A traffic stop in Naperville led to a man's arrest for possessing 21.3 grams of crack cocaine, facing 4-30 years in prison, with the search's legality crucial in court.
October 2, 2024
A traffic stop in Naperville led to a man's arrest for possessing 21.3 grams of crack cocaine, facing 4-30 years in prison, with the search's legality crucial in court.
Officers in suburban Naperville spotted a car allegedly being driven erratically and committing multiple traffic violations during rush hour traffic this past week and jumped into action, pulling the driver over for what would normally have been a routine traffic stop. However, in this instance, officers apparently discovered 0.1 grams of crack cocaine inside the vehicle and placed the driver under arrest. This occurred near the busy intersection of Diehl Road and Raymond Drive.
The driver was taken to the Naperville Detention Center for processing, and their legal troubles continued as the police officers found an additional 21.2 grams of apparent crack cocaine on the man’s person. The driver now faces two minor traffic violations: possession of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.
The Illinois Compiled Statutes Section 402 explains that “it is unlawful for any person knowingly to possess a controlled or counterfeit substance or controlled substance analog.” A violation involving any of the individually listed substances constitutes a single and separate violation. A violation of this section of the Controlled Substances Act is a Class 1 felony and may carry a term of imprisonment as outlined by the Act. If a person is found to be in possession of 15 grams or more, but less than 100 grams, of any substance containing cocaine, they will receive a sentence of imprisonment of not less than four years and not more than 15 years.
The Illinois Compiled Statutes Section 401 explains that “it is unlawful for any person knowingly to manufacture or deliver, or possess with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance.” Similarly to possession of a controlled substance, a violation of possession with intent to deliver involving any of the individually listed substances constitutes a single and separate violation. If a person is found to be in possession of 15 grams or more, but less than 100 grams, of a substance containing cocaine, with intent to deliver, they will receive a sentence of imprisonment of not less than six years and not more than 30 years.
In the present case, the driver was found to be in possession of a total of 21.3 grams of crack cocaine, for which he may receive a sentence of between 4 and 15 years for possession and potentially an additional 6 to 30 years for intent to deliver.
The admissibility of evidence obtained during a routine traffic stop depends on the legality of the search itself. A search and seizure must be lawful. Otherwise, all evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure may not be admissible in court. The prosecution will have the burden of proof to show that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and may introduce evidence in support thereof. The defendant, on the other hand, may present evidence to challenge the prosecution’s case. The Federal Rules of Evidence govern what is and is not admissible in federal court, and each state has its own rules. These are often very similar to the federal rules but sometimes more stringent.
The types of evidence may include physical items, such as narcotics and narcotic paraphernalia. In criminal cases, such as those involving the possession and distribution of certain classes of substances, defendants may move the court to exclude evidence that was obtained in a manner that violated their Fourth Amendment constitutional rights against searches and seizures performed without first obtaining a warrant. If evidence is obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure, this evidence is known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” with the unlawful search and seizure being the poisonous tree that bears “poisonous,” or impermissible, evidence. There is a rule that requires this evidence to be withheld, and it applies in both federal and state cases: the exclusionary rule.
Under Illinois law, a police officer may pull someone over if they reasonably believe this person is either on their way to commit a crime or is in the process of already committing it. In the present case, the Naperville police officers pulled the driver over due to what they alleged were several traffic violations. This is permissible.
The plain view doctrine is a criminal procedure rule that permits police officers to seize evidence when that evidence does not require being searched for because it is out in the open or out in plain view. This rule is an exception to the Fourth Amendment protection against being searched without there being a warrant.
During a routine traffic stop, if police officers immediately spot a substance that looks like crack cocaine inside the vehicle or on the person without having to perform any sort of search, they may confiscate that substance for further testing to determine if it is indeed an illegal controlled substance while the suspect awaits official charges. Oftentimes, officers carry testing kits that allow them to perform a test of a substance right on sight. There is no warrant required for this. If the preliminary test indicates that a substance falls under the definition of a controlled substance as defined by the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, the suspect gets taken to jail to be booked and to await their bond hearing.
Once a suspect has been officially detained at a local detention center, the way they get searched there matters too. First officers will perform a pat-down on-sight, but later on will perform an inventory of everything the person had on them at the time of arrest, including any bags and their vehicle.
In the present case, it is not clear whether the search and seizure of the driver’s car was lawful, but it may stand to reason that officers immediately noticed that the driver had a substance sitting out in plain view and arrested him based on that preliminary finding. Once at the Naperville detention center, officers would have conducted an inventory review of the driver’s belongings, which he had on him at the time of his arrest. It appears he had the additional 21.2 grams of crack cocaine on his person, so potentially in his pocket or a bag he was carrying. If there were no unlawful elements at the traffic stop, nor to the warrantless search and seizure, then the evidence of a controlled substance would be admissible in court, and this driver would face some serious potential consequences of years in prison.
.avif)
.avif)
Please contact our friendly lawyers to Schedule a Consultation.
See below for our other locations. If our office locations are not convenient for you, we are happy to speak with you by phone.
The purpose of a consultation is to determine whether our firm is a good fit for your legal needs. Although we often discuss expected results and costs, our attorneys do not give legal advice unless and until you choose to retain us. Consultations may carry a charge, depending on the facts of the matter and the area of law. The cost of your consultation, if any, is communicated to you by our intake team or the attorney.
I am personally committed to ensuring that each one of our clients receives the highest level of client service from our team. Our mission is to provide excellent legal work in a cost-effective manner while maintaining open lines of communication between our clients and their attorneys. Many of our clients are going through difficult times in their lives when they reach out to us. They should feel comfortable leaning on the experience and knowledge of our attorneys as their counselors and advocates. We are here to help!
