Title: People v. Ledesma
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 93628
State: Illinois
Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court
Date: June 19, 2003

Docket No. 93628-Agenda 3-March 2003.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. 
MARCELO LEDESMA et al. (Guadalupe Jose Perez et al., 								Appellants.
Opinion filed June 19, 2003.
	JUSTICE GARMAN delivered the opinion of the court:
	Following simultaneous traffic stops of two vehicles resulting
from an anonymous 911 tip and police observations based on that
tip, defendants were charged with delivery of cannabis in violation
of section 5(f) of the Cannabis Control Act (Act) (720 ILCS
550/5(f) (West 1998)) and possession of cannabis in violation of
section 4(f) of the Act (720 ILCS 550/4(f) (West 1998)). The
circuit court of Vermilion County granted a defense motion to
suppress as evidence drugs found in one of the vehicles. The
appellate court reversed (327 Ill. App. 3d 805), and we granted
leave to appeal (177 Ill. 2d R. 315). We are asked to determine
whether the evidence should have been suppressed because the
traffic stops in question were based on information obtained in
violation of state eavesdropping statutes, federal wiretapping
statutes, and constitutional protections against unreasonable
searches and seizures contained in the United States and Illinois
Constitutions. We are also asked to determine whether the police
search of one of the vehicles was conducted pursuant to the
driver's consent.

BACKGROUND
	Between 11:30 p.m. and 12 a.m. on September 18, 1998,
Tilton police officers received a radio dispatch that an anonymous
911 caller reported a "possible drug deal" was to take place in the
parking lot of an Aldi store on Georgetown Road in Tilton,
Illinois. The anonymous caller stated that he had overheard a
cellular phone conversation on his police scanner. The caller stated
that one of the vehicles involved in the transaction would be teal-colored. The officers positioned themselves in a parking lot across
the road from the Aldi store. As officers watched the Aldi parking
lot, a maroon automobile drove into the Aldi lot and then into the
parking lot of an adjacent gas station. Officers observed the
maroon vehicle pull alongside a parked teal vehicle and stop. The
headlights on both vehicles were turned off and they briefly
remained parked beside each other. The vehicles then left the gas
station parking lot simultaneously and traveled north on Illinois
Route 1, where another police vehicle was waiting. Police pulled
over the vehicles along Route 1. Marcelo Ledesma was the driver
of the teal vehicle and defendant Jose Perez was his passenger.
Richard W. Roth, Jr. was the driver of the maroon vehicle and
Jeremy A. Edwards was his passenger. After stopping Ledesma's
vehicle, police officer Steve Cornett informed Ledesma that he
had reason to believe he had engaged in drug-related activity and
asked if there were any drugs or alcohol in the vehicle. Ledesma
replied that there were none. Officer Cornett then inquired if
Ledesma had any objections to Officer Cornett "taking a look" in
the vehicle. Ledesma stated he had no objections. After indicating
his consent to the search and exiting the vehicle along with Perez,
Ledesma inquired into the purpose of the search and, in the words
of Officer Cornett, was "kind of hem-hawing around." Ledesma
did not expressly withdraw his consent to the search. Officer
Cornett's narcotics detection canine "indicated" the presence of
narcotics on Perez's legs and the vehicle doors. The canine also
indicated on the seat and a bag found on the front passenger
floorboard. Officer Cornett opened the bag and discovered what
appeared to be a substantial amount of cannabis. Tests confirmed
that the substance was marijuana weighing in excess of 2,200
grams.
	Upon stopping the vehicles, Officer David Phillips
approached the maroon vehicle and asked the driver, Roth, for a
driver's license. Roth stated that his license had been revoked and
he was immediately placed under arrest for driving with a revoked
license. While seated in the front seat of the squad car, Roth
advised Officer Phillips that his bond money was underneath the
front seat and that he wanted Edwards to get it for him. While
Officer Mike Schull reached in to get the bond from under the
seat, Officer Phillips, who was standing beside Edwards outside
the car, noticed that a large amount of cash had fallen out from
underneath the driver's seat. Police discovered $5,000 in cash
laying loose underneath the seat.
	On September 21, 1998, Ledesma, Perez, Roth, and Edwards
were charged with delivery of cannabis in violation of section 5(f)
of the Act (720 ILCS 550/5(f) (West 1998)) and possession of
cannabis in violation of section 4(f) of the Act (720 ILCS 550/4(f)
(West 1998)). Defendants moved to suppress all evidence obtained
as a result of the traffic stop. The trial court granted the motion to
suppress, holding that a Terry stop (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)) was not warranted because
there was insufficient independent corroboration of the tip and that
police had exceeded Ledesma's consent to search his vehicle. The
appellate court reversed, holding that the stop was permissible
because there was no violation of state or federal statues or
constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and
seizures. 327 Ill. App. 3d at 810-15. The court also held that the
search did not exceed the scope of Ledesma's consent. 327 Ill.
