People v. Fields

2022 IL App (4th) 210194

217 N.E.3d 304

466 Ill.Dec. 477

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.JaQuay M. FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-21-0194

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Filed September 20, 2022

Rehearing denied October 18, 2022

James E. Chadd, Catherine K. Hart, and Gregory G. Peterson, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, for appellant.

Gregory Minger, State's Attorney, of Eureka (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Kim Noffke, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 On November 9, 2020, a jury found defendant, JaQuay M. Fields, guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon with a revoked firearm owner's identification card (FOID card) ( 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1) (West 2018)). On January 7, 2021, the trial court sentenced defendant to two years in prison with one year of mandatory supervised release (MSR). Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence found after an unlawful traffic stop, the State failed to prove she was reckless in not knowing her FOID card had been revoked, and, alternatively, the trial court erred when it barred defendant from presenting evidence she was unaware of the revocation. We affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On July 17, 2019, the State charged defendant by information with unlawful possession of a firearm without a valid FOID card citing section 2(a)(1) of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (Act) ( 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1) (West 2018)). On August 1, 2019, a grand jury indicted defendant on the same charge.

¶ 4 On November 8, 2019, defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence recovered after her motor vehicle was stopped on July 6, 2019. According to the motion, the police claimed she was stopped because of her defective exhaust system. After reportedly smelling cannabis, the police officer searched defendant's vehicle and found the firearm at issue. Defendant argued the vehicle was not excessively loud and the police officer used the exhaust offense as a pretense to stop defendant's vehicle.

¶ 5 On December 19, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant offered the following testimony. She was driving home from St. Louis on July 6, 2019, and was obeying the speed limit. Demetric Collum was a passenger in her vehicle. Both defendant and Collum are African American. When she first saw the police vehicle in the median of the interstate, she was in the lane furthest from the police officer and some other vehicles were about half of a mile in front of her on the interstate. The police officer began following her after she passed. The officer then switched lanes and drove up alongside her vehicle. She and the police officer looked at each other, and the officer then passed her. Shortly thereafter, defendant saw the officer again pulled over in front of an exit sign on the interstate. When she passed, the officer pulled her over.

¶ 6 The officer approached her vehicle on the passenger side and indicated he stopped defendant because of her vehicle's loud exhaust. The officer took both her and Collum's identification cards back to his police vehicle. When the officer came back to her car, he asked her about a restraining order she had against Collum. Defendant said the restraining order was never served on Collum. However, the officer indicated he could still arrest Collum. The officer then asked Collum to exit the vehicle and asked defendant if anyone had been smoking marijuana in the car. She said no. Defendant told the officer she thought he only pulled her over because he wanted to search her vehicle. The officer then ordered her to get out of the car. Defendant complied but said she did not consent to a search of her vehicle.

¶ 7 The police officer began searching her car anyway, then handcuffed Collum, and then resumed his search. The officer then came back and questioned defendant about a handgun he found. Defendant answered the deputy's questions regarding what kind of gun was in the vehicle, what caliber it was, and who the gun belonged to. She told the officer she had a concealed carry license (CCL) and FOID card in her wallet. The officer found those cards and told her they were revoked. Defendant told the officer she did not know they were revoked. When the officer continued his search of the car, he found a piece of a blunt. Collum told the officer he had smoked in the car in St. Louis and the blunt was his.

¶ 8 The police officer confiscated defendant's handgun but eventually let her and Collum leave. Defendant indicated she never smelled marijuana in the car or noticed any excessive noise coming from the exhaust. After later receiving a notice of an arrest warrant, she turned herself into the authorities. Defendant stated she took her vehicle to Midas after the stop. Midas said no repairs were needed.

