FIFTH DIVISION June 11, 2010

No. 1-08- 2607

THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) Co o k C o un t y.

) v. ) No. 07 CR 13501 ) VONDRAE EDWARD ) T he Ho no r ab le (a/k/a Edwa

rd Vondrae) , ) Joseph M. Claps, ) Judge Presidin

g. De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. )

PR ESIDI NG JU STI CETO OMIN

de li v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: In th i s ca se we deter

m i ne , inter al

ia , whether a def

endan t who has been

la wful ly sei zed, ha s a r ea so nable ex pe ct at io n o f pr iva cy in t he co nt en t s o f a c it y-o wn ed ga r ba ge ca n in h is po sses sion. Fo llowing a be nch t rial, d efenda nt , V ond ra e E dwa rd , w as c onvict ed o f burg lary and sent ence d t o s ix years’ impr isonment . H e ap pea ls co nt ending: (1 ) t he t rial co ur t er re d by faili ng to quash h

is arrest and suppress the ev ide nce contai

ned i n the garba

ge can h e possessed; and (2) t he ev ide nc e w as insu fficie nt t o su pp o rt his c o nvic t io n. Fo rt he r ea so ns t ha t fo llo w, we affir m.1-08-2607

1 The ca ption u til ized b y the parties i

dentifi es def enda nt as “ Vondrae Edward a/k/a Edward Vondrae. The Ill in ois Departm

ent of Corrections i

dentif ie s hi m as “Edward Vondrae.” Defe ndan t’s signature on the jury

wai ver i n the presen

t case refl ects hi s nam

e as “Edwards Vo nd r ay. ” W he n t he co nfu sio n o ve rhis n ame ar o se at t r ial, de fen se co un se l t o ld t he co ur t his client’ s name w as “Vo ndr ae E dwa rd s.” The t rial co ur t , o n its o wn mot ion, t hen co rr ect ed t he indict ment, char ging “E dwa rd Vo ndr ae, ” t o r eflect char ges aga inst “V ond ra e E dwa rd s,” and i nc l udi ng a n “al so kn

own a s” desi

gna tion
. 2 BACK GROUND 1 Defend ant was char ged by indictment wit h t he bur glar y of A.C . B allers, a r et ail sto re , a nd t heft of p er so nal pr op er t y belonging t o t he o wner . P rio r t o t rial, d efenda nt moved t o s upp re ss t he
ev ide nc e s eiz ed co nt emp o r an eo us ly wit h his wa rr an t les s a rr es t , alle ge dly ma de wit ho ut pr o bable
cau se. No t ably, t he o nly i nfor matio n co nt ained in t he mot ion r elat ive to defend ant ’s ca se w as t he da te a n d l oca ti on of h i s a rre st. The rem

ai n i n g al l eg ati

on s of th e m otion con siste d of b oil er pl ate langua ge a nd o ffer litt le insight int o t he fact ual bas is unde rlying defend ant ’s mot ion. At t he he ar ing o n t he su pp r es sio n mo t io n, Offic er Sa lga do t es t ified t ha t du r ing t he ea r ly
mor ning ho ur s o f June 1 5, 200 7, he wa s o n ro ut ine pat ro l with his pa rt ner , O ffi cer Ot er o, in a
ma rked squad car. At about 2:30 a.m., they were i n the v ic in ity of 16th Street and Sout h Pulaski Ro ad in Ch ica go . T he o ffice r s w er e d r iving do wn Ha r din g S t r ee t , o ne blo ck ea st o f Pu las ki, when they observed def

endan t walki ng on the east si

dewal k with two men . Defen

dant and a m

an nam ed Joseph El

li s each h ad a han d on a Ci ty of Ch ic ago garbage can an

d were pull

in g it down the sidewal

k. Salgado descri

bed that bl

ock of Hardin

g as a resi dentia l s treet . The off

ic ers had1-08-2607

3

no t r ec eiv ed an y ca lls c o nc er ning t he ft s o rbu r gla r ies no rha d t he y hea r d a ny ala rms s o un din g in the area. Th e of f i cer ex pl ai ne d, “ Ju st b as ed

on m y trai ni ng , I s eethreei

nd i vi dua l s pul li ng [a] Ci ty of Chicag o g ar bage can, I t hou ght it w as su spicio us s o w e st op ped , e xited t he vehicle. We approac he d to conduct a f

i eld i nterv i ew.” O f f i cer Sa l gado ca l l ed de f endan t over to the s quad

car. In response, the three m

en separated an

d “pretended l

ike they didn ’t know each other.” The m en bega n t o w alk aw ay. I n t ur n, O ffi cer Salg ado called t o d efenda nt aga in in a loud er voice , a sking h i m to ap proach th e v eh i cl e. A s S al gado b eg an

