People v. Garza , 431 Ill. Dec. 320 ( 2018 )

2018 IL App (3d) 170525
Opinion filed December 6, 2018
_____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2018
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of the 14th Judicial Circuit,
) Whiteside County, Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) Appeal No. 3-17-0525
v. ) Circuit No. 15-CF-377
)
ANTHONY GARZA, ) Honorable
) Stanley B. Steines,
Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, Presiding.
_____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE O’BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justice Holdridge concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Justice Schmidt concurred in part and dissented in part, with opinion.
_____________________________________________________________________________
OPINION
¶1 Following the circuit court’s grant of defendant Anthony Garza’s motion to suppress
evidence, the State filed a certificate of substantial impairment and notice of appeal. The State
argues the court erred in granting defendant’s motion to suppress. We affirm.
¶2 I. BACKGROUND
¶3 The State charged defendant, by information, with one count each of unlawful possession
of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 2014)), unlawful possession of cannabis
(720 ILCS 550/4(d) (West 2014)), and possession of drug paraphernalia (720 ILCS 600/3.5(a)
(West 2014)). Defendant retained private counsel, who filed a motion to suppress defendant’s
confession. 725 ILCS 5/114-11 (West 2016). The motion alleged that defendant made an
incriminating statement during a custodial interrogation without being advised of his Miranda
rights. As a result, defendant sought suppression of the statements that he had made in response
to the police questioning.
¶4 At the hearing on defendant’s motion, Rock Falls police officer Scott Allspaugh testified
that on November 20, 2015, at 10:57 a.m., he initiated a traffic stop on a red minivan for driving
over the posted speed limit. At the time, the weather was clear. The minivan stopped in the East
Coloma school parking lot. Upon approach, Allspaugh observed five individuals seated in the
minivan and radioed for a backup officer due to officer’s safety concerns. Approximately five
minutes after he initiated the stop, Officer Greyson Scott arrived. Before Scott arrived, Allspaugh
retrieved the driver’s information and began preparing a citation for speeding.
¶5 When Scott arrived, Allspaugh transferred the citation preparation duties to Scott and
conducted a free-air sniff with his canine unit. Approximately 10 minutes into the stop, the
canine alerted to the presence of narcotics at the rear of the minivan. Allspaugh radioed for
additional backup officers and directed the occupants to exit the minivan. Allspaugh and Scott
searched each of the occupants as they exited the vehicle. The officers did not ask for consent to
search. Allspaugh said the scope of the search was more than a pat-down and included searching
inside the occupants’ pockets, waistbands, hats, socks, and shoes. Allspaugh also asked each
occupant for identification and radioed dispatch to conduct a warrant check. None of the
occupants possessed contraband on their person or were the subject of an arrest warrant. After
this search, Allspaugh directed the five occupants to move to an area near his patrol vehicle. Two
uniformed police officers watched the occupants while Allspaugh and Scott conducted a search
2
of the interior of the minivan. None of the occupants were under arrest at this time, the officers
did not tell the occupants that they could not leave, none of the occupants were in handcuffs, the
officers did not separate the occupants, and the officers did not display their weapons.
¶6 During the vehicle search, Allspaugh found a backpack in the trunk area. Inside of the
backpack, Allspaugh saw what appeared to be illicit substances and pipes used to consume
narcotics. Postarrest analysis indicated that the backpack contained 13.8 grams of marijuana and
1.8 grams of cocaine. Following his discovery, Allspaugh removed the suspected contraband
from the backpack, concluded the search of the minivan, and approached the occupants.
Allspaugh asked the occupants who owned the backpack. At the time, none of the occupants had
received Miranda warnings and at least two additional plain clothed police detectives had arrived
at the scene for a total police presence of six officers. In response to Allspaugh’s question,
defendant indicated that he owned the backpack. Allspaugh placed defendant in handcuffs and
then asked defendant “what that white powder substance was.” Defendant said the powder was
cocaine.
