{ "id": 3777763, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLOS JONES, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Jones", "decision_date": "2003-11-07", "docket_number": "No. 5-02-0398", "first_page": "413", "last_page": "427", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "344 Ill. App. 3d 413" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "687 N.E.2d 813", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "818-19", "parenthetical": "Freeman, C.J., specially concurring, joined by Bilandic, J." } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "178 Ill. 2d 429", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 385570 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "441", "parenthetical": "Freeman, C.J., specially concurring, joined by Bilandic, J." } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/178/0429-01" ] }, { "cite": "371 U.S. 471", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 450611 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "487-88" }, { "page": "455" }, { "page": "417" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/371/0471-01" ] }, { "cite": "772 N.E.2d 275", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "281" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 Ill. App. 3d 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1209203 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "164" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/331/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "440 N.E.2d 869", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "871" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 Ill. 2d 96", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3096881 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "100" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/92/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "456 U.S. 798", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6191830 ], "weight": 9, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "825" }, { "page": "594" }, { "page": "2173" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/456/0798-01" ] }, { "cite": "447 N.E.2d 809", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "811" }, { "page": "811" }, { "page": "812" }, { "page": "812" }, { "page": "811-12" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 Ill. 2d 412", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3112352 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "418" }, { "page": "418" }, { "page": "419" }, { "page": "420" }, { "page": "419" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/95/0412-01" ] }, { "cite": "392 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6167798 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/392/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "731 N.E.2d 853", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "860" }, { "page": "860" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 Ill. App. 3d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 140120 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "8" }, { "page": "8" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/314/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "544 N.E.2d 1015", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 7, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1016" }, { "page": "1017" }, { "page": "1019" }, { "page": "1017" }, { "page": "1017" }, { "page": "1017" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "188 Ill. App. 3d 499", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2688681 ], "weight": 7, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "502" }, { "page": "502" }, { "page": "505" }, { "page": "503" }, { "page": "503" }, { "page": "502" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/188/0499-01" ] }, { "cite": "610 N.E.2d 197", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "202" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "242 Ill. App. 3d 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5119293 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "605" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/242/0599-01" ] }, { "cite": "782 N.E.2d 275", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "278" }, { "page": "278" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 Ill. 2d 462", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1442058 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "465-66" }, { "page": "466" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/202/0462-01" ] }, { "cite": "649 N.E.2d 605", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "607" }, { "page": "607" }, { "page": "608" }, { "page": "609" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 Ill. App. 3d 159", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 251474 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "162" }, { "page": "162" }, { "page": "164" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/272/0159-01" ] }, { "cite": "759 N.E.2d 899", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "902" }, { "page": "902" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 Ill. 2d 103", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 29936 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "108" }, { "page": "108" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/198/0103-01" ] }, { "cite": "604 