MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY, U.S. District Judge.
On May 3, 2001, the Defendant, Charles Patterson, was indicted on charges of possession of more than five or more grams of a mixture and substance containing cocaine base ("crack") and possession of a firearm by a felon. On June 5, 2001, Patterson filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence (#8). On September 13, 2001, this court held a hearing on Patterson's motion to suppress. Following a careful review of the transcript of those proceedings and the arguments submitted by the parties, Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (#8) is GRANTED.
A Superseding Indictment was filed on October 3, 2001, changing Count 1 to reflect possession of cocaine rather than cocaine base.
FACTS
On April 17, 2001, Charles Patterson ("Patterson") was traveling northbound on Interstate 57 in a blue Chevrolet accompanied by two passengers. At approximately 3:25 p.m., Illinois State Trooper Chris Koerner ("Koerner") stopped Patterson's vehicle for speeding. Koerner issued Patterson a warning citation for speeding and released him. Patterson testified that, prior to his release, Koerner indicated he was calling for a canine unit to walk around Patterson's vehicle. However, after calling for the unit, Koerner indicated that it was going to take forty-five minutes to an hour before the canine unit could come, so he would release Patterson.
At approximately 3:45 p.m., Illinois State Trooper Erik Shay ("Shay"), a member of the canine unit, was traveling southbound on Interstate 57. Shay turned around at a median and waited "a matter of seconds" before pulling out and going northbound behind Patterson's vehicle. Shay then stopped Patterson's vehicle for improper lane usage. Shay testified that he saw Patterson cross the outside lane marker three times. After Shay stopped the vehicle, he approached Patterson's vehicle and requested identification from everyone in the car. Shay then asked Patterson to accompany him back to his squad car.
Once in his car, Shay issued Patterson a written warning for improper lane usage and a ticket for failure to wear his seat belt. Shay proceeded to ask Patterson a number of questions, including whether Patterson had any illegal drugs or guns in the car. Patterson denied having anything illegal in his vehicle. Nevertheless, Shay asked Patterson permission to search his vehicle. Shay testified that he asked Patterson this question twice, and both times Patterson indicated that Shay could search the car by saying "Yes." Patterson testified that he responded, "Yes, the inside."
While Patterson was in Shay's car, Koerner arrived at the scene. Shay testified that he called for Koerner to come to the scene because he "received numerous criminal history responses" when he ran a check of Patterson's driver's license. Koerner entered the back seat of Shay's vehicle during Shay's discussion with Patterson. Following this conversation, Shay and Koerner exited the squad car and approached Patterson's vehicle. The troopers asked the passengers to exit the car and accompany Koerner back to his squad car so the vehicle could be searched. Koerner accompanied the passengers back to his squad car, and Shay began his search of Patterson's vehicle.
Patterson testified that Koerner was not present when Shay asked for consent to search the car. Koerner and Shay testified that Koerner was present at that time.
Shay began his search in Patterson's trunk. He opened the trunk by removing the keys from the ignition of Patterson's car. In the trunk, Shay found a box of ammunition in a duffel bag. Shay then proceeded to do a "quick search" of the interior of the car to make sure there were no weapons. Shay then opened the hood of the car. Directly behind the driver's side headlight there was a blue plastic Wal-Mart bag. Inside the bag, Shay found a "brick" of marijuana, an Intratec 9 millimeter pistol loaded with a 30-round magazine, and a small bag of cocaine. Shay then returned to his vehicle and placed Patterson under arrest.
A third trooper, Trooper Cushman, then arrived at the scene, and the two passengers were also placed under arrest. Patterson and the two passengers were transported to state police headquarters in Ashkum, Illinois. Shay testified that he questioned Patterson regarding the contraband found in his vehicle in a small conference room after reaching headquarters. Shay testified that Patterson admitted to owning the marijuana, cocaine and pistol after being informed of his rights under Miranda.