¶7 In the court’s ruling, it initially noted that once “somebody is in custody for Miranda
purposes that any questioning is prohibited or any statements in response to questioning is
subject to suppression.” The court then focused its ruling on whether defendant was in custody at
the time Allspaugh asked about the ownership of the backpack and the white substance. The
court found that when Allspaugh asked about the ownership of the backpack, six officers were
on the scene. Four of the officers were in full uniform, and two of the officers were dressed in
plain clothes with their badges visible. Each officer’s firearm was visible during their encounter
with defendant. At the time of Allspaugh’s questions, defendant did not know that Allspaugh had
discovered contraband. The court found an officer told defendant to exit the minivan, the officer
3
conducted a search upon defendant’s exiting the vehicle that was more like a search subsequent
to arrest than a Terry stop pat-down, and the officer directed defendant to a location away from
the minivan. The court further found that the restraint imposed upon defendant was comparable
to a formal arrest. The court concluded that “not only would a reasonable person believe they
were not free to leave, I also find that there—that the restraint imposed upon the subjects were
comparable to those associated with a formal arrest.” The court granted defendant’s motion to
suppress defendant’s answers to the questions “whose bag is this?” and “what is this white
powder?”
¶8 Following the court’s grant of defendant’s motion, the State filed a certificate of
substantial impairment and a notice of appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(a)(1) (eff. July 1, 2017).
¶9 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 10 The State argues that the circuit court erred in granting defendant’s motion to suppress
statements because defendant was not subject to a custodial interrogation that would require the
issuance of Miranda warnings. We disagree and find the court did not err as defendant was in
custody and was asked two interrogatory questions without prior Miranda warnings.
¶ 11 At the outset, we note that defendant did not file a responsive brief. However, we elect to
decide the case in the absence of an appellee’s brief because “the record is simple and the
claimed errors are such that [we] can easily decide them without the aid of an appellee’s brief.”
First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976); see
also People v. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d 262, 285 (2008) (applying Talandis in the context of a review of
a motion to suppress evidence).
¶ 12 In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966), the United States Supreme Court
prescribed a set of prophylactic warnings that a police officer must provide to a suspect before
4
conducting a “custodial interrogation.” These warnings are intended to protect a suspect’s fifth
amendment right against self-incrimination. Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 444 (1974).
Miranda was motivated by concerns “that the ‘interrogation environment’ created by the
interplay of interrogation and custody would ‘subjugate the individual to the will of his
examiner’ and thereby undermine the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.” Rhode
Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 299 (1980) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 457-58). The Miranda
warnings assure that any inculpatory statement made by an individual held in custody is not
simply the product of “ ‘the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings.’ ” Yarborough v.
Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 661 (2004) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 458). Miranda further holds
that where an individual is subject to a custodial interrogation without the benefit of the
prescribed warnings, the prosecution may not use that individual’s inculpatory or exculpatory
statements at trial. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 492.
¶ 13 “Custodial interrogation” means “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after
a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way.” Id. at 444. It consists of two elements: (1) whether an individual was subject to
interrogation and (2) whether the interrogation occurred in a custodial situation. People v.
Tayborn, 2016 IL App (3d) 130594, ¶¶ 18-19.
¶ 14 First, we find that Allspaugh’s first question—“Whose backpack is this?”—called for an
incriminating response because Allspaugh knew that the backpack contained illicit substances
and drug paraphernalia. See id. ¶ 18 (“[a]n interrogation is any practice that police should know
is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect”). Therefore, Allspaugh’s
first question, about the ownership of the backpack, was interrogatory. Second, we find that
Allspaugh’s question about the white powder substance found inside the backpack also was
5
interrogatory. This question also called for an incriminating response—an identification of the
contraband that Allspaugh believed to be narcotics. Therefore, both of Allspaugh’s questions
were interrogatory, and we next must determine whether defendant was in custody at the time
that Allspaugh posed these questions.
¶ 15 In reaching the above conclusion, we note that our opinion is not intended to limit the
ability of the police to pose sufficiently general questions. With regard to these “[g]eneral, on-
the-scene” questions, Miranda explains:
“Our decision is not intended to hamper the traditional function of police
officers in investigating crime. [Citation.] When an individual is in custody on
probable cause, the police may, of course, seek out evidence in the field to be used
at trial against him. Such investigation may include inquiry of persons not under
restraint. General on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime or
other general questioning of citizens in the fact-finding process is not affected by
our holding. It is an act of responsible citizenship for individuals to give whatever
information they may have to aid in law enforcement. In such situations the
compelling atmosphere inherent in the process of in-custody interrogation is not
necessarily present.” (Emphases added.) Miranda, 384 U.S. at 477-78.
