Search & seizure; Automobile exception; People v Garvin; Suppression motion; Probable cause; People v Vaughn

The court held that the warrantless search of defendant’s car was supported by probable cause under the automobile exception, so the trial court properly denied his motion to suppress. The case arose from a traffic stop after Sgt. Q observed defendant driving with tinted windows and making an improper turn. During the stop, defendant hesitated to exit the car, and when he opened the driver’s door Q saw what he believed was a promethazine bottle with the label removed in the door compartment. The trial court denied suppression after finding that Q could see the label-less bottle and that the totality of the circumstances gave him probable cause to search the car. On appeal, the court held that the trial court did not err in crediting Q’s testimony that he could see the bottle and tell the label had been removed, even if the body-camera video was grainy and showed less than he could see in person. The court next held that this suspicious bottle, combined with defendant’s possession of a large amount of cash, two cell phones, and a LEIN “officer caution” suggesting prior resisting, weapons, or drug history, gave Q a “fair probability” that the car contained contraband or evidence of narcotics trafficking. The court also held that the fact the first bottle turned out to be empty did not defeat probable cause because the totality of the circumstances still supported the search. It rejected defendant’s argument that Q should have used less intrusive means, noting that the search was based on probable cause and was conducted within minutes. Affirmed.