¶ 9 The State then called Woodford County Sheriff's Deputy Nathan Campbell, who testified he was watching northbound traffic in the median of Interstate 39 between 7:30 p.m. and 9 p.m. on July 6, 2019. Deputy Cole Mekley was with Deputy Campbell. When defendant's vehicle passed, he noticed the vehicle's excessive exhaust noise—which indicated a problem with the factory exhaust system—and defendant's "jubilant singing." Defendant was not speeding, and no other vehicles were in the immediate vicinity of defendant traveling north. Deputy Campbell wanted to develop the situation more based on what he observed, so he caught up with defendant's vehicle. He drove up to the side of the vehicle, confirmed the exhaust violation, and then monitored the vehicle's actions. The following exchange occurred between the prosecutor and Deputy Campbell regarding what was different about defendant's vehicle:

"A. It was loud. I typically don't hear a vehicle's exhaust even traveling on the highway.

Q. And could you—was this an unusual sound coming from this make and model of car?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you had the experience with this, like Ford SUVs such as what you were pulling over?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Was this exhaust system louder than other vehicles you have come into contact that are even 2008 Ford SUVs?

A. Yes, sir."

After passing defendant, he kept watching her in his rearview mirror. He slowed down to between 55 and 65 miles per hour to see if the vehicle would catch up to him. It did not.

¶ 10 After considering the circumstances, Deputy Campbell decided to stop defendant so he pulled over and waited for her to pass. When defendant's vehicle passed, Deputy Campbell could still hear the loud exhaust, and he stopped defendant. Deputy Campbell and Deputy Mekley approached the passenger side of defendant's vehicle. Deputy Campbell asked defendant for her driver's license and insurance and Collum for his name and date of birth. Deputy Campbell determined defendant had an order of protection against Collum and understood the order had been served on Collum. Deputy Campbell had Collum exit the vehicle. Deputy Campbell then spoke with defendant and smelled burnt cannabis in the vehicle. Defendant denied any marijuana had been smoked in the vehicle. Collum later admitted he had smoked marijuana in the vehicle a few hours earlier.

¶ 11 Deputy Campbell then searched the vehicle and found a small blunt, which smelled like cannabis, and a 9-millimeter pistol. Deputy Campbell immediately put handcuffs on Collum, who Deputy Campbell knew was on parole. Deputy Campbell then spoke with defendant about the pistol to determine who owned it and whether she knew it was in the vehicle. According to Deputy Campbell, defendant hesitated before saying a firearm might be in the vehicle. She then described the firearm and said it was hers. Deputy Campbell then determined defendant's FOID card and CCL were revoked. Deputy Campbell seized the firearm but allowed defendant and Collum to leave the scene. He did not cite defendant for operating a vehicle with a loud exhaust nor write a warning citation. When asked why he pulled the vehicle over initially, Deputy Campbell testified, "The legal cause was for the exhaust violation."

¶ 12 On cross-examination, Deputy Campbell said defendant's vehicle was just cruising along, not accelerating, when he first saw it. He heard noise coming from the vehicle that was different than normal engine noise. He described what he heard as follows:

"In the engine I—it's been a long-time hobby of mine, and that's even how I addressed it with her, is you could tell almost from the gurgling sound that—it sounded as a leak that would be close to the manifold as if the header or that manifold was leaking, or maybe the gasket had come loose from the motor there. It's a gurgling, loud noise that you get when it's that close to the motor."

Deputy Campbell said the noise would be present when the vehicle was cruising but would increase with acceleration. He did not have any kind of sound meter or other device to measure the decibel level of the vehicle. Deputy Campbell said he started following defendant's car because it "piqued" his interest based on the exhaust, the driver singing, and the vehicle's window being halfway down.

¶ 13 Deputy Campbell conceded the window being down was not notable in a legal sense. When asked why a person singing would draw his attention or be worth investigating, Deputy Campbell responded:

"There's different things that I've noticed in my experience doing the job and as well that I've been trained to. Singing is one of those things. Oftentimes you will see somebody stretching as they pass in front of me. The stretching, the yawning, the singing is all something done that they feel pressure on them because the police officer is sitting there knowing they're looking. And all of those things are done by that subject to make it look as if they're relaxed. I'm not concerned about you. I'm okay. I'm an innocent person traveling down the road.

...