N.E.2d 389", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "237 Ill. App. 3d 289", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5161302 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/237/0289-01" ] }, { "cite": "631 N.E.2d 872", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 19, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "876" }, { "page": "876" }, { "page": "876" }, { "page": "878" }, { "page": "878" }, { "page": "876" }, { "page": "878" }, { "page": "878" }, { "page": "876" }, { "page": "876" }, { "page": "876" }, { "page": "876" }, { "page": "877" }, { "page": "877" }, { "page": "877-78" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "259 Ill. App. 3d 650", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2872235 ], "weight": 19, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "655" }, { "page": "655" }, { "page": "656" }, { "page": "659" }, { "page": "658" }, { "page": "655" }, { "page": "659" }, { "page": "658-59" }, { "page": "656" }, { "page": "656" }, { "page": "656" }, { "page": "656" }, { "page": "657" }, { "page": "658" }, { "page": "658" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/259/0650-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1106, "char_count": 34319, "ocr_confidence": 0.755, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.456583025697791e-08, "percentile": 0.2792909934131295 }, "sha256": "e97e0ffa456fa484eac93505d9191f7eb67f5e145aedc201e415e95ba13c1dd0", "simhash": "1:ba3234d29b4f8194", "word_count": 5823 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:26.904766+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLOS JONES, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE CHAPMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAfter a routine traffic stop of the defendant, Carlos Jones, police discovered in his possession a small wooden box, which contained a pipe and cannabis, and two loaded handguns. Following a stipulated bench trial, the defendant was convicted of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. Prior to the trial, the defendant moved to suppress the seized evidence. The defendant appeals the trial court\u2019s order denying this motion. For the reasons stated below, we reverse the trial court\u2019s order denying the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress, and we reverse the defendant\u2019s conviction and sentence.\nI. BACKGROUND\nOn the evening of February 18, 2001, the defendant and his young son were driving on Route 15 in Belleville when Illinois State Trooper Christopher Gebke observed that the defendant\u2019s taillights on his pickup truck were not operating. Gebke effected a routine traffic stop that ultimately yielded a small wooden box, which contained a four-inch-long pipe and a small amount of cannabis, and two loaded handguns. The defendant was arrested and charged by information on February 20, 2001, with one count of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon in violation of section 24 \u2014 1.6 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/24 \u2014 1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) (West 2000)). The criminal information alleged that the defendant had knowingly carried an uncased, loaded revolver in his vehicle. On July 24, 2001, the defendant filed a motion to suppress. The motion sought to exclude the seized evidence on the basis that he had been arrested without a warrant or probable cause following an illegal search of his person and vehicle. The trial cotut conducted a hearing on the motion on December 13, 2001, where Gebke and the defendant testified.\nA. Trooper Christopher Gebke\u2019s Testimony\nGebke testified that on February 18, 2001, he observed the defendant\u2019s vehicle traveling east on Route 15 at approximately 10:35 p.m. The vehicle\u2019s taillights were not working, so he initiated a traffic stop. He approached the defendant\u2019s vehicle and informed the defendant that his taillights were not working. He asked the defendant to produce his driver\u2019s license and the defendant complied. At this point, Gebke did not suspect the defendant of having committed any crime other than having inoperable taillights.\nGebke further testified that when the defendant leaned forward, his shirt pocket opened and he observed a small wooden box that he recognized as drug paraphernalia. He made this conclusion based on his training and experience. He asked the defendant what he had in his pocket, and the defendant replied that he had cigarettes. Gebke stated, and the defendant disputed, that the defendant voluntarily handed him the box. Once Gebke had the box in his custody, he opened it and confirmed that it contained a pipe and what he thought was cannabis. He asked the defendant to step out of the vehicle, and he testified that his purpose in doing so was to secure the defendant with handcuffs. After he asked the defendant to step out but before the defendant complied, it appeared to Gebke that the defendant was pushing something in between the seats, because he observed the defendant\u2019s right hand moving. Gebke observed the butt of a gun protruding from the front seat cushion the moment the defendant exited the vehicle.