People v. McKee

1

2024 IL App (2d) 230298-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. QUINTON MCKEE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2-23-0298

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Second District

September 16, 2024

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

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kendall County. No. 20-CF-352 20-CM-499, 20-TR- 4480-81 Honorable Robert P. Pilmer, Judge Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Schostok and Mullen concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

McLAREN PRESIDING JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence and defense counsel at trial was not ineffective.

¶ 2 Defendant, Quinton McKee, appeals from the trial court's granting the State's motion for a directed finding on his motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. On appeal, defendant claims (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence (2) his counsel was ineffective for failing to argue in his motion to suppress evidence that the odor of cannabis was insufficient to establish probable cause to search defendant. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The State charged defendant with several offenses related to a traffic stop that occurred on December 6, 2020. Before trial, on March 22, 2023, defendant moved the trial court to quash his arrest and suppress evidence, arguing the arresting officer lacked probable cause to stop him for speeding and a seat belt violation. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on May 2, 2023. During the hearing, the trial court heard testimony from the arresting officer, Andrew Santa, and viewed video recordings of the traffic stop and arrest. The trial court denied defendant's motion and granted the State's motion for a directed finding that the arresting officer had probable cause to search the defendant and his vehicle. Defendant filed a timely appeal.

¶ 5 During the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, Sergeant Andrew Santa, an Oswego police officer, testified that he was assigned general patrol duties on December 6, 2020. While on patrol, he noticed a silver Mazda automobile he believed was traveling faster than the posted speed limit. Using pacing with both his patrol vehicle's speedometer and global positioning system (GPS) built into the in-car video system, Santa estimated the vehicle was traveling 58-59 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour zone. He also observed defendant driving while not wearing a seat belt. Santa turned on his emergency lights and defendant pulled over on North Merchants Drive, near the entrance to a McDonalds restaurant.

¶ 6 Santa testified he approached the vehicle and began a conversation with the driver, defendant. He introduced himself and explained why he had pulled over defendant. While the defendant claimed he had just taken off his seat belt, he did acknowledge he was going over the speed limit.

¶ 7 Santa testified that during the conversation he noticed the vehicle "had a pretty strong smell of fresh cannabis coming from the passenger compartment." Learning defendant's drivers' license had been suspended, Santa told defendant to exit his vehicle to be searched. When Santa asked if defendant had anything on him that could harm Santa, defendant revealed he was carrying a handgun. Santa handcuffed defendant and removed the weapon. Defendant admitted he did not have a Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card.

¶ 8 Officers placed defendant under arrest and into the back of the patrol vehicle. A female officer searched the female passenger from defendant's vehicle. The passenger was also arrested when it was discovered she had an outstanding warrant. Officers searched defendant's vehicle and discovered 45 grams of cannabis and four oxycontin pills in the center console. The vehicle was towed from the roadway.

¶ 9 Santa testified his patrol vehicle was manufactured in 2019 and purchased by the department in May 2020. He had been the only driver of the patrol car since it was delivered. It came installed with a WatchGuard video system with a built-in GPS-based speedometer. On cross-examination, Santa testified the two systems had not been recalibrated, but that both agreed on the speed of defendant's vehicle. On redirect, he described using the speed indicated on both systems to "correlate" the speed of the vehicle.

¶ 10 Following Santa's testimony, the State moved for a directed finding, arguing that defendant failed to make a prima facie case to support his motion to suppress.

¶ 11 The trial court found Santa credible regarding the speed of defendant's vehicle. While the trial court initially misstated the burden of proof, it clarified that it viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant. The trial court found defendant had not met his burden, granted the State's motion for a directed finding, and denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence and quash his arrest.

¶ 12 Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of unlawful possession of weapon by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2022)), aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1)(3)(C) (West 2022)), unlawful possession of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 2022)), driving on a suspended license (625 ILCS 5/6-303 (West 2022)), and unlawful transportation of cannabis by a driver (625 ILCS 5/11-502.15 (West 2022)). The court merged defendant's convictions of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, and sentenced defendant to two years' imprisonment. The court also sentenced defendant to one year of imprisonment for his conviction of possession of a controlled substance, to be served concurrently. The court imposed fines and costs for defendant's convictions of driving on a suspended license and the unlawful transportation of cannabis.

¶ 13 Defendant petitioned for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. In the motion, defendant's trial counsel argued that Santa lacked probable cause to stop defendant and that the trial court had erred in granting the directed finding. The trial court denied the motion following a hearing. This timely appeal followed.

¶ 14 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 15 On appeal, defendant raises two issues. First, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion. Second, in the alternative, defendant argues his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to allege the smell of cannabis alone was insufficient to establish probable cause to search defendant.

¶ 16 A. Probable Cause for Traffic Stop

¶ 17 Defendant claims the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence because Officer Santa lacked probable cause for stopping him for speeding and a seatbelt violation. The trial court heard the officer testify and watched the video from the traffic stop and arrest. The video includes audio of defendant stating he "probably was going a little fast." In reviewing the evidence, the trial court found Officer Santa credible regarding his testimony that defendant was exceeding the posted speed limit. Upon our review, we cannot conclude that this finding was unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented during the hearing.

¶ 18 The defendant bears the burden of proof during a hearing on their motion to suppress evidence. People v. Mueller, 2021 IL App (2d) 190868, ¶ 31. "In order to carry that burden, a defendant must make a prima facie case that the evidence at issue was obtained by or through an illegal search or seizure." Id. "If a defendant makes a prima facie case, the State has the burden of going forward with evidence to counter the defendant's prima facie case." People v. Gipson, 203 Ill.2d 298, 307 (2003). The burden of proof ultimately remains with the defendant. Mueller, 2021 IL App (2d) 190868, ¶ 31. The findings of the trial court will be overturned if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Relwani, 2019 IL 123385, ¶ 18. A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or if the finding is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. Id.

¶ 19 A temporary detention of a motorist during a traffic stop by the police invokes the "seizure" of "persons" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. U.S. Const., amend. IV; Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-810 (1996). Traffic stops are permitted when it is not "unreasonable." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, Whren, 517 U.S. at 810. A traffic stop by a police officer is reasonable when the officer has a reasonable suspicion the motorist violated a traffic law. Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 397 (2014); People v. Sims, 2022 IL App (2d) 200391, ¶ 73. While a mere "hunch" is insufficient, "the level of suspicion the standard requires is 'considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence,' and 'obviously less' than is necessary for probable cause." Navarette, 572 U.S. at 397; see also United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989). The subjective beliefs of the police officer are "largely irrelevant to the probable cause inquiry." United States v. Garcia-Garcia, 633 F.3d 608, 612-613 (2011).

¶ 20 Defendant cites several cases which support that a conviction for speeding requires sufficient proof to the accuracy of radar devices, stopwatches, and speedometers. People v. Hiller, 23 Ill.App.3d 66, 67-68 (1974); People v. Wilson, 97 Ill.App.3d 505, 506-07 (1981); Village of Schaumburg v. Pedersen, 60 IIl. App. 3d 630, 632 (1978). As the State correctly notes, the immediate matter involves probable...