Court Opinion

ID: 9530381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:59:25.029742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:05.811123
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE KASSERMAN, dissenting: In my opinion the judgment of the circuit court should be affirmed. The evidence indicates that the search by the officers was proper as a plain-view search of the vehicle; therefore, defendant’s consent was not rendered ineffective because it followed an illegal search. The officers observed a portion of the tire iron protruding from under the driver’s seat and asked defendant to remove it and place it in the trunk. In complying with the request of the officers, an iron pipe and a kitchen knife were exposed when defendant removed the tire iron from under the seat. The discovery of these items would have entitled the officers to further examine the vehicle from the outside, which they did with the use of a flashlight. Their examination disclosed what appeared to be marijuana seeds and part of a marijuana cigarette in the ashtray and justified the further search. It is of no consequence that the officers were using a flashlight when they observed the contents of the ashtray since the use of artificial light to observe that which is in plain view would not alter the plain-view doctrine. See People v. Bombacino (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 17, 280 N.E.2d 697.