Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States of America v. andre L. Jones

June 1, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ANDRE L. JONES, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills, U.S. District Judge:

Wednesday, 01 June, 2011 03:08:53 PM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [d/e 18] entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore, and Defendant Andre L. Jones' Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence [Marijuana and Holster] and Custodial Statement and Request for Evidentiary Hearing [d/e 12].

In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Cudmore recommends denying the Defendant's Motion to Suppress.

The Defendant has filed Objections [d/e 20] and Supplemental Objections [d/e 22] to the Report and Recommendation. In addition, the Defendant had the Court Reporter prepare a Transcript [d/e 21] of the Suppression Hearing held on April 4, 2011.

The Government has filed a Response [d/e 23] to the Defendant's Objections and Supplemental Objections.

After careful consideration, and after reviewing the Exhibits and the Transcript of the Suppression Hearing, the Court adopts Judge Cudmore's Report and Recommendation.*fn1

OBJECTION-DISCUSSION OF ROUTE DRIVEN

The Defendant objects to Judge Cudmore's analysis of the route taken by Byron Butler and the Defendant. The Defendant states that "[t]he Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Butler could have taken a route that appears more efficient is subjective and misplaced." Objections [d/e 20], p. 3.

The Court has reviewed Defendant's Exhibit 1, an aerial photo of the area with street names superimposed, and Defendant's Exhibit 2, a black and white map of the area.

According to testimony, Butler and the Defendant were travelling from Livingston Street to East Adams Street. The Court notes that Byron Butler testified that he was aware that the vehicle used by Officers Leach and Burns was a law enforcement vehicle. See Transcript [d/e 21] 100-01.

The most direct route to reach Adams Street would have been to remain northbound on Livingston Street past East Cook Street until East Monroe Street. There, the occupants should have turned left (west) on East Monroe until they reached South Cressey Street. At Cressey Street, they should have turned right (north) until reaching East Adams Street.

Instead, Butler and the Defendant took a route which was longer (because they had to double back while on Jackson Street). In addition, the route taken by Butler and the Defendant involved making four extra 90-degree turns.

Butler's assertion that his route was the fastest is difficult to believe. The Defendant and Butler took an objectively circuitous route to reach Adams Street, and their route seems more consistent with evading the law enforcement vehicle that Butler knew was following him.

The Court overrules the Defendant's objections regarding the route taken by Butler and the Defendant.

OBJECTION-CHARACTERIZATION OF FIELD BOOKING AND PROBABLE CAUSE STATEMENT

The Defendant objects to Judge Cudmore's characterization of the Field Booking and Probable Cause Statement ("Statement") prepared by Officer Burns, "because the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the statement is for probable cause for arrest on felony charges, one of which is here in federal court, not the traffic stop, has no basis in the record of these proceedings." Supplementary Objections [d/e 22], p. 10.

The Court acknowledges that that there was not in-depth testimony regarding the purposes of the Statement. However, Officer Burns testified that he would not classify the document as a police report, but rather as a booking sheet. Transcript [d/e 21], p. 69. Officer Burns also testified that the Statement was written before taking the Defendant to the Sangamon County Jail. Transcript [d/e 21], p. 80.

The Court has examined the Statement (Defendant's Exhibit 3) and finds that the information contained on the face of the document supports Judge Cudmore's conclusion regarding the purpose of the Statement.

First, the complete title of the Statement (Field Booking and Probable Cause Statement) supports Judge Cudmore's conclusion regarding the purpose of the document.

In addition, the Statement is not a Springfield Police Department document. Rather, it is a form created by the Sangamon County Sheriff's Department-the agency which operates the Sangamon County Jail. Officer Burns testified that the Statement was prepared prior to taking the Defendant to the Sangamon County Jail.

The Statement contains a space for information on the arrest and for charges issued. Officer Burns listed three offenses: (1) unlawful use of a weapon, (2) aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, and (3) manufacture/delivery of cannabis.

Next, the Statement contains a space for the arresting officer to detail the probable cause for the arrest. Officer Burns filled the twelve lines on the first sheet, and used an additional sheet to include more information.

At the bottom of the Statement there is an area marked "Judicial." There are two boxes which can be checked: "PC Founded" or "Not Founded." The judge checked the "PC Founded" box, set a bail amount, and signed the Statement. It is apparent from the face of the Statement that its purpose is the determination of probable cause for the Defendant's arrest on the three felony charges listed in the Statement.

OBJECTION-PROBABLE CAUSE STATEMENT REFERS TO INFRACTION AT "LIVINGSTON/COOK"

The Defendant objects to the following statement in the Report and Recommendation:

Furthermore, the reference to "Livingston/Cook" is consistent with the officers' testimony that the erratic driving started at that intersection. The officers testified that the SUV accelerated at a high rate of speed on ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.