People v. Randall

2022 IL App (1st) 210846

217 N.E.3d 228

466 Ill.Dec. 401

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

v.Keon RANDALL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-21-0846

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.

Filed September 8, 2022

James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Yasaman Hannah Navai, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham, Noah Montague, and Erin K. Slattery, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

PRESIDING JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant, Keon Randall, appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and that the State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶ 2 For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Defendant was charged by information with one count of armed habitual criminal ( 720 ILCS 5/24-1.7(a) (West 2020)), three counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (id. § 24-1.1(a)), and two counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (id. § 24-1.6(a)(1)). The charges stemmed from a traffic stop wherein a firearm was located under the passenger seat of the vehicle that defendant was driving.

¶ 5 Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence. Defendant argued that the search of his vehicle was not a valid search incident to arrest as he had not been arrested when the search was conducted. Defendant also argued that there was no "independent probable cause" to support the warrantless search. At the hearing on the motion, the following evidence was adduced.

¶ 6 Chicago police officer Camelia Clark testified that she was patrolling with her partner, Officer Demetrius Prothro, in an unmarked police car around 7:15 p.m. on June 21, 2020. Officer Clark observed a green Toyota automobile with a missing front license plate. Defendant was the driver of the green Toyota. Officer Clark and her partner were traveling in the opposite direction of defendant, so Officer Prothro made a U-turn. Defendant's vehicle then entered an intersection while the light was red, impeding traffic from proceeding through the intersection.

¶ 7 Officer Clark testified that she could see through defendant's rear window and saw a driver and front-seat passenger in the vehicle. Officer Clark saw defendant make furtive movements toward the front passenger seat as if he was trying to conceal something. Officer Clark admitted that she could not see defendant's hands, what he was touching, or whether he was moving anything. Officer Clark made these observations from "50 feet or less" away. Defendant's vehicle then drove through the red light and the officers activated their lights and siren.

¶ 8 As defendant stopped, his vehicle "jumped the curb." Officer Clark then approached the passenger side, and Officer Prothro approached the driver side. Defendant was asked to exit and, as he did so, the vehicle began to move forward because defendant did not put it into park. Both defendant and passenger Jada Dalton exited the vehicle and were escorted to the area behind defendant's vehicle. Officer Clark described defendant as nervous as he was interacting with Officer Prothro.

¶ 9 Officer Clark then searched the vehicle starting with the passenger side because that is where she saw defendant making furtive movements towards Officer Clark completed the initial search of the vehicle without finding anything. Officer Clark returned to the patrol vehicle to run defendant's name. Officer Clark learned that defendant was "not in compliance with registration." Officer Clark also asked Dalton if there were any weapons in the car, and Dalton hesitated, responding, "Ah, I don't think so."

¶ 10 Officer Clark then returned to search the car for weapons because it was important to secure the car. Officer Clark, now using a flashlight, found a firearm under the front passenger seat. The firearm was a loaded .40-caliber Glock.

¶ 11 The defense admitted a video of Officer Clark's body camera from the stop. The video in large part corroborated Officer Clark's testimony. The video shows that defendant's front passenger tire goes onto the curb as he stops his vehicle. Defendant's car moved slightly forward as he started to exit the vehicle, and then defendant placed the vehicle in park. Defendant was immediately asked to exit the car. Defendant was frisked and placed into handcuffs within seconds of getting out of the car. Both defendant and Dalton were then taken to the rear of the vehicle, near the patrol car, where Dalton was also frisked.

¶ 12 Officer Clark then searched the vehicle. Officer Clark started with the passenger side. Officer Clark opened both the middle console and the glove compartment. Officer Clark then looked through Dalton's clutch purse, which was laying on the front passenger seat. Officer Clark searched under the front passenger seat. Officer Clark popped out the automatic window control module and searched inside the door panel. Officer Clark then proceeded to the driver's side, where she performed all of the same searches as on the passenger side. Officer Clark then entered the back seat area, where she searched the floorboard. Officer Clark also attempted to pull the back seat up. Officer Clark searched a shoe box in the back seat. This initial search turned up no contraband.

¶ 13 Officer Clark then returned to the squad car with defendant's state identification to run defendant's name. Officer Clark was informed through dispatch that defendant's identification was expired. Defendant was also not compliant with registration that is required due to his status as a convicted gun felon.

¶ 14 Officer Clark then ran Dalton's name through the computer. A discussion ensued between Officer Clark and Dalton about whether Dalton is "concealed carry" and whether Dalton had a firearm. Dalton was unsure about her concealed carry status, but she stated that she did not have a weapon on her at the time. Officer Clark then asked whether there was a weapon in the vehicle to which Dalton appeared to hesitate before responding "no." Officer Clark asked Dalton why she had to think about it. Dalton then asked defendant whether he had a weapon in the vehicle, and defendant shook his head no.

¶ 15 Officer Clark retrieved her flashlight and stated that she wanted to check one more thing. Officer Clark returned to the driver's side of the vehicle and opened the trunk by pulling the lever near the driver's seat. Officer Clark searched the trunk area and the area where the spare tire is kept. Officer Clark also looked through two bags in the trunk. Officer Clark then searched the front passenger area again, this time finding a firearm under the passenger seat. Officer Clark secured the weapon by removing the magazine, clearing the weapon, and placing the weapon in the back of the patrol car.

¶ 16 The defense rested, and the State rested without presenting any evidence.

¶ 17 The defense argued that the search was not justified pursuant to Arizona v. Gant , 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), because neither defendant nor Dalton were within reaching distance of the passenger area when the search occurred. Trial counsel continued that the bases for the stop, a missing front license plate and obstructing the intersection, were both unrelated to a search for a firearm in that area of the vehicle. Trial counsel concluded that there was "nothing here to justify the retrieval of the gun."

¶ 18 The State pointed to the following facts to argue that probable cause existed to search the vehicle for a firearm: defendant's furtive movements toward the front passenger seat, defendant's "nervous" and "suspicious" behavior in jumping the curb and attempting to exit the vehicle while it was not in park, defendant's lack of a driver's license and his status as a gun offender, and Dalton's evasive answers about whether there was a weapon in the vehicle.

¶ 19 The trial court found Officer Clark's initial "thorough" search of the vehicle illegal. The trial court downplayed the evidence of nervousness when it stated that "nervousness" might be a "normal reaction for an abnormal situation" when an individual is stopped by the police and asked to exit their vehicle. As to the furtive movements, the trial court pointed out that no one could see what was happening at the bottom of the front passenger seat. The trial court stated that "common sense tells us" that all Officer Clark could say is that she saw defendant make a movement toward the lower quadrant of the passenger seat. Based on these facts, and that the stop was for a minor traffic violation, the trial court concluded that probable cause did not support the initial search.

¶ 20 The trial court held that the second search was supported by probable cause. The trial court noted Officer Clark's discovery that defendant violated the city ordinance¹ of failing to register after having a prior conviction for a firearm offense. The trial court then continued that "loading back up all the reasonable facts, one, the nervousness; two, the move over by the passenger side," there was probable cause to search for a weapon. The trial court denied the motion to suppress.

¶ 21 Prior to trial, the State nol-prossed all but count II, which charged the offense of unlawful use or possession of a weapon by a felon in violation of section of 24-1.1(a) of the Criminal Code of 2012 ( 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2020)), in that defendant knowingly possessed a firearm on or about his person after having previously been convicted of the felony offense of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. The parties agreed that portions of the body camera would be played without audio due to the "rules of evidence," such as the rule against hearsay. The trial court also granted the State's motio...