App. 3d at 815. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 315 (177 Ill. 2d R. 315).

ANALYSIS
	A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence is
subject to reversal only if it is manifestly erroneous. People v.
Mitchell, 165 Ill. 2d 211, 230 (1995). As both parties note, de novo
review is appropriate, however, when neither facts nor credibility
of witnesses is questioned. Mitchell, 165 Ill. 2d  at 230. Although
the parties may have varying interpretations of the motives of the
anonymous caller or the conversation that took place between
Ledesma and Officer Cornett, neither party has identified any
disputed facts. Therefore, we review de novo the suppression of
the evidence.

The Anonymous Tip and Propriety of the Stop
	Defendants argue that the evidence should have been
suppressed because the sole basis for the traffic stop was based on
a "vague and anonymous" 911 call that indirectly provided police
with information obtained in violation of state eavesdropping
statutes, federal wiretapping legislation, and constitutional
protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

State Law
	Defendants argue that evidence seized during the stop should
be suppressed pursuant to the Illinois eavesdropping statute (720
ILCS 5/14-1 et seq. (West 1998)). Section 14-5 of the Criminal
Code of 1961 (Code) provides:
			"Any evidence obtained in violation of this Article is
not admissible in any civil or criminal trial, or any
administrative or legislative inquiry or proceeding, nor in
any grand jury proceedings; provided, however, that so
much of the contents of an alleged unlawfully intercepted,
overheard or recorded conversation as is clearly relevant,
as determined as a matter of law by the court in chambers,
to the proof of such allegation may be admitted into
evidence in any criminal trial or grand jury proceeding
brought against any person charged with violating any
provision of this Article." 720 ILCS 5/14-5 (West 1998).
	Section 14-2 of the Code provides in part:
			"A person commits eavesdropping when he:
			(a) Uses an eavesdropping device to hear or record all
or any part of any conversation ***; or
			(b) Uses or divulges *** any information which he
knows or reasonably should know was obtained through
the use of an eavesdropping device." 720 ILCS 5/14-2
(West 1998).
	Section 14-3(d) contains a number of exemptions to the
activities prohibited under section 14-2. Section 14-3 exempts:
			"(d) Recording or listening with the aid of any device to
any emergency communication made in the normal course
of operations by any federal, state or local law
enforcement agency or institutions dealing in emergency
services, including, but not limited to, hospitals, clinics,
ambulance services, fire fighting agencies, any public
utility, emergency repair facility, civilian defense
establishment or military installation[.]" 720 ILCS
5/14-3(d) (West 1998).
	The Illinois eavesdropping statute defines "conversation" as
"any oral communication between 2 or more persons regardless of
whether one or more of the parties intended their communication
to be of a private nature under circumstances justifying that
expectation." 720 ILCS 5/14-1(d) (West 1998).
	Section 114-12(b) of the Code permits the bringing of a
motion to suppress evidence illegally seized and states that "the
burden of proving that the search and seizure were unlawful shall
be on the defendant." 725 ILCS 5/114-12(b) (West 1998). In
People v. Gipson, 203 Ill. 2d 298, 306-07 (2003), this court stated:
		"The defendant bears the burden of proof at a hearing on
a motion to suppress. [Citations.] A defendant must make
a prima facie case that the evidence was obtained by an
illegal search or seizure. [Citation.] 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. [Citation.] However, the ultimate burden of
proof remains with the defendant. [Citation.]"
	Assuming, arguendo, that defendants met their initial burden
of making a prima facie showing in this case, we find that the
State met its burden of going forward. Police responded to a call
from the dispatch office that a tip had been received stating that a
drug transaction was to take place involving a specific type of
vehicle at a specific location. The officers' observations
corroborated the information reported by the tipster. The informant
stated that he overheard the cellular conversation while listening
to a police scanner. Police scanners are devices designed to
"[r]ecord[ ] or listen[ ] *** to any emergency communication
made in the normal course of operations by any federal, state or
local law enforcement agency or institutions dealing in emergency
services ***." 720 ILCS 5/14-3(d) (West 1998). Such devices are
specifically exempt from the eavesdropping statute by section
14-3(d) of the Code (720 ILCS 5/14-3(d) (West 1998)). We find
nothing in the record to indicate that the Illinois eavesdropping
statute was violated or that the tipster's interception of the
conversation was anything but inadvertent. The factual content of
the tip was sufficiently corroborated through the officers'
observations.

