People v. Redmond

Citation: 2022 IL App (3d) 210524Docket: 3-21-0524

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; November 14, 2022; Illinois; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On November 15, 2022, the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, issued a decision in the case of The People of the State of Illinois v. Ryan Shavar Don Redmond, following an appeal from the Circuit Court of Henry County. Redmond was charged with unlawful possession of cannabis after a traffic stop, during which Officer Hayden Combs detected a strong odor of burnt cannabis from Redmond's vehicle. Redmond denied smoking cannabis in the vehicle and was unable to provide his license and registration.

Officer Combs, who had parked his squad car near Interstate 80, initiated the stop due to an improperly secured license plate and the vehicle exceeding the speed limit by three miles per hour. Although Combs suspected a violation of cannabis laws based on the odor and the vehicle's circumstances, he admitted that Redmond showed no signs of impairment and did not specifically recall smelling cannabis on Redmond himself. After conducting a pat-down and reading Redmond his Miranda rights, Combs continued questioning him about his travel, which raised suspicions regarding Redmond's residency and the vehicle's rental status.

Ultimately, Combs searched the vehicle based primarily on the smell of burnt cannabis, which led to the discovery of approximately one gram of cannabis in the center console. The circuit court granted Redmond's motion to suppress the evidence, leading the State to appeal. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling, agreeing that the odor alone did not provide sufficient probable cause for the search.

On June 29, 2021, Redmond filed a motion to suppress evidence of cannabis, arguing that the odor of burnt cannabis alone did not establish probable cause for a vehicle search. A hearing on this motion occurred on August 4, 2021, with only Officer Combs testifying. The circuit court subsequently granted the motion on November 10, 2021, ruling that the smell of burnt cannabis was insufficient for probable cause due to the legalization of cannabis in Illinois. The court noted that Combs did not observe signs indicating recent use by Redmond and found Combs's assertions about Interstate 80 being a trafficking corridor unconvincing. The court emphasized that allowing the smell of cannabis to justify a search could infringe on Fourth Amendment rights, as individuals could be penalized for lawful cannabis possession. Consequently, the court deemed the search a violation of Redmond's rights.

The State appealed this decision, contending that the circuit court erred in its assessment of the odor of burnt cannabis as lacking probable cause. On appeal, the review process involves two standards: great deference to the circuit court's factual findings unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence, and de novo review of the legal conclusion on the motion to suppress. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, with warrantless searches presumed unreasonable unless specific exceptions apply, such as the automobile exception, which allows searches if probable cause exists. Probable cause is defined as a reasonable belief, based on the officer's training and experience, that a vehicle may contain contraband or evidence of a crime, and does not require ruling out innocent explanations for suspicious circumstances.

The State contends that the odor of burnt cannabis is sufficient for probable cause, referencing past case law. However, this position overlooks significant changes in cannabis legislation in Illinois, which can alter the relevance of existing case law, as highlighted in Fure v. Sherman Hospital. The Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act has changed the legal landscape, making prior rulings like People v. Stout, which supported probable cause based solely on the smell of burnt cannabis, no longer applicable. The Stribling case confirms this, stating that Stout's ruling does not apply to situations arising after cannabis legalization. Stribling also reviews Illinois’ cannabis regulation history, noting initial prohibition, partial legalization through the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act in 2013, and the subsequent Hill case, which allowed the odor of raw cannabis to contribute to probable cause when supported by additional evidence. In Hill, corroborating factors included the officer's observations and experience, reinforcing the need for more than just the odor to establish probable cause.

On January 1, 2020, Illinois legalized adult recreational cannabis use, allowing residents 21 and older to possess up to 30 grams of cannabis, 500 milligrams of THC in infused products, and 5 grams of cannabis concentrate. Possession exceeding these amounts or any delivery remains illegal. Cannabis must be stored in a sealed container and inaccessible while driving, and consumption in a vehicle is prohibited. Drivers cannot operate a vehicle with certain THC levels in their system, although licensed medical cannabis patients are exempt unless impaired.

The Stribling court clarified that the smell of burnt cannabis alone does not establish probable cause for a vehicle search. In the present case, Combs detected a strong odor of burnt cannabis from Redmond’s vehicle but lacked corroborating evidence for a search. Redmond cooperated, did not exhibit suspicious behavior, and denied smoking cannabis in the vehicle. The absence of raw cannabis odor and other indicators of illegal possession further weakened Combs's rationale. Moreover, Combs's assertion that Interstate 80 is a drug corridor did not substantiate his suspicions regarding Redmond, given that driving on such a highway does not imply involvement in narcotics activities.

Combs's assertion would lead to the unreasonable conclusion that all vehicles on Interstate 80 could be searched for narcotics, violating constitutional protections against arbitrary police searches. His argument, which suggested that Des Moines and Chicago were criminal activity hubs, lacked evidence to substantiate any criminal behavior by Redmond. Additionally, Redmond's explanations regarding his residency—stating he lived in Chicago but was temporarily in Des Moines—were misinterpreted by Combs, who erroneously concluded that Redmond resided in Des Moines. This assumption was further undermined by Redmond holding a valid Illinois driver’s license with a Chicago address, which should have alleviated any suspicion. The court determined that no reasonable officer would conclude there was probable cause to search Redmond's vehicle for contraband. Consequently, the circuit court's decision to grant Redmond’s motion to suppress evidence was affirmed. The judgment from the Circuit Court of Henry County is upheld.