\nGebke testified that he handcuffed the defendant, retrieved the weapon (which was loaded), and placed the defendant in the squad car. He did not have a warrant, nor did he ask the defendant if he could search the truck. When he returned to the defendant\u2019s vehicle, the defendant\u2019s son was crying, so he asked him if he would like to sit in the squad car with his father. Once the defendant\u2019s son was secured, Gebke searched the defendant\u2019s vehicle and discovered another loaded handgun behind the seat in a small black bag, which also contained bullets. Gebke stated that he returned to the defendant\u2019s vehicle to perform an inventory search incident to the arrest, because he planned to have the vehicle towed.\nWith regard to the box, Gebke testified that he did not know where to purchase one like it and that he did not know the purpose for which it was manufactured. He described the dimensions of the box as approximately two inches wide, four and a half inches tall, and three-quarters of an inch thick. He stated that the box had a small lid on top. He conceded that the box could contain a variety of nonillicit items and that it did not have only one purpose.\nB. Defendant\u2019s Testimony\nThe defendant was the only other witness to testify at the suppression hearing. The defendant testified that Gebke approached his vehicle, informed him that his taillights were out, and asked him for some identification. Gebke never advised him that he was going to search him or his vehicle, nor did he produce a warrant to do so. Further, Gebke did not inform him that he did not have to agree to being searched, and the defendant did not feel free to leave.\nThe defendant further testified that he had a wooden box in his front shirt pocket. He recalled Gebke asking him what he had in his pocket and that he had responded that he had cigarettes. Gebke did not ask him what was inside the box. The defendant disputed that he handed the box to Gebke voluntarily. Instead, the defendant testified that Gebke took the box from his pocket after the defendant attempted to button his pocket closed. Gebke opened the box and looked inside, at which time he asked the defendant to exit the vehicle and placed him in handcuffs.\nLike Gebke, the defendant testified that the box could have contained other items \u2014 that it could serve purposes other than holding cannabis. At the conclusion of the hearing and in support of his motion, the defendant asked the court to consider People v. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d 650, 631 N.E.2d 872 (1994), and People v. Innis, 237 Ill. App. 3d 289, 604 N.E.2d 389 (1992), for the proposition that the box found in the defendant\u2019s possession was not a single-purpose container.\nC. Trial Court\u2019s Findings and Orders\nOn January 2, 2002, the trial court entered an order granting the defendant\u2019s motion in part and denying the motion in part. The trial court suppressed the evidence seized as a result of Gebke\u2019s search of the box and denied the motion with regard to the two weapons seized from the defendant\u2019s truck.\nWith regard to the evidence seized in relation to the box, the trial court granted the motion and relied on People v. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d 650, 631 N.E.2d 872 (1994). The court in Evans held that the small wooden box in that case, very similar to that found in the defendant\u2019s possession in the instant matter, should have been suppressed because it was not a single-purpose container and therefore could not provide the officer with probable cause to search it. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 655, 631 N.E.2d at 876. The court in Evans described a single-purpose container as a container that by its nature cannot support a reasonable expectation of privacy because its contents can be inferred from its outward appearance and the container can reasonably have no legitimate purpose other than the concealment of contraband. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 655, 631 N.E.2d at 876.\nWith regard to the weapons, the trial court denied the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the loaded handguns seized from the truck, finding \u2014 doctrine. In so holding, the trial court reasoned that Gebke had the right to remove the defendant from his truck and that his seizure of the weapons was justified based on Gebke\u2019s plain view thereof. The trial court explained that Gebke\u2019s reason for asking the defendant to exit the vehicle was immaterial to determining whether the search of the vehicle was constitutional.\nOn February 13, 2002, a pretrial conference was held wherein the defendant waived his right to a jury trial. Additionally, the trial court acknowledged on the record that it may have made a mistake of law in ruling on the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress. The trial court believed that the portion of its order suppressing the evidence related to the box was erroneous because when it ruled on the motion it had not been aware of section 3.5 of the Drug Paraphernalia Control Act (the Act) (720 ILCS 600/3.5 (West 2000)). The trial court further explained that there had been a \u201cchange in the statute wherein one[-]hitter boxes are drug paraphernalia and illegal per se,\u201d and it further stated that \u201c[the Evans] case predates the change in the statute.\u201d This led the trial court to conclude that Gebke\u2019s recognition of the box in the defendant\u2019s pocket as drug paraphernalia would be akin to a plain viewing of contraband.