Federal Law
	Defendants also contend that all evidence seized during the
stop should be suppressed pursuant to section 2515 of the federal
"wiretap" statute. 18 U.S.C. §2515 (1994). Section 2515 prohibits
the use of intentionally intercepted wire or oral communications
as evidence in criminal or civil proceedings. It provides:
			"Whenever any wire or oral communication has been
intercepted, no part of the contents of such
communication and no evidence derived therefrom may
be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other
proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department,
officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or
other authority of the United States, a State, or a political
subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information
would be in violation of this chapter [119]." 18 U.S.C.
§2515 (1994).
	A person violates the provisions of chapter 119 when he or
she:
			"(a) intentionally intercepts[ ] [or] endeavors to
intercept *** any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
 			***
			(c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to
any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or
electronic communication, knowing or having reason to
know that the information was obtained through the
interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication
in violation of this subsection[.]" 18 U.S.C. §§2511(1)(a),
(1)(c) (1994).
	The federal wiretap statute is similar to the Illinois statue and
defines "oral communication" as "any oral communication uttered
by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is
not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such
expectation." 18 U.S.C. §2510(2) (1994).
	Defendants argue that the possession of a police scanner is
illegal under federal law pursuant to section 2512. 18 U.S.C.
§2512(1)(b) (1994). Therefore, the mere fact the informant was in
possession of a device capable of intercepting a cellular
communication indicates that he or she intended or endeavored to
intercept the communication in question. Section 2512 states, in
part:
			"(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this
chapter, any person who intentionally
				***
				(b) manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells any
electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or
having reason to know that the design of such device
renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the
surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic
communications, and that such device or any
component thereof has been or will be sent through the
mail or transported in interstate or foreign
commerce ***
				***
		shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both." 18 U.S.C. §2512(1)(b) (1994).
	However, as previously discussed, possession of a device,
such as a police scanner, that is designed to "[r]ecord[ ] or listen[ ]
*** to any emergency communication made in the normal course
of operations by any federal, state or local law enforcement agency
or institutions dealing in emergency services" (720 ILCS
5/14-3(d) (West 1998)) is a lawful activity in Illinois. Further,
such activity is permissible under the federal statute, as well.
Section 2511(2)(g)(ii)(II) states, "It shall not be unlawful under
this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person *** to
intercept any radio communication which is transmitted *** by
any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land
mobile, or public safety communications system, including police
and fire, readily accessible to the general public[.]" 18 U.S.C.
§2511(2)(g)(ii)(II) (1994). Our federal courts have not interpreted
federal wiretap legislation to include a ban on police scanners.
While it is possible that police scanners may occasionally intercept
cellular telephone communications, and other devices may exist
that are specifically designed for the purpose of intercepting
cellular telephone communications or that may have the capability
of inadvertently intercepting cellular calls even though not
designed for that use (e.g. a monitor for a baby's nursery), it
cannot be said that police scanners are "primarily useful for the
purpose of the surreptitious interception" (18 U.S.C. §2512(1)(b)
(1994)) of cellular telephone communications.
	That is not to say, however, that cellular telephone
conversations are not entitled to a measure of protection from
surreptitious or intentional interception. The State relies on People
v. Wilson, 196 Ill. App. 3d 997, 1009-10 (1990), in support of its
argument that the cellular telephone conversation in this case was
not protected by state eavesdropping legislation or federal wiretap
laws. Wilson held that a cordless telephone conversation
intercepted by a radio scanner was not protected from disclosure,
and that any evidence derived from the intercepted call was
admissible in subsequent court proceedings. Defendants argue that
the Wilson court's determination that the federal wiretapping
statute does not protect cellular telephone conversations has been
superseded by subsequent amendments to the federal legislation.
The federal wiretap statute was amended in 1994 to include
cordless telephone conversations within its protections. Public
Law No. 104-132, section 202(a)(1), struck out the provision
contained in section 2510(1) (18 U.S.C. §2510(1) (1994)), which
had excluded cordless telephone communications from the
definition of a "wire communication," the interception and
dissemination of which is prohibited under section 2511 (18
U.S.C. §2511 (1994)). See H.R. Rep. No. 103-827 at 10, 17-18,
30 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3489, 3490, 3497-98,
3510. The Supreme Court has held that the amendments extend
protections to cellular telephone conversations. Bartnicki v.
Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 149 L. Ed. 2d 787, 121 S. Ct. 1753 (2001).
Thus, since the interception of the cellular call in this case took
place long after the 1994 amendments, the State's argument that
cellular telephone conversations are not protected under federal
law must fail.
	However, a complete reading of section 2511 leads us to
conclude that federal law was not violated in this case. Section
2511(1)(a) provides that a person violates federal eavesdropping
laws when he "intentionally intercepts[ ] [or] endeavors to
intercept *** any wire, oral, or electric communication."