to wa l k toward th

e th re e m en, they com pl i ed wi th t he r equ est and a ppr oa ched t he o ffi cer s. I nitially, he ask ed w hat t hey wer e do ing but re ceived no response be cause “

they were arguin

g that t hey

didn ’t know each other.” The m en were then t ak en t o Offic er Sa lga do ’s ve hic le, wh er e S alg ad o “d et ain ed ” t he m up ag ain st t he ve hic le a s his par t ner chec ked t he co nt ent s o f the gar bage can. Salg ado t est ifi ed t hat he did no t have a war ra nt for defendant’s arrest and did not see him violating any

laws. Upon in spection of

the garbage can, Off

ic er Otero dis covered clot hi ng, wi th retail tags affixed. T he o ffi

cer s ca lled for assist ance and w er e joined by Ser gea nt Gr aff. Aft er being appri sed of the si tuati on, the

serg ean t recal l ed that a cl

othi ng s tore had rece ntl y opened n earb y . Gr aff p r o ce ed ed t o t ha t lo ca t io n a nd ch ec ke d t he pr emis es . I n d o ing so , he dis co ve r ed a h o le above the rear door o f the sto re, suggestin g a forced en

try. Off ic ers Salgado and Otero t hen
co nduc t ed p ro t ect ive pat -d ow ns o f defend ant and t he o t her t wo men and t ra nspo rt ed t hem to t he sto re , loca

ted approx i mate l y on e b l ock

we st a t 15 52 Sou

th Pul aski . Th

e m en weren ot f

re e to le ave wh il e the off ic ers i nve stigated the source of the cl ot hi ng. Thereaf

ter, t he owner of the s

to re,1-08-2607

4

Charl es Cole ma n, arriv ed on the scen

e. He ide ntif ie d the item

s recovered f

rom the garbage c an as cl othi n g s old i n h i s store . In

tur n , the m en werepl ac ed un der a rre st, se pa ra ted , a n d r em ov ed to the police station f

or pro cessi

ng. On questionin

g by the trial court , the offi

cer expl ai ned h ow he knew the rolli

ng can bel onged to t he Ci

ty: “It’s a b

rown garbage can

every body h as beh in d their h ouse, the one that [has ] the w

h ee l s wi th th e b row n l i d, s eri al n um b er wi th th e C i ty of Ch i ca go w ri tten on i t, p rop er ty of. ” Mo re ove r, it w as c ons iste nt wit h t he o t her cans in the a re a and t hos e dist ribut ed by t he Depa rtme nt of Streets a nd S an i tation . Al though the c an contai ne d a s erial

num ber, the of

f i cers were u na bl e to d eterm

i ne i ts p rec i se origi n. A ddi ti ona l l y , ef f orts to c onta

ct Streets a

nd San i tation were unav

ai li ng. Afte r he ar ing ar gument , t he t rial co ur t det er mined t hat given t he circ umst ance s, t he officer s we re just ifi

ed in st op ping t he men, “If for no o t her re aso n t han co mmunity car e- t aking responsi bi li ty of the pol

ic e. It’s to tall

y reas onabl

e for them

to stop and ask what was goin g on.” Mo re ove r, t he co ur t fou nd t he de fendant and his a sso ciat es lack ed s t anding t o c ont est t he off ic er’s i nspection of the contents of the can . The j udge reasoned, “People put things in garbage
ca ns , re l i nq ui sh the i r pos se ss i on. Be ca

us e they are goi ng to the ci ty an d s tree ts a nd sa ni tati on [ sic ] and ul

tim ately to the garbage dum

p, so it’s reasonab le

for the poli

ce to st op and i

nve stigate.” Furtherm ore, o n di scoveri

ng the i tems, whi ch appeared b

rand new and still had the tags attached to the m , th e c ourt f

oun d that the p ol i ceac ted

reason ab l y i n d etai ni ng the men “ f or a s hor t period of tim e to det ermi

ne wh ether a crim

e has b een com

mi tt ed.” Lastly

, the court observed that pr oba ble cau se t o a rr est exist ed o nce a link was e st ablished be t wee n t he clo t hing in the can a nd1-08-2607

5

the forced entry

to the store. Theref

ore, t rial court deni

ed the m ot ion a nd the m atter proceeded t o a b en ch t r ial. Of f i cer Sa l gado’ s tri al

testi mony m i rrored wh at he had rel ated on the m otion to suppre ss. Addit ionally, Sa lgado ack now ledge d t hat his rep or t did no t indicat e t he men disp er sed when t he off i cers approac he d. A ccordi

ng to Sal gado, n o burg l ary

tools were re cove

red f rom d ef endan t. Th e of f i cers f oun d m ore th an 12 “ ne w c l othi ng i tem s, s hi rts, j ea ns , sh orts, pl asti c w rap pi ng on so me of t he clo t hes w ith t ags , r et ails ta gs o n t hem.” Afte r no t ing t he se rial number on t he ca n, the y pl ac ed the cl othi ng i nto th ei r s qua d c ar. Th e c an