\nOn March 14, 2002, the defendant and the State stipulated to a bench trial and further stipulated that the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing would serve as the evidence therein. At the outset of the trial, the defendant moved to renew his motion to suppress on the basis that the Act, which the trial court had relied upon in announcing that it had made a mistake in ruling upon the motion to suppress, had been effective at the time the cases submitted in support of the motion had been decided. The defendant argued that wooden boxes are not listed in the \u201cdefinitions\u201d section of the Act\u2014 section 2(d)(5) (720 ILCS 600/2(d)(5) (West 2000)). However, upon the trial court\u2019s request, the defendant was unable to tender a copy of the version of the statute that he claimed to be in effect prior to 1994. The defendant argued that if the suppression motion was granted regarding the box, it should likewise be granted regarding the weapons under the \u201cfruit of the poisonous tree\u201d doctrine, i.e., the weapons should be suppressed because Gebke\u2019s removal of the box from the defendant\u2019s pocket constituted an illegal search.\nThe trial court denied the defendant\u2019s renewed motion to suppress and stated that it was considering reversing itself on the portion of its order dated January 2, 2002, suppressing the box and cannabis. The trial court continued to believe that suppressing the evidence related to the box was a mistake, based on the Act and the fact that the authorities cited by the defendant predated the Act. The trial court verbally reversed its order suppressing the evidence related to the box, effectively denying the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress in its entirety.\nOn March 25, 2002, the trial court entered a written order finding the defendant guilty of the charge stated in the criminal information, and the court set his sentencing for May 14, 2002. On April 15, 2002, the trial court entered another written order in which it repudiated its earlier reliance on the single-purpose-container doctrine. The court concluded that its order dated January 2, 2002, suppressing the evidence related to the box was a mistake. The trial court reasoned: \u201c[The] box is drug paraphernalia and criminal contraband under the Illinois Drug Paraphernalia Control Act [citation]. As such, [Gebke\u2019s] plain view observation of the device and seizure thereof is permissible.\u201d Based on the stipulated facts at the trial, the trial court found the defendant guilty of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.\nOn April 24, 2002, the defendant filed a motion asking the trial court to reconsider its previous orders denying his motions to suppress and its judgment finding the defendant guilty. The trial court denied the defendant\u2019s motion to reconsider and posttrial motions on May 14, 2002, and sentenced him to pay a $300 fine and court costs and to serve one year of conditional discharge. The defendant made a timely appeal.\nII. ANALYSIS\nOn appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motions to suppress the evidence. We agree.\n\u201cGenerally, a trial court\u2019s decision on a motion to suppress evidence is subject to reversal only if it is clearly or manifestly erroneous.\u201d People v. Thomas, 198 Ill. 2d 103, 108, 759 N.E.2d 899, 902 (2001). In ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court must determine the credibility of witnesses and resolve any conflict in the testimony. People v. Koutsakis, 272 Ill. App. 3d 159, 162, 649 N.E.2d 605, 607 (1995). Ruling on a motion to suppress evidence presents a mixed question of law and fact in which the trial court must (1) weigh the evidence and determine the facts surrounding the complained-of conduct and (2) then decide whether, as a matter of law, the facts constitute an unconstitutional seizure. People v. Cox, 202 Ill. 2d 462, 465-66, 782 N.E.2d 275, 278 (2002). A trial court\u2019s determination on a motion to suppress will be accorded great deference. Koutsakis, 272 Ill. App. 3d at 162, 649 N.E.2d at 607. However, we will employ de novo review for the court\u2019s ultimate ruling on a defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence. Cox, 202 Ill. 2d at 466, 782 N.E.2d at 278.\nIn this case, the defendant contends that Gebke did not have probable cause to seize and search the box he had observed during the traffic stop. As a result, the defendant contends that the weapons located during Gebke\u2019s subsequent search of the vehicle were tainted fruit that should have been suppressed. The State responds that Gebke was entitled to ask the defendant to step out of the vehicle to discuss both the traffic stop and the box observed in his front shirt pocket incident to the traffic stop. The State contends that Gebke\u2019s plain view of the box in the defendant\u2019s front shirt pocket, coupled with that fact that his experience and training led him to believe that the box was drug paraphernalia, gave him probable cause to conclude that the vehicle contained drugs and that searches of the box and the vehicle were proper. However, the State also suggests that Gebke\u2019s examination of the box was immaterial to the ultimate discovery of the loaded gun in the defendant\u2019s vehicle, because the gun was in plain view upon the defendant\u2019s exit from the vehicle.