(Emphases added.) 18 U.S.C. §2511(1)(a) (1994). Defendants
have failed to establish that the actions of the informant in this
case were surreptitious or that the interception of the telephone
conversation was intentional. See United States v. Townsend, 987 F.2d 927, 930 (2d Cir. 1993) (to find intentional interception of
telephone conversations of third parties without their knowledge
or consent, jury must find that the act was deliberate and
purposeful, rather than product of mistake or accident); Citron v.
Citron, 539 F. Supp. 621, 626 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (liability for
unlawful interception of telephone conversations requires showing
that interceptor acted in intentional or reckless disregard of legal
obligations), aff'd, 722 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1983). Therefore, we find
no violation of federal law requiring the suppression of evidence
gathered as a result of the traffic stops.

Constitutional Protections Against Unreasonable Search and
Seizure
	Defendants argue that the trial court's suppression of evidence
seized from their vehicles should be affirmed because the police
lacked sufficient probable cause to conduct the stops. Defendants
argue that an investigatory stop may not be premised solely upon
an "uncorroborated" and "vague" anonymous tip.
	The fourth amendment of the United States Constitution and
article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution protect individuals
from unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const., amend. IV;
Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §6. The fundamental purpose of these
provisions is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals
against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials. People v.
Dilworth, 169 Ill. 2d 195, 201 (1996). We must carefully balance
the legitimate aims of law enforcement against the right of our
citizens to be free from unreasonable government intrusion.
People v. Tisler, 103 Ill. 2d 226, 245 (1984); People v. Smith, 95 Ill. 2d 412, 422 (1983).
	"[A] police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in
an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of
investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no
probable cause to make an arrest." Terry, 392 U.S.  at 22, 20 L. Ed. 2d  at 906-07, 88 S. Ct.  at 1880. "Although the officer need not
have probable cause to arrest or search in order to stop and frisk
[citations], he must have knowledge of sufficient articulable facts
at the time of the encounter to create a reasonable suspicion that
the person in question has committed, or is about to commit, a
crime." People v. Smithers, 83 Ill. 2d 430, 434 (1980), citing
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51, 61 L. Ed. 2d 357, 362, 99 S. Ct. 2637, 2640-41 (1979); Terry, 392 U.S.  at 21, 20 L. Ed. 2d  at 906,
88 S. Ct.  at 1880; Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96, 13 L. Ed. 2d 142,
148, 85 S. Ct. 223, 228 (1964). To justify a temporary detention,
the police officers must point to specific, articulable facts that,
when considered with natural inferences, make the intrusion
reasonable. Smithers, 83 Ill. 2d  at 436. We have previously held
that a totality-of-circumstances approach will achieve a fairer
balance between public and private interests. Tisler, 103 Ill. 2d  at
245. "The central issue is *** whether the information, taken in its
totality, and interpreted not by technical legal rules but by factual
and practical commonsense considerations, would lead a
reasonable and prudent person to believe that the person stopped
had committed an offense." People v. Adams, 131 Ill. 2d 387, 396-97 (1989).
	Where an informant's tip is received by telephone, it may
form the basis for a lawful Terry stop, but the information must
bear some indicia of reliability, and the information upon which
the police act must establish the requisite quantum of suspicion.
People v. Ertl, 292 Ill. App. 3d 863, 869 (1997). Where the
reliability of the information obtained from an anonymous
informant cannot be easily corroborated and no other suspicious
circumstances are known to the police, a stop may be found
unwarranted. Ertl, 292 Ill. App. 3d at 869. However, substantial
corroboration not only establishes an informant's veracity, but also
supports an inference that an informant obtained his story reliably.
People v. Williams, 147 Ill. 2d 173, 210 (1991); Tisler, 103 Ill. 2d 
at 251. "Whether such corroboration consists of innocent or
incriminating activity is not the question. Instead, the proper focus
is ' "whether the actions of the suspects, whatever their nature,
give rise to an inference that the informant is credible and that he
obtained his information in a reliable manner." ' " Williams, 147 Ill. 2d  at 210, quoting Tisler, 103 Ill. 2d  at 251, quoting Illinois v.
Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 269, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, 568, 103 S. Ct. 2317,
2349 (1983) (White, J., concurring).
	Like many issues involving constitutional protections against
unreasonable searches and seizures, the reliability of a tip and the
propriety of police action in response to that tip are often closely
decided issues. For example, defendants rely heavily on two cases
from our appellate court in which tips from anonymous callers
were found to be insufficient bases for making investigatory stops.
In People v. Messamore, 245 Ill. App. 3d 627 (1993), the
defendant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police officers
based solely on a caller's tip that a suspicious vehicle was seen
driving near a specific intersection. The caller described the
vehicle as a dark-green or blue Oldsmobile, but was unable to state
the year or model. In addition, the caller gave no specific details
upon which he based the conclusion that it was suspicious except
that it had been circling the area for approximately half an hour.