i tse l f wa s l ef t ad j ac en t to the si dewal k on Hardin g because of the “m

aggots and ot her types

of bugs ” i

nsi de the receptacle. Salg ado furt her t est ifi

ed t hat t he o wner of A. C. Ballers , Mr . C oleman, was not ifi ed o f the i nc i dent a nd ca me to the s tore. Sal

gado i nd i ca ted tha t i t appe are d “ som

eb ody kicked the wood that wa s ab ove the door.” Pri or to encoun

teri ng d ef endan t and the othe r two me n, the of f i cers had not rec eiv

ed any calls regarding a burglary in pro gress. Likewis e, when they arriv ed at A.C. Ballers , no alarm wa s so unding . Ac co rd ing t o S algad o, an evide nce t echnician w as c alled t o t he
sce ne . Howev

er, he di d not kn ow whethe

r an y pri nts were, i

n f act, rec overe d. Detective K

evi n Carn ey , a 22 yea

r veteran of the Ch

ic ago polic e departmen

t, t estif ie d that he wa s a ss ig ne d t o inv es t ig at e t he alle ge d b ur gl ar y o f t he A. C. Ba ller s r et ail s t o r e. Ca rne y, accompan ie d by hi s partners, Detectives Xanos and Lopez, intervi ewed def endan t in a l ockup at the 10t h di strict po li

ce stat ion. Af

ter being advised of hi s Miranda war nings and ack now ledging hi s understandi

ng, def endan t chose to ma

ke a statemen

t, which lasted 20 to 30 mi

nutes. Carney had prev i ousl y spoken to the other two m en accuse d of

the b urgl ary .1-08-2607

6

Defendan t did not sign a waiv

er of his Miranda righ

ts a nd hi s state men

t wa s n ot memor ialized by aud iot ape , vide ot ape , c ou rt re po rt er , o r ha ndwr itt en st at ement . D et ect ive Ca rney cl ai med h e too k n

otes du ri n g th e c on v er sa ti on . W h en aske d if th ose n otes weregi v en to the prosecu

tor, Carney

ex plai ne d, “Wh at we do, we

com plete a f i l e an d the f i l e i s held i

n A rea 4. A nd l ater th e p ros ecutor woul d ge t tha t f i l e.” W he n h e w assh own a h an dw ri tten su m mary of defendan t’s stat emen

t, Carney den

ied that he prepared it. However, Carney s tat ed, “Any

notes I do wo uld be o n a ge ne r al o ffen se pr o gr es s no t e. T ha t r ep o rt is p ut in afile, an d t ha t r ep o rt is stayed [sic ] or kept in

Area 4.” Def

ense couns el

then ass erted t hat no such n ot es were tendered in response to t he m

ot ion f or discovery . The trial

court in structed t he parties

to resolve that
ma tt er bef ore t he n ext court date. Accordin g to Carney

, defen dant cl ai me d he di d not enter t he store. Defenda nt expl ai ned t ha t E llis fo r ce d o pe n t he ho le a bo ve t he do o r , wh ich wa s p r ev io us ly co ve r ed by a b o ar d. E llis and “ Rockmore” entered the store whil e defe ndan t waited outside. Def

endan t’s associ ates gr abbed clot hing fro m insi de t he st or e and t hre w t he ite ms to defend ant t hro ugh t he ho le abo ve the door . The m

en then put t he cl

ot hes i nto t he garba

ge can. They

pla nne d to sel

l the s to le n me rchandi se f or money . Accordin

g to Detective Ca

rney, the plan

to rob the stor e was concei ved earli er that eveni

ng when the group met ne ar 16th and Kom ensky. Carney

was aware that an evidence technici

an was sent to the scene. How ever, he and his partners did not request fi ngerpri ntin g and h e di d not know whether the scene was processed. Char les Co leman te st ifi

ed t hat he is t he o wner of A. C. Ballers clot hing st or e. Dur ing t he
ea r ly mo rning ho ur s o f Ju ne 15 , 20 07 , he r ec eiv ed a c all fr o m t he po lice
. I n t ur n, he we nt t o his1-08-2607

