United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division
MYERSCOUGH, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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