Messamore, 245 Ill. App. 3d at 630. The record showed that the
caller gave his name to the dispatcher. However, that information
was not given to officers responding to the call. The officers
admitted they knew nothing about the caller's identity, and, as
such, they had no idea if the caller was reliable. Other evidence
showed that the call may have been made by a citizen of a
residential watch area. However, the officers also had no
knowledge of that information. One of the officers testified that
after receiving the call he saw a dark-green Oldsmobile at an
intersection approximately two blocks from the intersection
reported by the caller. He followed the vehicle for approximately
four to six blocks. During that time the driver of the vehicle did
not commit any traffic violations. The owner of the vehicle did not
have a suspended or a revoked license and the vehicle's license
plate and sticker were proper. The officer then activated the lights
on his squad car and pulled the vehicle over in a parking lot. The
officer admitted that he stopped the Oldsmobile based solely on
the fact that a citizen had reported that the vehicle was suspicious.
Following a hearing, the trial court granted the defendant's motion
to suppress, finding the stop unlawful. The appellate court
affirmed, holding that the anonymous informant's tip was brief
and vague, and that the officers did not independently corroborate
the tip before making the stop. The court noted "that the caller did
not describe any activity from which the officers could form a
reasonable suspicion justifying a stop." Messamore, 245 Ill. App.
3d at 630.
	In People v. Moraca, 124 Ill. App. 3d 561 (1984), the
appellate court evaluated a traffic stop based on a call to an
organization that passed information on to police and sometimes
offered rewards for information leading to arrests. Under a
program known as Catch A Thief With Citizen's Help (CATCH),
operators would take calls regarding criminal activity from
anonymous sources and then relay the information to police. A
detective in the Elgin police department received a phone call
from an operator at CATCH informing him that an individual by
the name of Moraca possessed a machine gun, which he carried in
a black pouch, and was also allegedly in possession of cannabis,
which he kept in a green bag. The operator also said that Moraca
drove a blue van, provided a license plate number for the van,
informed police that Moraca frequented the area of Hickory Street
in Elgin, and stated that Moraca may have had his driver's license
suspended or revoked. Moraca, 124 Ill. App. 3d at 562. The
detective and his partner cruised the area of Hickory Street and
observed a blue van bearing the license plate number provided by
the CATCH tipster parked and unoccupied in a driveway. A
license plate check indicated the van was registered to a lawn care
business. After returning to the police station for approximately 20
minutes, the detectives came back to Hickory Street accompanied
by a uniformed officer and observed the van being driven away by
a white male, whom the detectives did not recognize. The driver
stopped once to drop off a passenger before being pulled over by
the uniformed officer in his marked squad car. Moraca, 124 Ill.
App. 3d at 562-63. The sole basis for effecting the stop was the
information supplied by CATCH. The driver of the van exited the
vehicle from the driver's side, left the door open, and walked back
toward one of the detectives who had pulled up next to the van.
One of the policemen, with his revolver drawn, ordered driver up
against the van, instructing him not to move while the uniformed
officer frisked him. The detectives approached the van, one from
each side of the vehicle and, peering through the window, saw a
beer can on the dashboard. One of the detectives opened the door,
reached in and felt the can which "was cold and had some beer in
it." The other detective opened a black, zippered pouch which had
been partially protruding from underneath the driver's seat, and
observed what appeared to be a machine pistol. Up to this point,
no one had asked the driver for his name or identification and the
officers did not ask nor did defendant grant his permission to go
inside the van. Detectives established that the driver was Moraca
and learned that his driver's license was presently suspended.
Before placing defendant under arrest, one of the officers
conducted a second search of the defendant's person, whereupon
a green bank bag fell from defendant's coat to the pavement. One
of the detectives opened the bag and observed a quantity of what
he suspected was cannabis. Moraca, 124 Ill. App. 3d at 563. The
trial court suppressed the evidence because the stop violated
defendant's fourth amendment rights and the appellate court
affirmed. Moraca, 124 Ill. App. 3d at 567.
	Defendants correctly assert that Messamore and Moraca are
similar to this case. However, both are distinguishable. In
Messamore, the officers did not observe the defendant engaging in
any suspicious activity before stopping him. The vehicle's
identification was proper and no traffic violations were committed.
As opposed to the case at bar, where a specific illegal activity was
described by the caller, the caller in Messamore simply stated that
a suspicious dark green or blue Oldsmobile was in the area. The
vague and general information provided by the caller did not
establish that the tip was sufficiently reliable. Similarly, in
Moraca, no activity took place that would provide any indicia of
reliability for the tip. As the Moraca court stated, the tip relayed
by CATCH "only informed police that defendant was 'in
possession' of cannabis and a machine gun, but did not specify
whether these items were even on his person or in the van."
