Criminal Law

In prosecution on unlawful possession of firearm by felon based on seizure of firearms found in defendants’ car following traffic stop, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendants’ motion to suppress seizure of said firearms, even though defendants asserted that police office lacked probable cause to make instant traffic stop. Record showed that: (1) officer stopped defendants’ car because officer observed 4.7 inch tree-shaped air freshener hanging from rearview mirror; and (2) officer believed that instant air freshener violated Chicago ordinance prohibiting any object obstructing driver’s clear view through windshield. Officer had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s vehicle for ordinance violation and had articulable and objective basis for suspecting that air freshener obstructed driver’s view, and thus instant stop was lawful. Fact that officer incorrectly told defendants at time of stop that they could not have anything hanging from rearview mirror did not require different result, since instant reasonable suspicion inquiry is objective standard, such that officer’s subjective motivation for stopping defendant’s car was irrelevant.

In prosecution on charge of felon in unlawful possession of firearm, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting still pictures from YouTube video that, according to govt., contained images of defendant holding same gun three months prior to incident in which officer saw defendant throw gun into residential yard that formed basis of instant charged offense. While defendant argued that pictures were irrelevant and inadmissible as improper propensity evidence under Rule 404(b), pictures were admissible because evidence of recent past possession of same gun is admissible under Miller, 673 F.3d 688, for non-propensity purpose of showing defendant’s ownership and control of charged firearm. Result would be different if pictures had concerned different gun.

In prosecution on charge of drug distribution conspiracy that involved death of one victim and serious bodily harm of two others, Dist. Ct. did not violate Rule 43 by starting trial without defendant's presence in courtroom. Dist. Ct. satisfied Rule 43, where record showed that after defendant had refused to come to courtroom, Dist. Ct. came to defendant in jail with counsel and court reporter to start trial on day of scheduled trial. Ct. rejected defendant's argument that his trial must begin in courtroom, and defendant's repeated refusals to come to courtroom for his trial constituted implied waiver of his right to appear at his trial. Ct. further noted that prior to trial, defendant had refused to accept order compelling his attendance, and that after trial had started, defendant repeatedly refused to tell Dist. Ct. if he would attend trial cooperatively, instead of protesting that he did not understand charges. Fact that 50 witnesses had been assembled to testify at trial also supported Dist. Ct.'s decision to proceed to trial.

In prosecution on drug conspiracy charges arising out of seizure of quantity of drugs found in airplane and in airport courtesy car, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress seizure of drugs following encounter with police at nearby hotel parking lot. Record showed that: (1) police had previously received tip from special agent that defendants' airplane would be landing at Litchfield airport, and that said airplane's movement patterns and quick-turn trips were suspicious for drug activity; (2) police observed airplane land at airport and followed defendants to nearby hotel parking lot; (3) after talking to defendants, one defendant admitted to small possession of marijuana in airport courtesy car; and (4) police sniff dog alerted to presence of drugs in courtesy car and later alerted to presence of drugs in airplane. Police had reasonable suspicion to stop and question defendants at hotel parking lot given substance of tip from police agents and knowledge that plane had made stops at two locations known for drug trafficking. Moreover, reasonable person would not have believed that he was under formal arrest at time of questioning, even though squad cars had surrounded courtesy car, and even though officer at prior state-court proceeding held opinion that defendants were in custody at time of questioning. Also, one defendant's admission of presence of small amount of marijuana in courtesy car supplied probable cause to search courtesy car, and although police lacked probable cause to arrest second defendant so as to support search of airplane, inevitable discovery rule applied with respect to search of airplane, where: (1) reliable sniff dog alerted to presence of drugs in plane during outside sniff of airplane; and (2) police testified that they would have conducted sniff test regardless of what happened at hotel parking lot. (Dissent filed.)