Court Opinion

ID: 9862321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 01:06:36.243249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:02.244529
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE INGLIS, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the police officers did not have probable cause to search defendant’s automobile after they found open liquor in the car. Officer Beyer testified that he saw Farmer put a beer bottle, with beer still in it, on the floor of defendant’s automobile before Farmer exited the car. Farmer told Officer Beyer that he was drinking beer and indicated that he got the beer from defendant. Farmer also stated that he was 20 years old. Based on these facts, Officer Beyer had probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed, specifically that Farmer, a minor, unlawfully possessed alcohol (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 43, par. 134a) and defendant unlawfully delivered the alcohol to Farmer (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 43, par. 131(a)). Given that Officer Beyer had probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed, he also had probable cause to believe that evidence of the crime may be found in the automobile. A similar situation was present in People v. Lawrence (1988), 174 Ill. App. 3d 818. In Lawrence, a police officer stopped the defendant’s automobile when he noticed the car contained a defective headlight. Upon further investigation, the officer observed an open bottle of beer in the car. The court stated that “[ajrguably, probable cause existed at the point that [the officer] observed and noted the open container of liquor in the car.” (Lawrence, 174 Ill. App. 3d at 822.) The court held that it was reasonable for the officer to search the automobile for contraband after the officer observed that the vehicle contained some items of contraband. 174 Ill. App. 3d at 822. In the present case, Officer Beyer observed a beer bottle, with beer still in it, in defendant’s car. Like Lawrence, this observation that the vehicle contained some contraband gave Beyer the authority to search the car for additional items of contraband. Thus, I would find that Officer Beyer’s search of the automobile was reasonable under the specific facts in this case. I would further find that the scope of the warrantless search was reasonable in this case. As the Court indicated in United States v. Ross (1982), 456 U.S. 798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572, 102 S. Ct. 2157, the scope of a warrantless search is “defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.” (Ross, 456 U.S. at 824, 72 L. Ed. 2d at 593, 102 S. Ct. at 2172.) I believe that it was reasonable for Officer Beyer to suspect that there may be additional alcohol in the automobile after he observed Farmer’s open bottle of beer. Furthermore, it was reasonable for Officer Beyer to search the console and glove compartment due to the possibility that additional alcohol may be found in these areas. While the majority correctly points out that a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress will not be overturned unless it is manifestly erroneous (People v. Galvin (1989), 127 Ill. 2d 153, 162), it is my opinion that the court's determination was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (See Lawrence, 174 Ill. App. 3d at 822.) Consequently, I would reverse the order of the circuit court of Du Page County and remand this cause for further proceedings.