Moraca, 124 Ill. App. 3d at 565. The only corroborating events in
Moraca that occurred prior to the stop were that the police located
a blue van parked in the vicinity of Hickory Street. Probable cause
cannot be based solely on an anonymous tip that merely provides
the static details of a suspect's life along with an allegation of
criminal conduct. People v. Brannon, 308 Ill. App. 3d 501, 505
(1999); People v. Yarber, 279 Ill. App. 3d 519, 529 (1996).
	The United States Supreme Court has addressed the propriety
of an anonymous tip as the basis for a stop. In Alabama v. White,
496 U.S. 325, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301, 110 S. Ct. 2412 (1990), police
received a telephone call from an anonymous person, stating that
White would be leaving 235-C Lynwood Terrace Apartments at a
particular time in a brown Plymouth station wagon with the right
taillight lens broken. The informant stated that White would be
going to Dobey's Motel and would be in possession of about an
ounce of cocaine inside a brown attach© case. White, 496 U.S.  at
327, 110 L. Ed. 2d  at 306-07, 110 S. Ct.  at 2414. Police proceeded
to the apartment complex and observed a vehicle matching the
description given by the caller parked in front of building 235.
Police observed White leave the building empty-handed and enter
the station wagon. Police followed the vehicle as it traveled the
most direct route to Dobey's Motel. The vehicle was stopped just
short of the motel. One of the officers asked White to step to the
rear of the car, where he informed her that she had been stopped
because she was suspected of carrying cocaine in the vehicle. The
officer asked for and received permission to look for cocaine. A
locked brown attach© case was found. Respondent provided the
combination to the lock. The officers found marijuana in the case
and placed White under arrest. During processing at the police
station, police discovered three milligrams of cocaine in White's
purse. White, 496 U.S.  at 327, 110 L. Ed. 2d  at 307, 110 S. Ct.  at
2415. The trial court denied White's motion to suppress the
evidence, but the appellate court held that the police did not have
reasonable suspicion under Terry to justify the investigatory stop,
and that the marijuana and cocaine should have been suppressed.
A divided Supreme Court of Alabama denied the prosecution's
writ for certiorari. Citing differing views in the state and federal
courts over whether an anonymous tip may furnish reasonable
suspicion for a stop, the United States Supreme Court granted
certiorari. White, 496 U.S.  at 327-28, 110 L. Ed. 2d  at 307, 110 S. Ct.  at 2415.
	As recognized by the Supreme Court in Gates, "an
anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates the informant's basis
of knowledge or veracity inasmuch as ordinary citizens generally
do not provide extensive recitations of the basis of their everyday
observations and given that the veracity of persons supplying
anonymous tips is 'by hypothesis largely unknown, and
unknowable.' " White, 496 U.S.  at 329, 110 L. Ed. 2d  at 308, 110 S. Ct.  at 2415, quoting Gates, 462 U.S.  at 237, 76 L. Ed. 2d  at 548,
103 S. Ct.  at 2332. However, the Court was careful to point out
that this did not mean that an anonymous caller could never
provide the reasonable suspicion necessary for a Terry stop.
"Something more" is required to provide an indicia of reliability
of the tip. White, 496 U.S.  at 329, 110 L. Ed. 2d  at 308, 110 S. Ct. 
at 2416. The Court found that the tip in White was significantly
corroborated and exhibited sufficient indicia of reliability to justify
the investigatory stop. The Court held, "[I]t is not unreasonable to
conclude in this case that the independent corroboration by the
police of significant aspects of the informer's predictions imparted
some degree of reliability to the other allegations made by the
caller." White, 496 U.S.  at 331-32, 110 L. Ed. 2d  at 310, 110 S. Ct. 
at 2417.
	Ten years later, the United States Supreme Court addressed
the propriety of an investigatory stop based on an anonymous tip
in Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 146 L. Ed. 2d 254, 120 S. Ct. 1375 (2000). In J.L., an anonymous caller reported to the Miami-Dade police that a young black male standing at a particular bus
stop was carrying a gun. Officers proceeded to the bus stop and
observed three black males there, one of whom, J.L., was wearing
a plaid shirt. Apart from the anonymous tip, the officers had no
reason to suspect any of the three of engaging in any illegal
conduct. J.L., 529 U.S.  at 268, 146 L. Ed. 2d  at 259, 120 S. Ct.  at
1377. One of the officers approached J.L. and told him to put up
his hands. The officer frisked him and seized a gun from J.L.'s
pocket. After being charged under state law with two criminal
offenses related to possession of the gun, the trial court granted
J.L.'s motion to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unlawful
search. The Florida Supreme Court held the search invalid under
the fourth amendment. J.L., 529 U.S.  at 268-69, 146 L. Ed. 2d  at
259, 120 S. Ct.  at 1377-78. The officers' suspicion that J.L. had a
weapon "arose not from any observations of their own but solely
from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown
caller." J.L., 529 U.S.  at 270, 146 L. Ed. 2d  at 260, 120 S. Ct.  at
1378.
