Court Opinion

ID: 9743774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:42:50.368561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:43.491372
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, dissenting: A cynic might say that we defer to the trier of fact when the trier of fact rules in favor of the State, but when the trier of fact rules in favor of the defendant we consider the issue de novo. When a motion to suppress evidence involves factual determinations or credibility assessments, we will reverse the trial court’s ruling only if it is manifestly erroneous. People v. Anthony, 198 Ill. 2d 194, 200-01, 761 N.E.2d 1188, 1191 (2001). De novo review is only appropriate when neither the facts nor the credibility of witnesses is disputed. Anthony, 198 Ill. 2d at 201, 761 N.E.2d at 1191. Even when the facts are undisputed, where reasonable persons could draw divergent inferences from those facts, any question of fact should be resolved by the trier of fact. Jackson v. TLC Associates, Inc., 185 Ill. 2d 418, 424, 706 N.E.2d 460, 463 (1998); Rhodes v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 172 Ill. 2d 213, 241, 665 N.E.2d 1260, 1274 (1996). The inquiry is whether only one conclusion may be drawn from the undisputed facts. Reynolds v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 277 Ill. App. 3d 80, 84, 660 N.E.2d 235, 238 (1996). The parties in this case stipulated that Biswell would testify in accordance with his written report. I do not understand the stipulation to be that everything that Biswell said in his report was accurate or that this case could be decided as a matter of law. Cf. People v. Krueger, 175 Ill. 2d 60, 63, 675 N.E.2d 604, 606 (1996) (parties stipulated to facts and asked court to rule as a matter of law). A stipulation that Biswell would testify that he believed a cigarette to contain cannabis requires the court to assess Biswell’s credibility. There is a difference between stipulated facts and stipulated testimony. The majority weighs the evidence differently than did the trial court. The majority agrees that none of the facts, considered independently, amount to probable cause, but “We conclude the totality of the circumstances in this case is sufficient to establish probable cause.” 331 Ill. App. 3d at 163. Unlike the trial court, the majority sees defendant’s admitted drug usage as “the most incriminating fact in this case.” 331 Ill. App. 3d at 163. According to the majority, it was reasonable to believe the bags “were likely drug paraphernalia,” the cigarette contained cannabis, and all this “would lead a reasonable person to believe defendant’s vehicle contained additional contraband.” 331 Ill. App. 3d at 163. Although there was no testimony of Biswell’s experience in identifying cannabis, and such testimony would be highly relevant, the majority tells us the trial court erred in considering its absence. 331 Ill. App. 3d at 164. “We conclude this omission is far outweighed by the strength of the other evidence.” 331 Ill. App. 3d at 164. If there is evidence to be weighed, that evidence should be weighed by the trial court, not by this court on de novo review. The majority faults the trial court’s finding that the “ ‘suspected’ burnt cannabis cigarette was not ‘recovered, inventoried!,] or analyzed by the [Illinois] State Police.’ ” 331 Ill. App. 3d at 162. The majority concludes such evidence is irrelevant because we look to the circumstances as they existed at the time of the search. 331 Ill. App. 3d at 162. It is true that a subsequent test showing the cigarette not to be cannabis would not necessarily be fatal to a showing of probable cause; what is important is what the officer reasonably believed the cigarette to be, not what it actually was. What happened to the cigarette is certainly relevant, however. If the cigarette contained cannabis, we would expect the Illinois State Police to retain it and test it in support of its theory of the case. If the cigarette really did not look much like a cannabis cigarette, we might expect the Illinois State Police to discard it. The trial court did not err in considering the disposition of the cigarette in weighing the credibility of Biswell’s testimony. I cannot agree that we may employ de novo review to overturn the decision of the trial court in this case. The majority concerns itself with the weight of the evidence, not with some question of law. I would affirm the decision of the trial court.