This explanation contemplates that the “[g]eneral on-the-scene questioning” exception will apply
only when police pose general questions in a noncustodial environment to nonsuspects regarding
the facts that surround a crime. Id. at 477. By using phrases like “in the field” and “persons not
under restraint,” the Supreme Court indicates that this exception truly only applies to
circumstances where the interviewed individual is subject to few, if any, indication of formal
custody. Id. In these noncustodial circumstances, the citizen-witnesses do not need the
6
protections of the Miranda warnings because they are (1) not subject to the compelling pressures
of police custody, (2) not suspects with a fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination,
and (3) providing general information about the “facts surrounding a crime.” Id. This Miranda
exception is almost expressly directed at scenarios where police officers openly speak with
unrestrained bystanders who witnessed a crime. This exception does not apply in the instant case
because defendant was subject to the compelling pressures of police custody (infra ¶ 18),
Allspaugh had reason to suspect that defendant had committed a narcotics offense, and
Allspaugh’s question sought an incriminating statement from defendant that established the actus
reus of the crime, instead of the generic facts surrounding the crime.
¶ 16 The determination of whether defendant was “in custody” for purposes of Miranda
includes two discrete inquiries: (1) what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation?
and (2) given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt that he was not at liberty
to terminate the interrogation and leave? Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995). The
custody inquiry is an objective test. Alvarado, 541 U.S. at 667. The following factors are
determinative of whether a suspect was in a custodial setting: the location, time, length, mood,
and mode of interrogation; the number of police officers present; the presence or absence of the
family and friends of the accused; any indication of formal arrest; and the age, intelligence, and
mental makeup of the accused. People v. Havlin, 409 Ill. App. 3d 427, 434 (2011).
¶ 17 The record sets forth the following circumstances surrounding interrogatory questions:
the instant case began as a traffic stop for a speeding violation. Typically, this type of stop does
not require Miranda warnings because it is a temporary detention of a “nonthreatening
character” that does not rise to the level of formal custody. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420,
440 (1984). However, the investigation deviated from its traffic stop origin when Allspaugh’s
7
canine alerted to the presence of narcotics in the minivan that defendant was a passenger. At this
point, the “nonthreatening character” of the stop began to dissipate, and the stop started to evolve
into a custodial situation. See, e.g., People v. Jordan, 2011 IL App (4th) 100629 (traffic stop for
a seatbelt violation transformed into a drug search and custodial interrogation where the
passenger was locked in a squad car, isolated from the driver, and was told police intended to
send for a drug-detection canine); People v. Rivera, 304 Ill. App. 3d 124, 129 (1999) (purpose of
on-the-scene investigatory stop ended when a bag of suspected cocaine was removed from
defendant’s vehicle and the officers’ reasonable suspicion of criminal activity developed into
probable cause of defendant’s involvement in cocaine delivery). Allspaugh directed the vehicle
occupants to exit the minivan, asked the occupants for identification, radioed dispatch to conduct
a warrant check on each of the occupants, and subjected the occupants to a thorough search.
According to Allspaugh, the search was more than a pat-down and included searching inside the
occupant’s pockets, waistbands, hats, socks, and shoes. Following the search, Allspaugh directed
the five occupants to stand in an area near his patrol vehicle. Allspaugh never told the occupants
that they could or could not leave or that they were under arrest. Two uniformed police officers
watched the occupants while Allspaugh and Scott searched the minivan. During the vehicle
search, two additional police officers arrived at the scene for a total police presence of six
officers. During the vehicle search, Allspaugh discovered a backpack that contained an illicit
substance and drug paraphernalia. Allspaugh then concluded the vehicle search and asked the
group of occupants, as a whole, who owned the backpack.
¶ 18 We find that these circumstances would cause a reasonable person to feel that he was not
at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave the scene. Thompson, 516 U.S. at 112. At the
time of Allspaugh’s question, defendant and the other occupants had been subjected to several
8
exercises of police authority that evidenced a growing custodial atmosphere. First, Allspaugh
directed all of the vehicle occupants to exit the minivan and then conducted a thorough search of
each occupant. This search was akin to a search incident to arrest as it exceeded the scope of a
search for weapons and appeared to search for evidence of a criminal offense. See People v.
Flowers, 179 Ill. 2d 257, 263 (1997) (purpose of a pat-down search is to protect the officer and
others in the vicinity, not to gather evidence) (citing Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 373
(1993)); cf. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 338 (2009) (search incident to arrest exception to the
warrant requirement derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation that are
implicated in arrest situations). While the validity of this search is not at issue, the search itself
evidenced a growing custodial atmosphere. Second, Allspaugh directed the five occupants to
move away from their minivan and stand near his police vehicle where two uniformed officers
watched over them. Thereafter, the police presence grew to outnumber the occupants as two
additional officers arrived on the scene for a total of six officers and five occupants. Although
none of the officers told the occupants that they were not free to leave, their overwhelming
presence would cause a reasonable person to question their ability to merely walk away without
permission. Moreover, the occupants’ departure from the scene was rendered impractical by the
lack of access to their vehicle. Together, these circumstances established the type of coercive
custodial environment that Miranda is intended to address. A reasonable person, in these
circumstances, would not have felt at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Therefore,
defendant was in custody when Allspaugh asked who owned the backpack. Further, when
Allspaugh asked the second question, about the white powder substance, the custodial
environment was even more apparent as defendant was then in handcuffs. Therefore, we
9
conclude that the circuit court did not err when it suppressed defendant’s custodial and un-
Mirandized statements.