\nThe fourth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees people the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const., amend. IV \u201cWhen a vehicle is stopped for a minor traffic violation, a search of the vehicle is not justified.\u201d Koutsakis, 272 III. App. 3d at 163, 649 N.E.2d at 608, citing People v. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d 650, 656, 631 N.E.2d 872, 876 (1994), and People v. Stewart, 242 Ill. App. 3d 599, 605, 610 N.E.2d 197, 202 (1993). Because an officer\u2019s authority to investigate a traffic stop may not become a subterfuge to obtain other evidence merely based on the officer\u2019s suspicion (Koutsakis, 272 Ill. App. 3d at 164, 649 N.E.2d at 609), reasonableness under the fourth amendment generally requires a warrant supported by probable cause. Thomas, 198 Ill. 2d at 108, 759 N.E.2d at 902. However, a warrantless search of a vehicle or a seizure of its contents may be made when the police have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. People v. Penny, 188 Ill. App. 3d 499, 502, 544 N.E.2d 1015, 1016 (1989). Police suspicion or curiosity is not enough to justify a search. Penny, 188 Ill. App. 3d at 502, 544 N.E.2d at 1017.\nThe plain view doctrine permits a police officer, who has probable cause to suspect that an item is connected with criminal activity and whose access to the item is proper under the fourth amendment, to seize the item if it is visible. People v. Berry, 314 Ill. App. 3d 1, 8, 731 N.E.2d 853, 860 (2000). In order for evidence to qualify for the plain view exception to the warrant requirement, it is necessary that (1) the initial intrusion which afforded the authorities the plain view was lawful, (2) the discovery of the evidence was inadvertent, and (3) the incriminating nature of the evidence was immediately apparent. Berry, 314 Ill. App. 3d at 8, 731 N.E.2d at 860.\nThe defendant maintains that People v. Penny, 188 Ill. App. 3d 499, 544 N.E.2d 1015 (1989), and People v. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d 650, 631 N.E.2d 872 (1994), support the suppression of the evidence in this case. In Penny, the defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized at the time of his arrest, consisting of a package wrapped in brown opaque plastic seen lying on the floor of the defendant\u2019s vehicle by police. The trial court granted the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress, and the appellate court affirmed.\nTestimony from the suppression hearing established that the defendant\u2019s vehicle had been stopped by police for having an expired license plate sticker. After pulling over to the side of the road, the defendant exited his vehicle and walked toward the rear, where he met police officers approaching him. An officer noticed that the defendant\u2019s hands were shaking as he retrieved his license. Another officer looked inside the defendant\u2019s vehicle and observed on the floor a package approximately seven inches in diameter and four inches thick wrapped in brown opaque plastic material. The defendant claimed that he did not know what was inside the package. The officer retrieved the package because he believed it looked like a kilo of cocaine. He further testified that it felt like a \u201cbrick.\u201d The officer poked a hole in the package and saw that it contained a white powder later determined to be cocaine.\nThe appellate court affirmed the trial court\u2019s suppression of the package. Penny, 188 Ill. App. 3d at 505, 544 N.E.2d at 1019. In so doing, the court found it significant that the only reasons offered by the police to support the search of the package were that it looked like a kilo of cocaine and that the defendant\u2019s hands were shaking. Penny, 188 Ill. App. 3d at 503, 544 N.E.2d at 1017. Noting that cocaine comes packaged in a variety of ways, the court emphasized that there was nothing about the package itself or about the surrounding circumstances that suggested it contained contraband and that it could have contained many legitimate items. Penny, 188 Ill. App. 3d at 503, 544 N.E.2d at 1017.\nThe facts and issues in Evans are strikingly similar to the instant case. People v. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d 650, 631 N.E.2d 872 (1994). The defendant in Evans moved to suppress a small wooden box and cannabis seized by the police during a routine traffic stop. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the appellate court reversed.\nTestimony from the suppression hearing in Evans established that the Evans defendant had been stopped by police for speeding. The defendant testified that the officer approached the defendant\u2019s vehicle and asked for his driver\u2019s license. The defendant tendered his license, and the officer returned to his squad car for about five minutes while the defendant remained in his car. The officer returned to the defendant\u2019s vehicle, issued him a citation, and then asked the defendant what was inside his front shirt pocket. The defendant did not respond. Similar to the testimony in the case sub judice, the defendant testified that the officer pulled a small box from his shirt pocket, while the officer testified that the defendant offered the box voluntarily. The description of the box in Evans is similar to the description of the box at issue in this case.