{ "id": 2871598, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter B. Epperley, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Epperley", "decision_date": "1975-12-11", "docket_number": "No. 75-146", "first_page": "886", "last_page": "889", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "33 Ill. App. 3d 886" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "39 Ill.2d 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2856333 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "90" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/39/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Ill.2d 17", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5392168 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "22" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/51/0017-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 A.L.R. 3d 314", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00a7 8" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "413 U.S. 266", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11340163 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "2537-38" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/413/0266-01" ] }, { "cite": "471 F.2d 723", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 269005 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "725" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/471/0723-01" ] }, { "cite": "470 F.2d 1120", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 261900 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/470/1120-01" ] }, { "cite": "451 F.2d 230", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 787667 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/451/0230-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 Ill.App.2d 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2742554 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "89" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/129/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Ill.2d 184", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2862080 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "187" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/38/0184-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 Ill.App.3d 473", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2509062 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "474-475" }, { "page": "474" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/23/0473-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Ill.App.3d 858", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2468989 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "862" }, { "page": "862" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/6/0858-01" ] }, { "cite": "414 U.S. 260", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11715645 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/414/0260-01" ] }, { "cite": "414 U.S. 218", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11715586 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/414/0218-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 386, "char_count": 5443, "ocr_confidence": 0.744, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1033646177777479e-07, "percentile": 0.5689374168146483 }, "sha256": "954690fbe10131378fd844416be3fe86f5986b50429219140262a4b6fd02d6e5", "simhash": "1:f9aab9c8ad474a35", "word_count": 919 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:25:47.184380+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter B. Epperley, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SEIDENFELD\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe State appeals from the order granting defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence. It contends that the record shows that the cannabis which was the subject of the motion to suppress was in plain view of the officer who had stopped the defendant because of his erratic driving. The defendant has not filed a brief or otherwise appeared. However, we exercise our discretion to decide the appeal on its merits.\nIn the State\u2019s brief reference is made only to the testimony of Officer Gonzalez. The officer testified that after he stopped the defendant for erratic driving he approached the car and asked defendant for his driver\u2019s license; that he noticed defendant slide over to the passenger seat and approached him; that defendant after looking in his glove compartment and around him told the officer he didn\u2019t have the license with him. Gonzalez further testified that he observed defendant weaving back as if he were intoxicated. Gonzalez said he then shined his flashlight into the auto to see if there was a weapon or open liquor and that he saw a leafy substance appearing from a shopping bag which was wide open on the floorboard behind the passenger seat in plain view.\nHowever, we have been obliged to review the record to find that the partner of Gonzalez, Officer Lifto, who testified on direct examination that the defendant did not get out of the car until after the search, was impeached by his testimony at the preliminary hearing and conceded that defendant did exit the car before Gonzalez approached. Lifto testified that Gonzalez, after questioning defendant outside the car, patted him down for weapons and then went to the car and looked all around its interior using his flashlight. This corroborated defendant\u2019s testimony as to the on-the-scene facts and the court expressly stated that he was therefore impelled to believe defendant\u2019s testimony on this particular question. Tire judge then concluded that since defendant was outside of the car there was no need for the officer to make a search of the car and further concluded that since a flashlight was'required the contraband could not be considered to be in \u201cplain view \u201d\nThere was no real question on the record but that tire defendant had been observed by Officer Lifto as well as Officer Gonzalez crossing the center line of the road several times, once as much as by the width of half a car. It was also undisputed that tire defendant was unable to produce a driver\u2019s license when he was stopped. Under these circumstances the traffic stop was, of course, justified and unquestionably there was authority- to search the defendant\u2019s person. See United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 38 L.Ed.2d 427, 94 S.Ct. 467 (1973); Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260, 38 L.Ed.2d 456, 94 S.Ct. 488 (1973).\nWhen an initial stop of a motorist is based upon probable cause a warrantless search may be conducted for a permissible purpose in an automobile from which the defendant has alighted. (People v. Zazzetti, 6 Ill.App.3d 858, 862 (1972); People v. Scherer, 23 Ill.App.3d 473, 474-475 (1974). See also Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 108\u20141(d).) Because of the fact that- the defendant was unable to produce a driver\u2019s license and also had been 'seen weaving- on the highway, it would appear that the officers had a right to inspect the vehicle at least for the limited purpose of ascertaining the registration and to search for evidence of liquor which could account for the erratic driving. See People v. Scherer, 23 Ill.App.3d 473, 474 (1974); People v. Zazzetti, 6 Ill.App.3d 858, 862 (1972).\nThe marijuana, of course, was not what the officers were looking for. However, under the \u201cplain view\u201d doctrine when it first appears that the officer has the right to be in the position to have that view, seizure without a warrant of evidence of another- crime which is- inadvertently seen in plain view is justified and may not be considered the product of an unreasonable search. People v. Tate, 38 Ill.2d 184, 187 (1967); People v. Oliver, 129 Ill.App.2d 83, 89 (1970). See also United States v. Drew, 451 F.2d 230 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Brown, 470 F.2d 1120 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Bright, 471 F.2d 723, 725 (5th Cir. 1973). Compare Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 37 L.Ed.2d 596, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2537-38 (1973); see also Annot., 10 A.L.R. 3d 314 \u00a7 8(b), (c) (1966).\nThe trial court erroneously concluded that the contraband could not have been in the \u201cplain view\u201d of the officer because he had-'to \u00fase a flashlight in order to see the plants in the shopping bag. Tire use of artificial light to observe that which is in a position, to be plainly seen does not alter the doctrine. People v. Bombacino, 51 Ill.2d 17, 22 (1972). See also People v. Oliver, 129 Ill.App.2d 83 (1970); People v. Pickett, 39 Ill.2d 88, 90 (1968).\nWe therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause with directions to further proceed in conformity with the views expressed in this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nGUILD and HALLETT, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SEIDENFELD" } ], "attorneys": [ "Gerry L. Dondanville, State\u2019s Attorney, of Geneva (Thomas E. Hogan, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People.", "No brief filed for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter B. Epperley, Defendant-Appellee.\n(No. 75-146;\nSecond District (1st Division)\nDecember 11, 1975.\nGerry L. Dondanville, State\u2019s Attorney, of Geneva (Thomas E. Hogan, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People.\nNo brief filed for appellee." }, "file_name": "0886-01", "first_page_order": 914, "last_page_order": 917 }