7

st or e and inspec t ed t he pr emises. He no t iced t hat so meone had “k noc ked a ho le thr ou gh t he wall” abo ve t he st or e’s r ear do or . I nside t he st or e, he o bser ved t he da mage t o t he dr ywall above t he do or . Whe n ask ed t o view t he clo t hing in the t ru nk o f a po lice car , C oleman ide nt ifi ed t he i tem s as be l ongi ng to h i s store. H e f

urthe r des cri be d where the i

tem s we re l ocated i n h i s store befo re t hey wer e t ake n. While t he st or e wa s eq uipp ed w ith a bu rg lar alar m, it may have
ma lf unctione d, as it di

d not wor k from

tim e-to -tim e. Fol l owi ng th e cl ose of the State ’scas e, the

j udge i nqu i red about resol

vi ng th e discovery issue br ou ght ou t dur ing Det ect ive Car ney’s t est imony. Acc or ding t o t he pr os ecu t or , t he detective contacted Area 4, but was un abl e to locate t hei

r case f il e. The prosecuto r further stated t hat ever ything in t he St at e’s p os sess ion wa s t ende re d t o t he de fense. In a n effor t t o r eso lve the si tuation, the detect iv

e was brought back to the stand. On questionin g by the trial judge , Detectiv e Ca rne y stated, “ At the tim e I thoug ht I di d wri te - - I kn ow I did wri

te som e GPR ’s . I thought I did write som

e GPR’s regardi

ng the i nterview.” However, he ha d not seen them

si nce that ti me. Con seq

uen tly , the tri al court ordered

hi m to return to Are a 4 an

d se arch f or hi s n otes. Fo l l owi n g a con ti n ua n ce , the pros ecutor

i n f orm ed th e c our t th at D ete cti

v e C ar n ey wa s u n ab l e to locate any addi tional notes. The Stat e then rested. Defe ndan t’s motion f

or directed fi

ndi ng was den

ie d. Thereafter, the def

ense rested wi thou t of f eri ng an y ev i denc e. F ol l owi

ng cl osi ng arg um en t, de f en da nt wasf oun d gu i l ty of bur glar y. Ho weve r, in the a bsenc e o f pro of o f the value o f mercha ndise, he wa s ac quit t ed o f the theft charge. Defendant was then sentenced to six years’ i mpri sonment. He now appeals. Defendan t frames hi

s clai m of error co ncerni

ng his motion to suppress as foll ows:1-08-2607

8

“W here the police stopped [defendan t] without reaso nab le

suspici on, an d then im me dia tely detai ne d a

nd se arc he d h i m an d h i s c onta i ne r wi thou t ha vi ng f ea r of danger and wi thout probable cause, the evi dence obtai

ned as a r es ult of thi s acti on wasi l l egal

and sh oul d ha ve be en suppress ed.” Defe ndan t mai ntain s the encounter was i

ni tiated solel

y based upon Of

fi cer Salga do’s “v ague st at ement t hat he t hou ght t he ac t ivity loo ked sus piciou s.” Mo re ove r, defend ant co nt ends t he error was compounded by hi s detention an

d the subse quent search of the garbage can, without prob ab l e c au se . Acc ordi

n g to def en da n t, the trash

ca n wa s a n ob j ect “ i n wh i ch h e h ad a l eg i ti mate ex pectati on of pri vacy .” We revi ew rul

i ngs on m otion s to suppress

i n accorda nc e wi th the two-part stan

dard
ar t iculat ed in Ornelas v. United States , 51 7 U .S. 69 0, 6 99 , 13 4 L . Ed . 2d 91 1, 9 20 , 11 6 S . C t. 1657, 1 663 (1 996), w

hereby f i ndi ngs of h i stori cal f act are vi ewed f or cl ear e rror and we af

f ord due weight t o a ny inf

er ence s dr awn t her efro m by the t rial co ur t and t he ult imate leg al ru ling concerni ng suppress ion i

s revi ewed de novo . Great deference i s af forded to factual f

in din gs whi ch wil l not be reverse d un

l ess they are c ontrary

to the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. People v. Luedemann , 22 2 Il

l . 2d 530 , 54 2, 8 57 N .E.2 d 18 7, 1 95 (200 6). “ Thi s def ere nti al sta nd ard of
re view is gr ou nded in the r eality t hat t he circ uit co ur t is in a sup er ior po sitio n t o d et er mine and
we igh t he cr ed ibilit y o f t he wit ne ss es , o bse rve t he wit ne ss es ’ d eme an o r , an d r es o lve co nflic t s in their testim

ony.” People v. Jones , 215 Ill . 2d 261, 268, 830 N.E .2d 541, 548 (2005). A f actual find ing is a ga inst t he man ifes t we igh t o f t he ev ide nc e o nly if t he o pp o sit e c o nc lus io n is c lea r ly
evi den t. People v. Beverl y , 364 Il l . Ap p. 3d 36 1, 368, 8 45 N.E.2 d 962, 9 69 (20 06).1-08-2607