\nThe officer opened the box and observed what he thought was cannabis. He instructed the defendant to exit his vehicle, placed him in handcuffs, and informed him that he would conduct a search of the vehicle. He asked the defendant if he had any more cannabis in the vehicle, and the defendant responded in the affirmative. The officer located three small bags of cannabis inside a duffel bag located in the defendant\u2019s vehicle. The officer testified that he came into contact with similar boxes during his training in drug enforcement and in more than 50 similar situations. The officer testified that in each of those situations the boxes did not contain tobacco. Like Gebke in the instant case, the officer in Evans testified that he was responding only to the traffic violation when he stopped the defendant\u2019s vehicle, that he did not observe anything unusual about the interior of the defendant\u2019s vehicle upon his approach, and that there was no writing on the outside of the box.\nThe trial court denied the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress, and the appellate court reversed. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 659, 631 N.E.2d at 878. Relying primarily on Penny, the Evans court concluded that the officer had lacked probable cause to search the box and that the evidence related to the box should have been suppressed. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 658, 631 N.E.2d at 878. The court stated, \u201cThe container was not one of those rare \u2018single-purpose\u2019 containers which by their very nature cannot support a reasonable expectation of privacy because their contents can be inferred from their outward appearance and the containers can reasonably have no legitimate purpose other than the concealment of contraband.\u201d Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 655, 631 N.E.2d at 876. The court further concluded that the bags of cannabis located in the duffel bag during the subsequent search of the defendant\u2019s vehicle should have been suppressed because it was the tainted fruit of an unlawful arrest. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 659, 631 N.E.2d at 878. The court reasoned that since the arrest was effected on the basis of evidence impermissibly obtained from the search of the box, the arrest was unlawful and could not support a further search of tf vehicle incident to arrest. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 658-59, 631 N.E.2d at 878.\nIn so holding, the Evans court found it significant that the officer had no reason to believe that he was dealing with anything more than a routine traffic stop or that the vehicle contained contraband. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 656, 631 N.E.2d at 876. Further, the State did not argue that the officer intended to make a limited Terry search (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)) for weapons out of concern for his safety. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 656, 631 N.E.2d at 876. The officer conceded that he did not believe the box contained a weapon, and he did not express any concern for his safety. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 656, 631 N.E.2d at 876. The fact that no other suspicious or incriminating circumstances were present at the time the officer either requested the box or (according to the defendant) took the box from the defendant\u2019s pocket was highly significant to the Evans court. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 656, 631 N.E.2d at 876.\nAdditionally, in rejecting the State\u2019s claim that the officer\u2019s experience or suspicion could serve as the basis for probable cause to seize and search the box, the Evans court noted the absence of additional incriminating circumstances and the possibility that the box could have contained lawful objects such as tobacco or thumbtacks. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 657, 631 N.E.2d at 877.\nThe State contends that the decision in Evans misinterprets and contradicts the Illinois Supreme Court\u2019s prior decision in People v. Smith, 95 Ill. 2d 412, 447 N.E.2d 809 (1983). The issue before the court in Smith was whether the sheriffs warrantless search of a small box in the defendant\u2019s vehicle violated the state and federal warrant requirements.\nIn Smith, the sheriff stopped the defendant\u2019s vehicle for an expired safety-inspection sticker. The defendant exited his vehicle and met the sheriff halfway between his vehicle and the squad car. The sheriff detected an odor of alcohol on the defendant, approached the defendant\u2019s vehicle on the driver\u2019s side, and observed an open bottle in a brown paper bag on the floor of the passenger compartment. The sheriff noticed that the bottle contained liquid, and he believed that it was a beer bottle, based on its shape and the color of the label. The sheriff also observed on the floor of the driver\u2019s side a small, three-inch by five-inch wooden box with a sliding top. The sheriff recognized the box as a \u201cone-hitter box\u201d used to carry cannabis. The sheriff entered through the passenger side of the vehicle and began to search without the defendant\u2019s consent or a warrant to do so. During his search, he observed a hypodermic syringe next to the box on the floor of the vehicle. He seized the bottle, the syringe, and the box. The sheriff opened that box and discovered what he thought was cannabis, a metal pipe, and a plastic bag containing a white powder that he thought was cocaine, at which time he arrested the defendant.