United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
Richard Mills United States District Judge.
Jacques Gholston has filed a motion to suppress.
motion to suppress was referred to the magistrate judge for a
hearing and Report and Recommendation.
Report and Recommendation, United States Magistrate Judge Tom
Schanzle-Haskins recommends that the motion to suppress be
Defendant has filed objections to the Report and
Court has reviewed the record, including the transcript of
the motion hearing before Judge Schanzle-Haskins.
April 29, 2018, Quincy, Illinois Police Officer Erik Cowick
arrested Defendant Jacques Gholston when he and other
officers found methamphetamine in a truck following a traffic
stop of the Defendant. On July 10, 2018, the Defendant was
charged by Indictment with one count of possession of 5 grams
or more of methamphetamine (actual), with intent to
distribute, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).
September 18, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion to suppress.
On March 25 and 26, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the
motion. A transcript of the hearing was filed and the parties
have submitted post-hearing memoranda.
Report and Recommendation, the magistrate judge found that
“Officer Cowick may have extended the stop for a minute
or two beyond the time needed to conduct the traffic
stop.” Doc. No. 27, at 17. He then noted the Court
“does not need to decide whether Officer Cowick
unreasonably delayed completing the traffic stop because
Officer Cowick had reasonable suspicion based on articulable
facts that Gholston was distributing methamphetamine from the
Truck.” Id. at 18. Accordingly, the magistrate
judge found that Officer Cowick had a proper basis to detain
the Defendant until Deputy Saalborn arrived and the K-9
alerted on the Truck.
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
Court notes that Defendant does not object to the summary of
facts contained in the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court will only recite those facts that are
pertinent to its conclusion.
begins as a lawful traffic stop might violate the Fourth
Amendment if the officer exceeds the scope or unreasonably
prolongs the stop. See United States v. Lewis, 920
F.3d 483, 491 (7th Cir. 2019). “A traffic stop
‘can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time
reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a
warning ticket.'” Id. (quoting
Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1614-15
(2005)). A dog sniff of a vehicle's exterior only for
illegal drugs does not violate an individual's Fourth
Amendment rights, even when there is no reasonable suspicion
of drugs. See Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405,
410 (2005). However, such a stop becomes ...