Court Opinion

ID: 9704001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:17:22.019832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:54.083383
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, dissenting: I respectfully dissent and would affirm the the judgment of the trial court. I believe the majority would have allowed the search if defendant had been the only person present in the car. The question in this case is whether, when the police have probable cause to believe that drugs are present and have narrowed their search to three individuals in a car, the police have to let those individuals go because they are not sure which one of them possesses the drugs. The majority avoids answering that question by utilizing its knowledge of narcotics sniffing dogs and concluding that the police officers placed themselves in a position of “willful ignorance” by not conducting a canine sniff of the individuals themselves. There is no evidence in the record which indicates that a canine sniff of individuals is feasible, and the appellate prosecutor, during oral argument, avowed that it was not, because the dog may be confused by body odors and proximity to a human being. According to the appellate prosecutor, there may be some danger to an individual if the dog alerts on that individual. In any event, I see nothing to be gained by requiring a sniff of an individual before conducting a search of that individual. As opposed to sniffs of property, sniffs of persons are intrusive and are themselves considered to be searches. See Horton, 690 F.2d at 479 (dogs physically touching students with their noses is an unreasonable search). Likewise, we should not require a search of the vehicle before a search of the occupants, after the dog has alerted on the vehicle. The fact that the vehicle contains drugs is no indication the occupants do not also have drugs on their persons. I suggest that the search of the individuals in this case was proper, that just as there was probable cause to believe there were drugs in the car, there was also probable cause to believe the three individuals in the car possessed drugs on their persons. Probable cause is knowledge of facts that justify a reasonably prudent person in believing that evidence of a crime is contained in a certain location. People v. Jones, 38 Ill. 2d 427, 433, 231 N.E.2d 580, 584 (1967). Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not necessary for probable cause. In Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 88, 62 L. Ed. 2d 238, 243, 100 S. Ct. 338, 340-41 (1979), a judge issued a warrant to search a one-room bar for heroin seen behind the bar or on the person of the bartender. The Supreme Court struck down a frisk of the 12 customers present in the bar when the warrant was served. Ybarra, 444 U.S. at 91, 62 L. Ed. 2d at 245, 100 S. Ct. at 342. Ybarra indicated, however, there might be probable cause to search “where the warrant itself authorizes the search of unnamed persons in a place and is supported by probable cause to believe that persons who will be in the place at the time of the search will be in possession of illegal drugs.” Ybarra, 441 U.S. at 92 n.4, 62 L. Ed. 2d at 246 n.4, 100 S. Ct. at 343 n.4. The present case falls within the exception envisioned by Ybarra. This car was not a public place like the bar in Ybarra. There were only three individuals in this car, and although they were not clearly involved in a present criminal activity (cf. Boyd, 298 Ill. App. 3d 1118, 700 N.E.2d 444 (odor of burning cannabis detected in lawfully stopped vehicle)), they were more likely than the bar patrons in Ybarra to be connected with the criminal activity. See 2 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure §§ 4.9(c), 4.5(e) (3d ed. 1996). Finally, I note that defendant raises no issue in this case regarding the use of a canine unit at a traffic stop. Cf. People v. Ortiz, 317 Ill. App. 3d 212 (2000).