9

Ne ve rt he les s, we as a r ev iew ing co ur t ar e fr ee t o as se ss t he fac t s a lo ng wit h t he iss ue s r ais ed in order to draw c oncl

usi ons w hen de term i ni ng a ppropri ate rel i ef
. Luedemann , 222 Ill . 2d at 542, 857 N .E.2d at 19 5. In t he pr ese nt cas e, defend ant co nced es t he fact s as a ddu ced at t he hea ring, wher e he st at es, “[De fendant ] a ssu mes t he t ru t h of t he t est imony of t he St at e’s w itnes s, a nd o nly quest ions whether such

testim ony s hows that the police compl ie d with the F ourt h A

me ndm ent.” Co ns eq ue nt ly, o ur r ev iew is p r o pe r ly de novo . See Ornelas , 517 U.S. at 699, 134 L. Ed. 2d at 920, 116 S. Ct. at 1663. The fou rt h amendment t o t he Unit ed S t at es Co nst itu t ion ( U. S. Co nst ., amend. IV ) a nd arti cl e I, se cti on 6 , of the Ill i noi s C ons ti tution ( Il l . Con st. 1 970 , ar

t. I, § 6) protect i

nd i vi dua l s f rom unreasonable

searches and sei zures. See People v. R osenberg , 213 Ill . 2d 69, 77, 820 N.E .2d 440 , 4 46 ( 200 4) . As o ur sup re me co ur t obs er ved in Jones :

“The central requiremen t o f the f

our th amendm

ent is reasonableness. [Ci tation .] The t ou chst one of a fou rt h amendment analysis ‘is always “t h e re aso nableness in all the cir cumst ance s o f the pa rt icu lar go ver nment al inva sio n o f a citizen’spers onal

sec uri ty.” ’ [C i tation .] In

de ed , the ‘ es se

n ti al pu rp ose ’ o f th e f our th amendment is to im

pose a standard o f reasonabl eness upon the exercise

of di screti on by government offi

cials, in cl udin g la w enf orcemen t o ff ic ers, to saf

eguard the priv

acy and se curity

of individuals ag ainst ar bitr ar y invasions. [Cit at ion. ] T o e nfor ce t he f our th am endm ent requirem

ent of reasonab le

ness , the Uni

ted St ates Supreme Court ‘has in terpret ed the Am

endm ent as establ

is hi ng rules and presum

ptions desi

gned to1-08-2607

10

con trol con duc t of l aw en f orce men t of f i ce rs th at m

ay si gn i f i ca ntl y i ntr ude upon pri vacy i ntere sts.’ [Citation.] ***
*** Wh en faced wit h spe cial law enfo rc ement need s, d imi nished e xpec t at ions of pr ivacy, minim

al intr usio ns, o r t he like , t he Co ur t ha s fo un d t ha t ce rt ain ge ne r al,
ori ndi vi dual, ci rcum stan ces may render a warran

tle ss s earch or s ei

zure r eas onabl e.’ [Ci tation .] Thus, t he reasonablen ess o f a p ar t icu lar law en fo r ce men t pr ac t ice is judge d by ba lan cin g it s p r o mo t io n o f leg it imat e g o ve rnme n ta l i n terests a gai n st i ts i ntr us i on on f our th am en dm en t i n te rests , i.e. , the in

div idua l’ s righ t t o personal
se cu ri ty f ree f rom a rbi trary i nterf eren ce b y l aw en f orcem en t off i cers . [Ci tations.]” Jones , 215 Ill . 2d at 268-69, 830 N.E.2d at 548-49. It i s wel l settl ed th at th e f acts u n derl y i n g a cl ai m of re as on ab l e s

us pi ci on n ee d n ot rise to the l ev el of probabl e ca

use and do not req

ui re an off i cer to actua

l l y wi tnes s a v i ola tion
. People v. Richardson , 376 Ill . App. 3d 612, 625, 876 N.E. 2d 303, 314 (2007). Yet , a “ Terryinvest igat ive det ention canno t be just if ied *** o n the basis of ‘unpart iculari zed susp ici

on’ o r o n a ‘hunch.’ ” People v. Gherna , 203 Ill . 2d 165, 181, 784 N.E .2d 799, 808-09 (2003), quot in g Terry v. Ohio , 392U.S . 1, 2 7, 2 0 L . Ed. 2d 8 89, 909 , 88 S. C t. 18 68, 188 3 (1 968 ). N otab l y , se cti on 1 07- 14 of the Code of Cri m i na l Proc ed ure of 196 3 pr ovi de s th at: “ A pe ac e of f i cer ** * m

ay stopan y pers on in a public plac e fo r a re aso nable pe rio d o f time whe n t he o ffi cer re aso nably inf

er s fro m the circumstances that the perso n i s comm itting, is about to commi

t o r has comm

itted an offense ***.” 725 IL CS 5/1 07-14(We st 2006 ). Mani fes tly, every in teraction between a pri

vate ci tizen and a polic e off

ic er nei ther1-08-2607

11

constitutes

nor res ul ts i n a sei zure. Luedemann , 222 Ill . 2d at 544, 857 N. E.2d at 196. Instead, “A person is seized when, by m eans of physical force o r a sho w of aut hority, t he perso n’s freedom of m ovem ent is restraine d.” People v. Cosby , 231 Ill . 2d 262, 273, 898 N.E .2d 603, 611 (2008), citin