	In affirming the Florida Supreme Court, the United States
Supreme Court pointed out that " 'an anonymous tip alone seldom
demonstrates the informant's basis of knowledge or veracity.' "
J.L., 529 U.S.  at 270, 146 L. Ed. 2d  at 260, 120 S. Ct.  at 1378,
quoting White, 496 U.S.  at 329, 110 L. Ed. 2d  at 308, 110 S. Ct.  at
2415. The Court recognized that "there are situations in which an
anonymous tip, suitably corroborated, exhibits 'sufficient indicia
of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make the
investigatory stop.' " J.L., 529 U.S.  at 270, 146 L. Ed. 2d  at 260,
120 S. Ct.  at 1378, quoting White, 496 U.S.  at 327, 110 L. Ed. 2d 
at 306, 110 S. Ct.  at 2414. The Supreme Court found that the tip
in J.L. lacked the moderate indicia of reliability present in White.
The anonymous call that led to J.L.'s arrest "provided no
predictive information and therefore left the police without means
to test the informant's knowledge or credibility." J.L., 529 U.S.  at
271, 146 L. Ed. 2d  at 260, 120 S. Ct.  at 1379. The Court further
held:
		"That the allegation about the gun turned out to be correct
does not suggest that the officers, prior to the frisks, had
a reasonable basis for suspecting J.L. of engaging in
unlawful conduct: The reasonableness of official
suspicion must be measured by what the officers knew
before they conducted their search. All the police had to
go on in this case was the bare report of an unknown,
unaccountable informant who neither explained how he
knew about the gun nor supplied any basis for believing
he had inside information about J.L. ***
			***
			An accurate description of a subject's readily
observable location and appearance is of course reliable
in this limited sense: It will help the police correctly
identify the person whom the tipster means to accuse.
Such a tip, however, does not show that the tipster has
knowledge of concealed criminal activity. The reasonable
suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its
assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify
a determinate person." J.L., 529 U.S.  at 271-72, 146 L. Ed. 2d  at 260-61, 120 S. Ct.  at 1379.
	The facts of this case fall somewhere between those in White
and those in J.L. In our opinion, this case is more closely related
to White. Not only do both cases involve stops related to vehicles,
but both involve specific information provided by the tipster that
predicted future behavior or gave police a basis on which to
corroborate information by observing the activities of the suspect
or suspects. There was no such corroboration present in J.L. While
the tip in this case, standing alone, may not have been sufficient to
support an arrest or search warrant, the information provided by
the caller carried sufficient indicia of reliability to justify a forcible
stop. The tip was specific in its description of one of the vehicles
that would be involved in the illegal activity and in its reference to
the location where the transaction was to occur. Tilton police did
not seek out defendants based on a vague description or innuendo.
The information available to the police, coupled with the factual
corroboration of the tip's content and interpreted by commonsense
considerations, would lead a reasonable and prudent person to
believe that sufficient articulable suspicion had been established
and that further investigation was warranted, thus justifying the
stops. See Gates, 462 U.S.  at 245, 76 L. Ed. 2d  at 552-53, 103 S.
Ct. at 2335-36; Alabama, 496 U.S.  at 332, 110 L. Ed. 2d  at 310,
110 S. Ct.  at 2417; Adams, 131 Ill. 2d at 396-97; Ertl, 292 Ill.
App. 3d at 869. "When significant aspects of the caller's
predictions were verified, there was reason to believe not only that
the caller was honest but also that he was well informed, at least
well enough to justify the stop." Alabama, 496 U.S.  at 332, 110 L. Ed. 2d  at 310, 110 S. Ct.  at 2417. While the officers could not
observe an exchange of drugs or money from their vantage point,
the officers' beliefs that the sufficient articulable suspicion to
warrant the stops had been established were reasonable in this case
in light of specific content of the tip coupled with the officers'
experiences and observations. Therefore, we find that defendants'
constitutional rights were not violated.

The Search
	Defendants argue that, even if the tip was reliable and the stop
was proper, police improperly searched Ledesma's vehicle.
Defendants argue that probable cause to believe a crime has been
committed is required before a search of an automobile may be
conducted (People v. Erickson, 31 Ill. 2d 230, 233 (1964)), and
that police were supplied with probable cause only after a
narcotics detection dog "indicated" the presence of narcotics on
Perez's pants and on the doors of Ledesma's vehicle.
