Court Opinion

ID: 9729629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:45:16.417265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:00.290669
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE STOUDER, dissenting: In the instant case, the appropriate question is whether the chailenged search violated the fourth amendment rights of the defendant. The capacity to claim the protection of the fourth amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place, but upon whether the person who claims the protection of the amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place. (Rakas v. Illinois (1978), 439 U.S. 128, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387, 99 S. Ct. 421, citing Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576, 88 S. Ct. 507.) The resolution of this issue turns on a factual determination. Findings of fact in connection with a motion to suppress evidence will not be overturned by a reviewing court unless manifestly erroneous. People v. Conner (1979), 78 Ill. 2d 525, 401 N.E.2d 513. In the instant case, the trial court correctly found that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the sack. In connection with a concurrent motion for a directed finding, the court found “ample evidence of the defendant’s possession, control and knowledge.” The trial court noted that the sack was between the defendant’s feet, that the defendant placed his dinner refuse in the sack, and that it was the defendant who responded to the officer’s inquiry into the sack’s contents. This was more than an adequate showing that the sack and its contents did not belong to the driver and that the defendant had a possessory interest in the sack and an expectation of privacy separate from that of the driver. The trial court concluded that Trooper Bodemer was interested in the contents of defendant’s sack and not the vehicle. However, instead of obtaining the defendant’s consent to a search of the sack, he obtained the driver’s permission to search the vehicle and ordered the driver and passengers out of the car. The fact that the defendant left the sack in the vehicle when he was ordered out by the State trooper does not diminish or eviscerate the defendant’s legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of the sack. There was no showing that the contents of the sack were in plain view or that the trooper had probable cause to search the sack. Under the circumstances, the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of the sack. The trial court’s determination that the search was a violation of the defendant’s fourth amendment rights was not manifestly erroneous. Therefore, I believe the judgment should be affirmed.