g United Sta tes v. Men denhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553, 64 L . Ed. 2d 497, 509, 100 S. Ct . 1 870 , 1 877 (1 980 ). Info rmed pr ece dent has c re at ed a t hre e- t iered st ru ct ur e fo r e valuat ing encounter s between the po li ce and private citi

zens, as foll

ows: “(1) arrests, wh ich mu st be su ppo rt ed by pr oba ble cau se; ( 2) brief invest igat ive det ent ions , or ‘ Terr

yst o ps , ’ w hic h mu st be su pp o rt ed by a r ea so nable , ar t icu lab le
su sp i ci on of cri mi nal act ivity; and(3) en

cou nte rs tha t i nv ol ve no c oerc i on or

de ten ti on and thus do not impl

ic at e f ourt h am endm ent in terests.” Luedemann , 222 Ill . 2d at 544, 857 N.E.2d at 196. In the presen

t case, defen

dant’s argum

ent is focused on the i

ncepti on of the enc ounter bet wee n t he po lice officer s and defend ant ’s t riumver at e. The t rial co ur t det er mined t hat t he off i cers were j ustif i ed i n m aki ng th e stop, at the

very l east, by thei r rol e as com m uni ty c are-tak

ers. We pe rc eive significant ly great er just ifi cat ion t han t he t rial judg e allow ed. In d et er mini ng t he
re aso nableness of t he enc ou nt er we mus t asse ss t he t ot ality o f the circu msta nces at t he t ime of t he
even t. Here, t he i

nteraction comm

enced around 2:30 a.m ., as the offi cers observed three m

en wa lking do wn a re sid ent ial st re et . T wo o f t he t hr ee men w er e c o llabo ra t ing in t he p ulling o f a wh ee led Cit y o f Ch ica go ga r ba ge ca n d o wn t he sid ew alk
. T he sc en e is o ne t ha t wo uld o bje ct ive ly giv e rise to a suspicion suf

fi cien t t o meet t he requirem

ent of reaso nabl

eness. See 725 ILCS 5/ 10 7- 14 ( We st 20 06 )
. Offic er Sa lga do jus t ified t he de cis io n t o st o p t he men , in p ar t , up o n his1-08-2607

12

t r ain ing
. While t he o ffice rde nie d h av ing o bse rve d a ny cr iminal a ct ivit y, w e a r e n o t bo un d b y his anal ys is or det ermi

nation. Rathe

r, a revi ew of the Ch

ic ago Munici

pal Code is i nstructive :

“ It shal l be unl awf ul f or any pers on other than

a ci ty re f use coll ector or a pri v ate sc av en ge rlice ns ed by the city, to remove, displ ace, uncover, or o therwise d is t ur b, any

refuse contain er or t he contents thereof wh en pl aced on location, as provided f or in Secti on 7--2 8--230 .” Ch

i cago M uni ci pal Code §7 --28--2 80 (19 90). In the absence of any

suggestion that defendan t and his cohorts wer e “ci ty refuse
co llec t o r s” o r“p r iva t e s ca ve ng er [ s] lice nse d b y t he cit y,” t he cir cu mst an ce s w er e ma nife st ly suff ici ent to giv e rise to a r easonable s

uspici on given Off icer Salgado’s o bservations. In r eac hing t his co nclusio n, w e r eject defend ant ’s at t empt t o c har act er ize t he ci rcumstances, as they

presented themsel

ves to Salgado and Otero, as emb racin g “a v ery l arge ca teg ory of pre su mab l y i nn ocent travel

ers . In di vi dua l s of ten tran sp ort tra sh

ca ns i n th e c ours e of every day activ ities.” The i

nnocen ce of the travel

ers i s not the iss

ue. Thi s was n

ot “trash day.” In ste ad , the q

ue sti on i s w h eth er th e c i rc um sta n ce s g av e ri se to a rea son

ab l e s us pi ci on suf f i ci en t to stop defendan

t his associ ates. We concl

ude that they di

d. Defe ndan t’s contentions progress a step f urther in hi s asserti on that t he polic e officer s, e ven if the y had a r eas ona ble susp icion t o e ffect a st op , vio late d t he fo ur t h amendment by
se arch i n g th e rec ep tac l e i

n th ei r p oss es si on . Th e q ue sti on i n th i s reg ard th

usre f i n es i tse l f to whether def

endan t had a reasonabl

e expectation of

priv acy as to t he can

or its contents. See People v. Sutherland

, 223 Ill . 2d 187, 230, 860 N.E .2d 178, 210 (2006). We discern that defend ant enjoyed no s uch e xpec t at ion. The evidenc e, which wa s no t co nt ro ver t ed a nd t he1-08-2607