	It is well settled that an individual may consent to a search
conducted without a warrant, thereby eliminating the need for
probable cause and a search warrant. See People v. Phillips, 264
Ill. App. 3d 213, 217 (1994); People v. Cardenas, 237 Ill. App. 3d
584, 587 (1992). A consent to search is valid under the fourth
amendment if it is voluntary. Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 40,
136 L. Ed. 2d 347, 355, 117 S. Ct. 417, 421 (1996). Voluntariness
is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the
circumstances. Robinette, 519 U.S.  at 39, 136 L. Ed. 2d  at 354,
117 S. Ct.  at 421. The standard for measuring the scope of a
suspect's consent is that of " 'objective' reasonableness," which
requires consideration of what a "typical reasonable person
[would] have understood by the exchange between the officer and
the suspect." Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251, 114 L. Ed. 2d 297, 302, 111 S. Ct. 1801, 1803-04 (1991).
	In most instances, this determination is easily made because
courts ordinarily define the scope of a search by its express object
or purpose. Jimeno, 500 U.S.  at 251, 114 L. Ed. 2d  at 303, 111 S. Ct.  at 1804. By indicating to the suspect the intended object of the
search either directly or by revealing a suspicion of specific
criminal activity, a police officer not only "apprises the suspect
that his constitutional rights are being impacted, but he also
informs the suspect of the reasonable parameters of his inquiry."
People v. Baltazar, 295 Ill. App. 3d 146, 150 (1998). As a result,
courts have determined that an officer may search smaller
containers found inside the larger area being searched if it would
be objectively reasonable to find the stated object of the search in
that smaller container. See Jimeno, 500 U.S.  at 251, 114 L. Ed. 2d 
at 303, 111 S. Ct.  at 1804 (defendant's consent to search his car
included search of a small paper bag found in the car because he
was informed that the officer suspected that he possessed
narcotics); Phillips, 264 Ill. App. 3d at 222 (defendant's consent
to search of his motorcycle included search of a jacket located in
the rear cargo area when the express object of the search was
narcotics); United States v. Lechuga, 925 F.2d 1035, 1042 (7th
Cir. 1991) (consent to search unfurnished apartment included
search of suitcase in closet because the express purpose of the
search was drugs); United States v. Rich, 992 F.2d 502, 506-07
(5th Cir. 1993) (defendant's consent to the officer's request to
look in his truck included suitcase located behind the passenger
seat because the officer had just asked the defendant if he had any
narcotics in the truck).
	It is not necessary for police to specifically use the term
"search" to constitute a valid search request under the fourth
amendment. See Baltazar, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 150. However, the
officer's words, when viewed in context, must objectively
communicate to a reasonable person that the officer is seeking
permission to examine the vehicle and its contents. See Baltazar,
295 Ill. App. 3d at 150-51. For example, in People v. Kelk, 231 Ill.
App. 3d 797 (1992), police stopped a defendant for minor traffic
violations. The officers asked the defendant if there were any
drugs or weapons in the vehicle, to which defendant replied that
there were not. The officers asked the defendant if he cared if they
"looked in" the car. The defendant consented. The officers
discovered cannabis in a duffle bag inside the vehicle. Kelk, 231
Ill. App. 3d at 798-99. The trial court suppressed the evidence,
finding that the police had exceeded the scope of the defendant's
consent to search. Kelk, 231 Ill. App. 3d at 798. The appellate
court reversed, holding:
			"The request by a police officer to look in a suspect's
car might reasonably be understood as meaning no more
than just that-only to look. The person addressed by the
officer might reasonably believe from that request that a
police officer would seek further and additional authority
from the suspect if the officer wished to search objects he
found when he looked in the car. Here, the police officer
asked the defendant, immediately prior to his request to
'look in the car,' if there were any drugs or weapons in the
vehicle. The context of that question sufficiently informed
the suspect of what the officer intended to do, and, under
those circumstances, the officer could reasonably consider
the defendant's statement-that he did not care if the
officer looked in his car-to be a general consent to a
search of that car, including contents thereof ***."
(Emphases omitted.) Kelk, 231 Ill. App. 3d at 800-01.
	Similarly, the appellate court in this case found that Ledesma
gave a valid general consent permitting police to search the vehicle
and its contents. Even though Ledesma later inquired as to the
purpose of the search, and according to police testimony "hem-hawed around," he never limited or withdrew his consent. We
agree and hold that the trial court erred by granting defendants'
motion to suppress the evidence discovered in the search of
Ledesma's vehicle. Because we find that Ledesma consented to
the search of his vehicle, we need not reach defendants' arguments
regarding the propriety of the use of the narcotics detection canine.

CONCLUSION
	We find that the trial court erred in granting defendants'
motion to suppress the evidence in this matter. We therefore
affirm the appellate court's decision reversing the trial court and
remanding this cause for further proceedings.
Affirmed.