2013 I LApp (3d) 110936 Opinion filed September 25, 2013

I N THE APPEL LATE COURT OF I L L I NOI S THI RD DI STRI CT A.D., 2013 THE PEOPL E OF THE STATE OF I L L I NOI S, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. CHEL SEA GI ROT, Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appea l from the Circuit Court of the 12th Judi cial Circuit, Wil l County , I llinois , Appea l No. 3-11-0936 Circuit No. 11-DT- 160 Honora ble J ames E. Eg an, J udg e, Presiding

. J USTI CE O' BRI EN deliver ed the judgment of the c ourt, with opinion. Presiding Justice Wright and Justi ce Mc Dade concur red in the judgment and opinion.
OP INION ¶ 1 Def

endant, Chelsea

Girot, was c harg ed with two counts of dr iving unde r the influenc e of a contr olled substance ( DUI ) (625 I L CS 5/ 11-501(a )(4) , (6) ( West 2010)). Prior to trial, defe ndant filed a

motion to s uppress, a lleg ing that the stop of her ve hicle wa s not proper. The trial court de nied the motion. The ca use proc eede d to a benc h trial wher e def endant wa s convicted of

one count of

DUI . Def

endant a ppeals, a rguing that the trial court e rre d in denying her motion to suppress. We aff irm.¶ 2 FACTS

¶ 3 On J anuar

y 26, 2011, Bolingbrook police of fice r Patrick Kinse lla initiated a traf fic stop on defe ndant' s vehicle. D uringthe stop, defe ndant appe are d nervous, c limbed on the hood of the police ca r, and r an into traff

ic. The State c harg ed def endant with two counts of dr iving unde r the influence of a c ontrolled substance (625 I L CS 5/ 11-501(a )(4) , (6) ( West 2010)). Prior to trial, defe ndant filed a

motion to s uppress e vidence , alleg ing that Kinsella did not have re asonable suspicion to make a tra ffic stop. ¶ 4 At a hea

ringon defe ndant' s motion, Kinsella testified that he was on patrol the nig ht of J anuar y 26, 2011, when he spotted defe ndant' s vehicle. Kinsella noticed a chip about the size of a dime or a

nickel in the re d plastic lens that cove red the taillight. B eca use of the c hip, the taillight was e mitti nga re d and white lig ht. Kinsella did not witness defenda nt speed or otherwise br eak the law. He initiated the traff ic stop based solely

on the white lig ht emanating from the other

wise re d taillight. ¶ 5 After

hear ing the evidenc e, the tria l court denie d defe ndant' s motion t o suppress. The

cause proce eded to a

bench tr ial wher e def

endant wa s found guilty

of one c ount of DUI

. Def endant a ppeals. ¶ 6 ANALYSI S ¶ 7 Def

endant a rgues that the trial c ourt err ed in deny ing he r motion to suppress beca use the stop of her ve hicle wa s objectively unrea sonable. We re view a tr ial court' s ruling on a motion to suppress evide nce pur suant to a two-pa rt test. People v . Absher , 242 I ll. 2d 77 (2011). Fir st, we will uphold the court' s fac tual finding s unless they are ag ainst the manifest we ight of the evidenc e. Id. Second, we assess the e stablished fac ts in relation to the issues prese nted and
2revie w the ultimate leg al question of whe ther suppre ssion is warra nted de novo

. Id. ¶ 8 In this case, e vidence established that the of fice r who stopped de fenda nt noticed that the taillight cove r on her

vehicle ha d a chip that r esulted in the taillight e mitti nga re d and white light. The trial court de termined that the white light wa s enough to permit a stop of def endant' s vehicle. We a gree with the trial court. Sec tion 12-201(b) of the I llinois Vehicle Code (Code) require s that all motor vehicles e x hibit at least two lighted ta il lamps that throw a re d light visible for at least 500 fee t in the reve rse dire ction. 625 I L CS 5/ 12-201(b) (West 2010). Importantly , section 12-212( c) of

the Code states that " Unless otherw ise expressly authorized by

this Code, all other lig hting or

combination of lig hting on a ny vehicle sha ll be prohibited." 625 I L CS 5/ 12-212 (c) (West 2010). Her e, def endant' s taillight was e mitti nga re d and white light, which is not authorized by

the Code. As a r esult, the offic er ha d rea sonable suspicion to stop defe ndant' s vehicle to investig ate a

violation of the Code. See People v . Hack ett , 2012 I L111781 (re asonable suspicion is sufficient to permit a stop). The ref ore, w e find that the stop wa s objectively

rea sonable, a

nd the trial cour

t did not err whe n it denied def endant' s motion t o suppress. ¶ 9 CONCLUSI ON ¶ 10 The judg ment of the c ircuit court of Wil l County

is affirme d. ¶ 11 Affir

med.

3