13

t ru t hfulness o f which has be en st ipulat ed o n app eal, clear ly esta blished t hat t he ca n was t he pro pert y of the Ci

ty of Chi cago. Section 7-- 28--21 0(a) o f the Chi cago Munici

pal Code pro vides: “(a) St an da r d r efu se co nt ain er . T he st an da r d r efu se co nt ain er r eq uir ed by t his chapter shal l b e a receptacle of

im pervious mate rial and st ur dy co nst ru ct ion, wit h a t ight fitt ing co ver , a nd sha ll be pro vided bythe departm en t of stre ets an

d sa ni tation .” Ch i cago M uni ci pal Code §7 --28--2 10(a) ( 1990)
. Here, to be

su re, ab sent a

ny proof tha t de f en da nt a nd hi s a ss oci ate s were i n th e b us i ne ss of ga rb ag e c ol l ec ti on, i

t wa s u nl aw f ul f or them to ha ve move d the c onta

i ne r f rom i ts l oca ti on or stake d an y clai m to its c onten

ts. See C hi cago M uni ci pal Code §7 --28--2 80 (19 90). Defe ndan t sim il arly cl ai ms the evi dence seized i

n thi s case sh

ould ha ve b een su pp r es se d a s “fr uit o f t he po iso no us t r ee . ” Y et , t his d o ct r ine wo uld ha ve ap plic at io n o nly if t he r e w as an illeg al s ea r ch o rse izu r e. He r e, ho we ve r , ha ving co nc lud ed t he init ial e nc o un t er fell withi n perm is si ble and consti

tut iona l boundaries

on the part o f the of

fi cers and that def

endan t had no stan di ng to obj ect to the s earch of the g arb age c an , we f

i nd th i s arg um en t una va i li ng. W here t her e wa s no po ison o r t aint inject ed int o t he enc ou nt er or t he se izur e, we fail t o p er ceive ho w t he
ev i den ce cou l d b e s o ch

aracter ize d. C on se qu en

tl y , w e f i n d th i s a rgum en t to b e of du b i ous meri t. Ha vi ng ca ref ul l y consi dered the rec ord i n th i s c as e, we f

i nd the trial cou rt di d n ot er r in its ru ling denying defend ant ’s mot ion t o s upp re ss. The fact s and circu msta nces sur ro unding th e of f i cers ’ i n i ti al ob se rvati on s g av e ri se to en ti re l y re as on ab l e c on cern s, en

ti tli n g th em i n i ti al l y to approach and then

stop t he three m

en. Moreover, the subsequen t discovery

of the cl ot hi ng i nsi de t he ga rba ge c an, co upled wit h t he invest igat ion at A.C. Ballers , e sca late d t he enc ou nt er t o t he1-08-2607

14

le vel of probabl

e cause supportin

g a ful l c ustodial arrest. Furt herm

ore, eviden

ce lawful ly sei zed by the o ffi

cer s wa s no t subjec t t o s upp re ssio n inasmuch a s no ne o f the men wer e ent itled t o a ny reasonabl e expectation of

priv acy in the contents of the receptacle in their posses sion. Therefore, the trial court did n

ot err in deny in g the motion to suppress an d the evi dence recovered was pr o pe r ly ad mit t ed at t r ial.

Ne xt, de f en da nt m ai nta i ns the ev i denc e w asi

ns uf f i ci en t to prov e h i m gui l ty of burglary . Defendant contends:

“[T ]he Stat e reli

ed on two faulty

pie ces of e vidence : ( 1) t he presum ption that [d ef en da n t] com m i tted th e b urg l ary be ca us e h e a nd two othe r men

were pull

in g a ga rb ag e c an tha t con tai ne d a rticl esof cl ot hi ng f rom the store; and (2) t he t est imony of D etecti ve Carn ey that [de f endan t] told h i m that he parti

ci pated i n the burgl

ary .” Accor dingl

y, defendant asser ts his acts d o no t p ro ve the burg lary and that Car ney’s testi m ony wasunworthy

of b el i ef
. Wh en consi derin g a chal le nge to the suff

ic ie ncy of the evi

dence, courts of review m ust con si der w h eth er , w h en v i ewi n g al l th e ev i den ce

adduce d a

t tri al i n a l i gh t m ost f av ora b l e to the Stat e, any

rational trier of f act could fi

nd proof of the ess entia

l e le me nts of the ch

arged off en se b ey ond a reas onabl e doubt. People v. De Filippo , 235 Ill . 2d 377, 384-85, 919 N. E.2d 921, 92 5 (200 9). Our tas k i s n ot to retry

def endan t. People v. Siguenz

a-Brito , 235 Ill . 2d 213, 228, 920 N.E.2d 233, 242-43 (2009). “Rather, in a ben ch trial, it i s f

or t he trial

judge , sittin

g as t he t r ier o f fac t , t o de t er mine t he cr ed ibilit y o f wit ne ss es , t o we igh ev ide nc e a nd dr aw r ea so nable in feren ces theref rom, and to resolve an

y c onfl icts in the evi dence.” Siguenz

a-Brito , 235 Ill . 2d at1-08-2607

15

228, 920 N.E.2d at 243. We wi ll not reverse a convi

ction on the b asi s of contradicto ry ev ide nce or a def endan t’s c l ai m that a wi tnes s i s n ot credi bl e. Siguenz

a-Brito , 235 Ill . 2d at 228, 920 N.E.2d at 243. In order to establ i sh the off ens e of b urglary , the State must prove the de fe ndan t:

