People v. Martinez

1

2024 IL App (1st) 221594-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-22-1594

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Second Division

June 28, 2024

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 14-CR-1656 Honorable Maura Slattery Boyle, Peggy Chiampas, Judges presiding.

Presiding Justice Howse and Justice McBride concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

COBBS JUSTICE.

¶ 1 Held: The trial court erred in denying defendant-appellant's motion to suppress evidence where the doctrine of hot pursuit could not justify law enforcement's pursuit and warrantless arrest.

¶ 2 In December 2013, defendant-appellant, Daniel Martinez, was arrested in Chicago, Illinois, after Chicago Police officers initially observed him holding a Corona beer bottle on the sidewalk outside of his residence, which is a jailable misdemeanor offense in Chicago. After following him onto the property, officers discovered that he was carrying a firearm, and later determined that he was 21 years old and did not have a valid Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) Card pursuant to the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (430 ILCS 65/1) (West 2012)). Defendant was subsequently charged by information with four counts of a Class 4 felony, unlawful firearm possession under Illinois' aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) statute pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6 (West 2012). Following the denial of his motion to quash and suppress evidence, defendant proceeded to a bench trial in April 2017 and was found guilty of two counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, which were merged by the trial court. Defendant subsequently filed a posttrial motion, arguing that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress, and that he had not been proven by reasonable doubt at trial and was entitled to a new trial.

¶ 3 Due to other pending separate charges against him, defendant's posttrial motion and sentencing hearing did not occur until April 2019, almost two years after his trial. Ultimately, defendant was sentenced to two years in the Illinois Department of Corrections, and credited one year for time already served, with an additional year of mandatory supervised release. Defendant's appeal to this court was dismissed as premature, where the record did not show that the trial court had ruled on his timely posttrial motion.^[1] On remand, a new trial judge denied that motion.

¶ 4 Defendant now brings this second appeal, arguing that: (1) his warrantless arrest at his home lacked sufficient probable cause; and (2) even assuming his arrest was lawful, Illinois' prohibitions on handgun possession by those under the age of 21 pursuant to the AUUW statute and the FOID statute are unconstitutional pursuant to the recently issued United States Supreme Court case of New York State Rifle &Pistol Ass 'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). For the reasons that follow, we reverse defendant's conviction.

¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 6 On December 20, 2013, defendant was arrested by four plain-clothed police officers at his home at 1832 West 22nd Place in Chicago, Illinois, after officers, travelling in an unmarked police vehicle, observed him with an open Corona bottle on a public sidewalk. After officers announced their office, defendant retreated behind the gated fence separating his residence from the sidewalk. Officers entered the property by opening the gate and following him up the front steps. Upon a search of his person, a handgun was recovered from his jacket pocket.

¶ 7 On January 21, 2014, defendant was charged with four counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. Count I alleged that defendant had possessed a firearm at his home without a valid FOID card (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (3)(C) (West 2012)). Count II alleged that he had possessed a firearm under the age of 21 years old (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (3)(I) (West 2012)). Counts III and IV mirrored counts I and II, with the additional caveat that defendant's firearm possession had also occurred on public land (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(2) (3)(C), 24-1.6(a)(2), (3)(I) (West 2012)). The State dismissed counts III and IV by nolle prosequi and proceeded to trial on counts I and II.

¶ 8 Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to quash and suppress any physical evidence or statements obtained after his arrest. Therein, defendant argued that his arrest was made without a valid search or arrest warrant, and that his arrest was unjustified under either a probable cause or reasonable suspicion standard. We recite the relevant testimony adduced from both the suppression hearing and at trial below.^[2]

¶ 9 A. Suppression Hearing

¶ 10 1. Kendall Hanen

¶ 11 On direct examination by defense counsel, Hanen testified that she was the defendant's ex-girlfriend and that the couple had broken up about two years prior. She was currently twenty years old and lived in Lombard, Illinois. Hanen was a student at Chamberlain College of Nursing, and also worked at Lexington Healthcare as a "PCT." On the day of defendant's arrest, Hanen and defendant had still been in a relationship and she had observed his encounter with police. Hanen was shown a photograph of defendant's home, located at 1832 West 22nd Place, and confirmed it as an accurate depiction of his home during daytime hours.

¶ 12 On December 20, 2013, at or around 11:45 p.m., Hanen and defendant had been outside the home with Elicio Solano^[3] and Marco. Hanen did not know Marco's last name. Hanen initially testified that all four had been sitting on the stairs of the front porch, but later testified that Marco had been sitting a "stair above" them while Solano stood outside the gate surrounding the property. Solano had arrived at the home about 30 minutes prior to the arrest, and Hanen did not recall if he had been drinking alcohol. Hanen denied that either Solano or defendant had been holding any items in their hands, and further denied that defendant had any visible "bulges," "protrusions," or a gun sticking out of his waistband. However, he had been wearing a large winter jacket.

¶ 13 Hanen testified that an unmarked police car drove in front of the house, and that four officers "immediately" exited the vehicle. She described the officers as wearing jeans, black shirts, and vests. She was unsure of what kind of car they were driving, but knew it was a smaller sedan. The four officers ran towards the gate, and Solano walked inside the property and attempted to lock the gate. One officer ran towards the gate, put his hand inside of it, and opened it. The officers then ran towards or up the stairs where the others were still seated. Initially, the officers did not say much to Hanen, but "grabbed" the other three. Hanen further testified that one officer immediately ran toward defendant and grabbed him from his position on the stairs, and then brought him outside the gate to the sidewalk. Once the officer searched defendant, he found a gun and recovered it from defendant's pocket. Hanen stood up and moved towards the front door, and an officer subsequently told her to "get out of the way" and then grabbed her.

¶ 14 On cross-examination by the State, Hanen testified as follows. She and defendant had dated for about nine months. Hanen denied having any knowledge that defendant had a gun in his pocket. When asked if any of the four had beers with them that night, she responded, "not that I remember, no." When asked if she had any difficulty recalling the events of that night, she responded, "no, I wouldn't say that," and said she could remember "everything in detail."

¶ 15 Hanen testified that, at the time of the arrest, it was about midnight and was cold outside. The streets were lit and defendant's home also had lights on in front of the property, so "everyone could see each other." Hanen reiterated that the four had been hanging out and talking amongst themselves on the steps for about 30 minutes. However, she also testified that Solano had been standing out in front of the property that night. Because the street had been well lit, Hanen had also been able to see the police when they exited their vehicle, but did not recognize them as police until they were in front of the home. She denied that the vehicle had been an unmarked Ford Explorer. When asked if she was "positive" that it had been a sedan, she responded, "I can't think of the exact name of the car, but I believe[d] it to be a Grand Victorian or something like that." ¶ 16 Hanen denied that everyone had attempted to go inside the house once the police left their vehicle, but then stated that Marco had attempted to go inside while defendant remained sitting. Solano went inside the gate but did not go inside the property and tried to shut the gate door. Hanen denied that defendant ever tried to move away or get up from his position on the stairs. She only rose from her own position to remove herself from harm once officers began running up the stairs. She had been able to observe the officer's search of defendant, which included a search of defendant's right front jacket pocket, from which he recovered a handgun. She further testified that, prior to the officer touching any part of defendant's jacket from the outside, the officer "immediately" opened the jacket to search inside the coat.

¶ 17 On redirect examination, Hanen reiterated that defendant had not left the property while they had been together, and only did so when the police removed him from his position.

¶ 18 At the close of Hanen's testimony, defendant motioned for a directed finding. The motion was denied.

¶...