across from the one in which Santos was registered, while Agent Glynn and Officer Caballero remained in the hotel lobby. From his vantage point, Agent Karabinas was able to see Santos enter her hotel room carrying the black attaché bag. About two hours later, Agent Karabinas saw a man and a woman enter Santos's room where they remained for several minutes. When the man left Santos's room, he was carrying the black attaché bag. Agent Karabinas telephoned the other members of his team who were conducting surveillance in the hotel lobby and informed them that a man and a woman had entered Santos's room and left several minutes later. The man and the woman were observed leaving the hotel and getting into a black Cadillac Escalade. The woman drove the vehicle while the man rode in the passenger's seat. Agent Karabinas later learned that the woman was Erica Armas and the man was the defendant.

¶ 6 Agent Glynn and Officer Caballero got into separate vehicles and followed the Cadillac Escalade as it went west from the hotel to the Dan Ryan Expressway and then proceeded south on the Stevenson Expressway. The Cadillac exited the expressway at Kedzie Avenue and travelled northbound. Using the Chicago police radio frequency, one of the members of the DEA team who was following the Cadillac requested assistance from a marked police vehicle in stopping the Cadillac. At approximately 7:40 p.m. the Cadillac reached 33rd Street and was seen by uniformed Chicago police officers Perez and Sanchez, who were patrolling in a marked police vehicle. Officer Perez stated that he had heard a broadcast over the police radio that Chicago police officers and DEA agents were following a black Cadillac Escalade that was "suspected of having narcotics in it." Officer Sanchez, who was driving, made a U-turn and followed the Cadillac northbound on Kedzie Avenue. After about two blocks, officers Sanchez and Perez stopped the Cadillac for traveling too fast for conditions. The officers exited their marked patrol car and approached the Cadillac. Officer Sanchez spoke to the driver, Armas, and obtained her driver's license and insurance card. Officers Sanchez and Perez then returned to their vehicle.

¶ 7 Officer Caballero stopped his vehicle directly behind the marked squad car and approached the Cadillac. He informed Armas that they were conducting a narcotics investigation and asked her if they could search the vehicle. According to Officer Caballero, Armas gave him oral permission to search the Cadillac. Armas and the defendant exited the Cadillac, and the defendant was immediately handcuffed and placed in the marked police car.

¶ 8 Approximately five minutes after the Cadillac Escalade was pulled over, Agent Glynn, a DEA narcotics canine officer, arrived on the scene with a dog that is certified to detect narcotics, including methamphetamine. Officer Caballero informed Agent Glynn that Armas had given her consent for a search of the Cadillac. Agent Glynn had the dog search the exterior of the Cadillac and then allowed the dog to go inside of the vehicle. The dog gave an alert for the presence of narcotics upon sniffing the black attaché bag, which was located on the rear seat of the vehicle. The bag was removed from the vehicle, opened, and a powdery substance was found inside. According to Officer Caballero, it was at that time that Armas and the defendant were placed under arrest. After being tested, the powdery substance in the attaché bag was found to be methamphetamine.

¶ 9 The defendant testified at the evidentiary hearing. He admitted that he and Armas went to Santos's hotel room and that he left carrying the black attaché bag, which he placed in the rear of the Cadillac Escalade. He stated that, at the time that the vehicle was stopped by the police, Armas was driving and he was seated in the front passenger's seat. According to the defendant, as soon as the Cadillac was stopped, he was handcuffed and taken to a marked police car. He testified that he could not hear any of the conversations which Armas had with the police officers. The defendant stated that he never gave the police permission to search the attaché bag. Additionally, he admitted that he was not the owner of the Cadillac Escalade and that Armas owned the vehicle.

¶ 10 Following the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the police officers "had a reasonable articulable suspicion to believe that the defendant and others were involved in criminal narcotics activity and that Ms. Armas was driving too fast for road conditions." The trial court concluded that the officers were "justified in stopping the vehicle, detaining the occupants, and having them step out of the vehicle to conduct a Terry investigation." The trial court also found that the officers obtained valid consent from Armas to search her vehicle and that the dog's alert upon sniffing the attaché bag was "sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to believe that the bag contained illegal drugs and, therefore, the officers were justified in searching the bag, seizing the drugs, and arresting the defendant and Ms. Armas." The trial court also found that the defendant's testimony regarding his detention and custody after the Cadillac was stopped was credible and, based on that testimony, found that the defendant remained handcuffed and confined in a police car from the time that he was removed from the Cadillac. The trial court concluded that the defendant was arrested without probable cause prior to the dog's alert to the presence of narcotics in the attaché bag and, therefore, "the seizure was unlawful." As a consequence, the trial court granted the defendant's motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence.

¶ 11 In urging reversal of the trial court's order granting the defendant's motion, the State makes a number of arguments. However, in its brief, the State has comingled arguments which should have been addressed separately, leaving us to unravel the package and attempt to...