“wi thou t au thor i ty *** kn owi ngl y en ters or wi thou t au thor i ty rem ai ns wi thi n a bu i l di ng *** or any part thereo f, wi

th intent to commi

t t herein a fel ony or theft.” 7 20 ILCS 5/19 -1(a) (West 2006). In the case sub judice , the Stat e establ is hed that defe

ndan t did not have

authority to enter or remai n i n the A .C. Ball

ers clot hi ng store thro ugh the testim ony of the store’s owner, Charle s Colem an. The State proved the entry i nto t he store by

vi rtue o f the i

nve stigati on of the prem

is es coupled wi

th the testim

ony of Colem an. The un

contro verted testim

ony of Detective Ca

rney re v ea l ed th at def en da n t ad m i tted th e en try i n to th e store

b y h i s a ss oci

ate s, wh i ch wa s s uf f i ci en t to establ i sh , at the v

ery l east, hi s ac coun

tabi li ty f or that el em en t of the off en se. Se e 720ILCS 5/5-1 (Wes t 200 6) (“A pe rso n is res po nsible for co nduc t which is an element of a n offense if the
con duc t i s e i the r that of the pers on h i m se l f , or that of

an othe r an d he is l eg al l y ac cou nta bl e f or su ch co nd uc t as pr o vid ed in se ct io n 5
- 2, o rbo t h” ) ; 7 20 I LC S 5 /5
- 2( c) ( We st 20 06 ) ( “A p er so n is legally acco unt able for t he co nduc t of a not her when: *** (c ) E ither befo re or dur ing t he
co mmi ssio n of a n offense , a nd wit h t he inte nt t o p ro mot e o r fac ili t at e su ch co mmi

ssio n, he sol i ci ts, a i ds , ab ets , ag

ree s or atte m ptsto ai d, s uc h oth er p ers on i

n th e p l an ni ng or com m i ss i on of t he o ffense”) . Fu rt her mor e, defend ant explained t o C ar ney how he st oo d o ut side a nd r ece ived t he mercha ndise a s it w as ha nded ou t of t he st or e. Ind eed , t his evidenc e pr ovid es p ro of o f the
r eq uis it e in t en t t o co mmit a fe lo ny o rt he ft wit hin t he st o r e, as we ll as de fen da nt ’s pa rt icip at io n in1-08-2607

16

t he cr ime. T ha t t he co ur t fo un d d efe nd an t no t gu ilt y o f t he t he ft co un t do es no t alt er o ur an alys is where all that is necessary to commi t t he off ense of burglary i s an i

ntent t o co mm

it the offens e and n ot the actual com

ple tion of the predi

cate offen se. See 720 ILCS 5/19-1(a) (West 2006) In su m, t he evide nce g at her ed by t he po lice fro m the s cene of t he initial st op , t he sto re, and the inter view wi th defendant was co mpell ing. The absence o f notes fro m defendant’s stat ement, while tro ublesome, is certa inl y subj ect to inn

oce nt explanation. Likewise, Carney’s inabili t y to re call fact s o f the cas e o ver a year late r d oe s no t co mpel a finding t hat his te st imony
was incred ible. Given d efenda nt ’s manner and mo de o f fl ight fro m the c rime sce ne, t he ci rcu m sta nc esof thi s c as e a re rather u

ni que . There f

ore, i t i s wi thi n th e re al m of hu man reason t hat an exp er ienced po lice officer might r emember p ar t icular fact s abo ut t he ca se w ell beyond t he end of t he day. Regar dless, t here was no evidence present ed t o co ntra dict any of the St ate ’s evi dence. Despi

te any in fi rmi ties, real or im agi ned, i n the State’s case, we f

in d the evi dence was suff ici ent to establi sh the elem

ents of the o ff

ense of burglary when

viewed in a l

igh t most fav orable to the prosecution. There was am ple proo f an d avai la ble i nf erences to sustain

the trial
cou rt’ s f i n di n g of gui l t. For the f oreg oi ng reasons, we a f

f i rm the j udg men t of the ci rcu i t cou rt of Cook Co un t y. Af

fi rmed. FITZ GERA

LD SM ITH an d LA VIN, J J., con cur.