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 v. Goodwill

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division

January 3, 2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM A. GOODWILL, Defendant.

          OPINION

          SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

         Before the Court is Defendant William A. Goodwill's Motion to Suppress (d/e 22). An evidentiary hearing on the motion was held on May 15, 2019. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         At approximately 1:58 p.m. on May 16, 2018, Macon County Sheriff's Office Detective Jonathan Roseman, accompanied by Detective Hunt, initiated a traffic stop of a white 2008 Ford Edge being operated by Defendant. Detective Roseman stopped the Ford Edge because the vehicle's windows were tinted darker than allowed by Illinois law and the vehicle's tires crossed over onto the shoulder of an off-ramp.

         After initiating the traffic stop, Detective Roseman exited the police vehicle, approached the Ford Edge, introduced himself to Defendant, and requested Defendant's driver's license and insurance information. Shortly thereafter, Defendant, at Detective Roseman's request, exited the Ford Edge and accompanied Detective Roseman to the police vehicle.

         While in the police vehicle, Detective Roseman conversed with Defendant. Detective Roseman asked Defendant about the Ford Edge, Defendant's son, and the length of time Defendant planned to be in the Decatur, Illinois, area. Detective Roseman also asked Defendant about the expiration date on the sticker on the Ford Edge. At this point, Detective Roseman had already decided that he would issue Defendant a written warning for the observed traffic violations.

         During the conversation, Detective Roseman, in order to complete Defendant's written warning, typed information from Defendant's driver's license into the police vehicle's computer in order to request information from the Illinois Secretary of State and LEADS. Detective Roseman also entered the Ford Edge's license plate number into the computer to request additional information from the Illinois Secretary of State and LEADS. Detective Roseman requested this information to verify that Defendant's driver's license was valid, that the information on the license was correct, that the Ford Edge's registration was up-to-date, and that the Ford Edge had not been reported as stolen. Chimes heard during Detective Roseman's conversation with Defendant, one of which occurred at 2:01 p.m., indicate that information requested by Detective Roseman had been received and could be reviewed on the police vehicle's computer.

         Eventually, Detective Roseman inquired as to the owner of the car. Defendant stated that the Ford Edge belonged to Tamara, a female friend of his. At the evidentiary hearing, Detective Roseman testified that his questions about ownership of the Ford Edge came after he had received information from the Illinois Secretary of State showing that the Ford Edge belonged to a male subject. Given that the Ford Edge was registered to a male subject, Detective Roseman found it strange that Defendant had stated that the vehicle belonged to a female.

         Detective Roseman informed Defendant that Defendant was receiving a written warning that would not “cost [Defendant] a dime” and that the officers would use a window tint meter on the windows of the Ford Edge. In response to additional questions from Detective Roseman, Defendant stated that he had not received any tickets in the last 12 months and had never been in trouble before. At the time Defendant gave these answers, Detective Roseman had reviewed information sent to the police vehicle's computer indicating that Defendant's criminal history included a conviction for an offense involving a controlled substance. Detective Roseman reiterated that there was no fine or fee associated with the written warning Defendant was receiving. Defendant stated that he had to use the bathroom.

         As the conversation continued, Detective Roseman began writing Defendant's written warning at approximately 2:04 p.m. Information to be included in the written warning included the date; the time; the year, make, and model of the vehicle Defendant was driving; Defendant's name, date of birth, and address; the traffic violations; and the location of the traffic stop. For a window tint violation, Detective Roseman testified that his practice was to also have the driver review the readouts after applying a window tint meter to each window of the vehicle.

         Detective Roseman testified that he does not write information on a written warning as soon as he views the information on the police vehicle's computer. He explained that he waits to see if the vehicle comes back as stolen or if the driver has a warrant out for his arrest before filling out a written warning that can be completed later if need be.

         The conversation between Detective Roseman and Defendant eventually turned to Defendant's employment, with Defendant stating that he worked at a warehouse and a strip club. Detective Roseman again stated that there would be no fee or fine associated with the written warning. Detective Roseman also verified Defendant's address. Detective Hunt, standing near the police vehicle, asked Defendant about the toys in the Ford Edge.

         In response to additional questions from Detective Roseman about the owner of the Ford Edge, Defendant stated that his friend Tamara lived in Chicago and that her last name was Johnson. Defendant also indicated that Tamara worked as a bartender. Detective Roseman then informed Defendant that Defendant's license was good. Defendant again stated that he had to use the bathroom.

         Detective Roseman testified that during his conversation with Defendant in the police vehicle, Defendant began exhibiting indicators of heightened stress-labored breathing, a visible neck pulse, and yawning. In order to determine whether these stress indicators were the result of a medical condition or merely Detective Roseman's questions, Detective Roseman asked Defendant whether Defendant was on medication and whether ...


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.