\nRelying primarily on United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572, 102 S. Ct. 2157 (1982), the Smith court found that the sheriffs search of the box was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, and it reversed the appellate court. The court noted, \u201c \u2018If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.\u2019 \u201d Smith, 95 Ill. 2d at 418, 447 N.E.2d at 811, quoting Ross, 456 U.S. at 825, 72 L. Ed. 2d at 594, 102 S. Ct. at 2173. The court further observed that the nature of the container in which contraband is secreted does not determine the permissible scope of a warrantless search under the automobile exception. Smith, 95 Ill. 2d at 418, 447 N.E.2d at 811, citing Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572, 102 S. Ct. 2157.\nThe unique circumstances leading up to the sheriffs search of the vehicle were significant to the court in finding that the sheriff had probable cause to search the entire vehicle. The court noted that the sheriff was entitled to enter the vehicle to inspect the bottle and to search for alcohol upon. perceiving alcohol on the defendant\u2019s breath and viewing an open beer bottle on the floor of the vehicle. Smith, 95 Ill. 2d at 419, 447 N.E.2d at 812. Also, having found the hypodermic syringe and the box, the sheriff had probable cause to search the entire vehicle and any closed containers therein for drugs. Smith, 95 Ill. 2d at 420, 447 N.E.2d at 812.\nSmith was decided before Evans. However, the court in Evans distinguished the holding in Smith and found it inapplicable. Evans found it had been the \u201cother indices of unlawful activity or contraband\u201d confronting the officers in Smith, plus their observation of the box, that supported probable cause to search. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 658, 631 N.E.2d at 877. The Evans court further noted that the supreme court in Smith did not specifically hold that the box was so unique or distinctive that the observation of it alone supported probable cause to search under the single-purpose-container doctrine. Evans, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 658, 631 N.E.2d at 877-78.\nIn this case, the State asks us to find that the holding in Smith supports a finding that Gebke had probable cause to search the contents of the box in the defendant\u2019s possession as well as the remainder of the vehicle. In making this request, the State further asks that we reject the holding in Evans, particularly its treatment of Smith. We decline. The distinction is clear between the relevant circumstances considered in toto by the Smith court in holding that probable cause existed and those considered by the Evans court in holding that probable cause did not exist. Smith simply involved more facts that would support a reasonable person\u2019s belief that contraband was in the vehicle. Further, the facts in Smith do not parallel those in the instant case.\nThe standard by which probable cause is determined requires that the totality of the facts and circumstances known to police at the time of the search would justify a reasonable person in believing that contraband was present in the vehicle. Smith, 95 Ill. 2d at 419, 447 N.E.2d at 811-12, relying on People v. Clark, 92 Ill. 2d 96, 100, 440 N.E.2d 869, 871 (1982). While an officer\u2019s experience is a relevant factor to consider, along with the totality of the circumstances in each case (People v. Jackson, 331 Ill. App. 3d 158, 164, 772 N.E.2d 275, 281 (2002)), it is but one circumstance to consider and is not, in and of itself, dispositive. Furthermore, police suspicion or curiosity does not support a finding of probable cause. Penny, 188 Ill. App. 3d at 502, 544 N.E.2d at 1017.\nWith these considerations in mind, we find that the circumstances involved here do not show that Gebke had probable cause to search either the box observed in the defendant\u2019s front shirt pocket or the remainder of the vehicle\u2019s contents. The only reason offered by Gebke justifying his search of the box was Gebke\u2019s conclusion that the box was \u201cdrug paraphernalia\u201d based upon his training and work experience. However, Gebke testified that this was only a suspicion that was confirmed after he had opened the box. Further, Gebke conceded that the box could contain a variety of nonillicit items and that it did not have only one purpose. There was no testimony showing that the box itself or the circumstances surrounding Gebke\u2019s view of it suggested that it contained contraband. Gebke believed that he was conducting a routine traffic stop. Gebke did not believe that the defendant\u2019s vehicle contained contraband at the time of the stop, nor did he suspect the defendant of committing any other crime other than having inoperable taillights. Gebke had no reason to search the vehicle or to ask the defendant to step outside. In fact, the sole reason offered by Gebke for his search of the box was his belief that such boxes contain contraband based upon his training and work experience. This alone does not establish probable cause.