¶ 19 In reaching our conclusion, we find that Havlin, 409 Ill. App. 3d 427, the case relied on
by the State, is distinct from the instant case. In Havlin, Officer David Horn stopped the vehicle
that Allan Havlin was a passenger in for a traffic infraction. Id. at 429. After Horn gave the
driver of the vehicle a written warning, he asked if the occupants would speak with him. The
driver of the vehicle replied “yes.” Id. Horn then asked and received consent to search the
vehicle. Before conducting the vehicle search, Horn “ ‘got each person out’ ” and “ ‘ asked them
for consent to search their person.’ ” Id. Horn explained that he conducted this search for the
officer’s safety. Following the search of each occupant, Horn asked the occupants to stand in
front of his squad car by a second officer. Id. at 430. Horn asked the occupants to move near the
other officer due to the officer’s safety concerns. Horn denied using any show of force or
indication of arrest. Horn said that if the occupants had asked to leave, he would have allowed
them to leave and they were not detained at this point. During the vehicle search, Horn found a
glass pipe, drug paraphernalia, and a bag of pills. After Horn completed the search, he
approached the three occupants and asked to whom the items belonged. Defendant said the pills
were Valium and they belonged to him. Id. The circuit court suppressed defendant’s statement,
finding defendant was subject to a custodial interrogation. Id. at 432. On appeal, this court found
the circuit court’s ruling to be erroneous because the circumstances indicated that defendant was
not in custody at the time of Horn’s question. Id. at 435. In support of our ruling, we noted that
defendant was not handcuffed or placed in a locked squad car, Horn had not told defendant that
he was under arrest, and Horn had not separated the occupants before he posed the question. Id.
at 434.
10
¶ 20 The instant case differs from Havlin in two major respects. First, there is no express
indication that Allspaugh’s initial pat-down was motivated by the officer’s safety concern.
Unlike Horn, Allspaugh did not testify as to his motivation for the search of each occupant as
they exited the vehicle. The record indicates that, based on the depth of the search, Allspaugh
sought evidence of illicit drugs and was not simply conducting a patdown for officer’s safety.
See Flowers, 179 Ill. 2d at 263. As a result, Allspaugh’s search resembled a search incident to
arrest and carried strong implications of police custody. Supra ¶ 18. Second, the police presence
in the instant case was far greater than that in Havlin. Here, the number of officers at the scene
exceeded the number of occupants. Cf. Havlin, 409 Ill. App. 3d at 434 (two officers were present
at the scene). The imposing presence of six officers for five occupants created a greater
environment of police custody. Thus, in contrast to Havlin, the facts of the instant case
established that defendant was subject to a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings,
and the court did not err in granting defendant’s motion to suppress.
¶ 21 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 22 The judgment of the circuit court of Whiteside County is affirmed.
¶ 23 Affirmed.
¶ 24 JUSTICE SCHMIDT, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
¶ 25 I agree with the majority that the trial court correctly suppressed defendant’s response to
the officer’s second question: “What is this white powder?” I dissent with respect to the
majority’s ruling regarding the question: “Whose bag is this?” I would reverse the trial court on
that question and answer.
¶ 26 At the time of the officer’s first question, defendant was not in custody for Miranda
purposes. The mere fact that an accused is not free to leave during a traffic stop or an
11
investigation does not, ipso facto, render defendant in custody for Miranda purposes. See
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439-440 (1984). While I agree that defendant was seized
for fourth amendment purposes when the vehicle was stopped and police conducted their
investigation, the general question as to ownership posed to the group did not constitute
interrogation. See, e.g., People v. Laspisa, 243 Ill. App. 3d 777, 783 (1993); People v. Havlin,
409 Ill. App. 3d 427, 435 (2011).
¶ 27 A general question posed to a group of people does not create “the compulsion inherent
in custodial surroundings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541
U.S. 652, 661 (2004).
12