ANALYSIS
The outcome of this motion to suppress depends almost entirely upon the credibility of the witnesses. Patterson testified that he consented to a search of only the "inside" of his vehicle, while both Shay and Koerner testified that Patterson said only "Yes" when Shay asked Patterson if he could conduct the search. This court took copious notes during the hearing while observing the manner and demeanor of the witnesses. While this court questioned the reliability of the testimony of both Koerner and Shay at that time, the inconsistencies in their testimony become more apparent when the court reviewed the transcript. For example, when Trooper Koerner was asked whether he asked Patterson for consent to search his vehicle when he made the initial stop of Patterson, Koerner testified as follows:
Q: Did you ever ask Mr. Patterson to consent to searching his automobile?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Was there any particular reason why you didn't ask to search his automobile?
A: I did not have sufficient backup.
Q: Did you ever ask Mr. Patterson if you could bring a dog to walk around his vehicle?
A: No. I did not.
However, Trooper Koerner was apparently dissatisfied with this answer, because his testimony changed dramatically within moments.
Q. Now, did you have a conversation with him about searching his vehicle?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what did you say about searching Mr. Patterson's vehicle?
A. I asked him if I could search his vehicle, and he indicated yes.
Q. During that traffic, traffic stop?
A. That is correct.
Q. Is there any reason why you didn't search his vehicle?
A. I didn't have sufficient backup. We are taught not to search alone, sir.
It is also interesting to note that Trooper Shay testified that a "big factor" in his decision to search Patterson's car was the large number of criminal history responses he received when a ran a check of Patterson's driver's license. However, Trooper Koerner testified as follows with regard to Patterson's criminal history responses:
Q: Did you run a check of his [Patterson's] driver's license?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Did you find anything about his diver's license relative to violations of the law or anything that would indicate to you that he had any prior criminal activity?
A: No. I did not.
Q: Did you check for criminal history responses?
A: Yes, I did.
The court also had an opportunity to observe the manner and demeanor of Shay when he testified earlier in the day at a motion to suppress hearing in the case of United States v. Anderson, Case No. 01-CR-20008. At that hearing, this court made a credibility finding as to Shay, stating that he was "very open" and "very responsive" to the questions posed. Further, this court found that his testimony was "truthful, honest, and unquestionable as to integrity." However, Shay's manner and demeanor was dramatically different in this matter. Both Shay and Koerner hesitated in answering several questions and did not maintain eye contact with the court when the court asked questions of them. It is apparent to this court that Shay and Koerner were not truthful in their testimony. In contrast, this court found the testimony of Patterson to be credible. Patterson maintained eye contact with the court and testified consistently throughout the hearing. Therefore, this court concludes that when Shay asked Patterson for consent to search his vehicle, Patterson replied "Yes, the inside."
Consent to search may be limited by a criminal suspect. United States v. Mitchell, 82 F.3d 146, 151 (7th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 856. "Under the Fourth Amendment, the standard for measuring the scope of an individual's consent is objective reasonableness: what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the person giving consent?" United States v. Wesela, 223 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1174. Where Patterson stated "Yes, the inside," in response to Shay's question of whether he could search Patterson's vehicle, a reasonable person would have understood that statement to limit consent to searching the interior of the vehicle, not the trunk or beneath the hood of the vehicle. Shay exceeded the scope of Patterson's consent when he found the pistol, ammunition, marijuana, and cocaine. Accordingly, this evidence must be suppressed.
Furthermore, any statements made by Patterson following his arrest must be suppressed. "A confession that occurs during unlawful custody, or was influenced by unlawfully seized evidence, must be suppressed unless intervening events demonstrate that the illegality did not cause the confession." United States v. Jones, 214 F.3d 836, 838 (7th Cir. 2000). Because the probable cause for Patterson's arrest, during which he made his confession, resulted from evidence seized during an illegal search, his detention was also illegal. United States v. Gillespie, 650 F.2d 127, 129 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111. After finding the evidence, Patterson was transported to headquarters where he admitted ownership of the weapon and drugs to Shay. There was not much time between his arrest and interrogation. Furthermore, no significant intervening events occurred between the arrest and interrogation. Therefore, Patterson's confession must also be suppressed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
(1) Defendant's Motion to Suppress (#8) is GRANTED.
(2) A status conference by personal appearance remains set for January 11, 2002, at 4:00 p.m.