\nWe next address the trial court\u2019s belief that it made a mistake in initially suppressing the box and its contents, on the basis that the Penny and Evans decisions predated section 3.5 of the Act (720 ILCS 600/3.5 (West 2000)). While the trial court was correct that Penny and Evans predated section 3.5, which became effective on December 15, 1994, we fail to recognize how this or any other section of the Act affects the probable cause determination. Section 3.5 of the Act provides for the sentencing of individuals found guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia. Contrary to the apparent belief of the trial court, section 3.5 does not define the phrase \u201cdrug paraphernalia.\u201d In fact, the definition of \u201cdrug paraphernalia\u201d is found in section 2 of the Act (720 ILCS 600/2 (West 2000)). Nothing remotely similar to the box involved in this case is listed in this section. Furthermore, the Penny and Evans decisions did not predate the legislature\u2019s enactment of section 2. Although it is arguable that the box found in the defendant\u2019s possession could qualify under section 2 as \u201cdrug paraphernalia,\u201d so, too, could many other items that are not solely dedicated to that use, e.g., plastic camera film containers and duffel bags. In short, we do not find that any section of the Act adds to a probable cause analysis.\nLast, we address the State\u2019s contention that the guns seized from the defendant\u2019s vehicle should not be suppressed even if the search of the box was illegal. It is well settled that evidence discovered by the exploitation of illegal police conduct must be excluded as \u201cfruit of the poisonous tree.\u201d Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-88, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441, 455, 83 S. Ct. 407, 417 (1963). However, under the inevitable discovery doctrine, evidence obtained in violation of a defendant\u2019s constitutional rights may avoid exclusion if the State is able to prove that such evidence inevitably would have been discovered without the illegal police conduct. See People v. Burnidge, 178 Ill. 2d 429, 441, 687 N.E.2d 813, 818-19 (1997) (Freeman, C.J., specially concurring, joined by Bilandic, J.).\nThe State contends that even if Gebke\u2019s search of the box was improper, the gun Gebke observed on the front seat should not be suppressed because it was in plain view upon the defendant\u2019s exit of the vehicle. The State further claims that since Gebke was entitled to ask the defendant to exit his vehicle for no reason at all, Gebke\u2019s discovery of the gun in the front seat was inevitable. We disagree.\nAs we have already established, Gebke\u2019s search of the box found in the defendant\u2019s possession was not supported by probable cause. Despite the State\u2019s contentions, Gebke\u2019s own testimony indicates that he asked the defendant to exit his vehicle only after he \u201cconfirmed his suspicions\u201d that the box contained contraband. His reason for asking the defendant to exit the vehicle was to secure him with handcuffs\u2014 not to complete the routine traffic stop. The fact that Gebke could have asked the defendant to exit his vehicle, thereby discovering the gun in plain view, does not show that such was inevitable. Based upon the record, it seems much more likely that had Gebke not searched the box and discovered its illicit contents, he would have issued the defendant a citation and sent him on his way, without having ever had him exit the vehicle. The State has not demonstrated beyond a preponderance of the evidence that Gebke\u2019s discovery of either or both of the weapons observed in the defendant\u2019s vehicle would have been inevitable. There being no valid exception to the exclusionary rule, the weapons and related evidence should have been suppressed pursuant to the \u201cfruit of the poisonous tree\u201d doctrine. The trial court erred in not suppressing this evidence.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nAfter reviewing the entire record de novo, we find that the trial court\u2019s denials of the defendant\u2019s motions to suppress were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the order denying the suppression of the evidence is reversed. Furthermore, because the defendant was convicted solely upon the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing, the very same evidence sought to be excluded by the defendant\u2019s motions to suppress, we also reverse the defendant\u2019s conviction and sentence.\nReversed.\nHOPKINS, EJ., and MAAG, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE CHAPMAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Herbert J. Lantz, Jr., of Belleville, for appellant.", "Robert Haida, State\u2019s Attorney, of Belleville (Norbert J. Goetten, Stephen E. Norris, and Sharon Shanahan, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLOS JONES, Defendant-Appellant.\nFifth District\nNo. 5-02-0398\nOpinion filed November 7, 2003.\nRehearing denied December 9, 2003.\nHerbert J. Lantz, Jr., of Belleville, for appellant.\nRobert Haida, State\u2019s Attorney, of Belleville (Norbert J. Goetten, Stephen E. Norris, and Sharon Shanahan, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0413-01", "first_page_order": 431, "last_page_order": 445 }