Summary
The Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, affirmed Sharrieff Rowell’s convictions for identity theft, possession of an incomplete card, and possession of an altered or counterfeited card. The court held that, under Illinois law applicable in 2017, the odor of cannabis supplied probable cause to search the vehicle, including containers and the trunk. It further held that the record did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a suppression motion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move to suppress evidence seized from Rowell's vehicle.
- Whether the odor of cannabis alone gave police probable cause to search the vehicle under Illinois law applicable in February 2017.
- Whether a vehicle search supported by probable cause could extend to bags in the passenger compartment and the trunk.
- Whether the direct-appeal record was sufficient to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to file a suppression motion.
Holdings
- Under the Illinois law in effect when the search occurred, the odor of cannabis alone provided probable cause to search the vehicle.
- When officers have probable cause to search a vehicle for cannabis, they may search containers and areas, including bags and the trunk, that could reasonably contain cannabis.
- Rowell did not establish ineffective assistance because a suppression motion would have been meritless on the law and the record did not affirmatively establish deficient performance or prejudice.
Key quotations
“However, “[a] court will not find that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to file a meritless motion to suppress.”” (¶ 21)
“The Hill decision demonstrates that the holding in Stout—namely, that the scent of cannabis alone provides probable cause for a search—was in force in 2017 at the time of the search in this case.” (¶ 28)
“The scope of a warrantless search based on probable cause is no narrower—and no broader—than the scope of a search authorized by a warrant supported by probable cause.” (¶ 30)
“When an ineffective-assistance claim is brought on direct appeal, appellate counsel and the court must proceed on a trial record not developed precisely for the object of litigating or preserving the claim and thus often incomplete or inadequate for this purpose.” (¶ 37)
Factual background
An Illinois State Police trooper stopped Rowell after observing him driving 115 miles per hour in a 70-mile-per-hour zone and arrested him for speeding. The trooper smelled cannabis emanating from the vehicle, and officers searched the passenger compartment, bags, and trunk without finding cannabis or other drugs. They found debit cards, blank cards, an alleged card-making template, handwritten names and Social Security numbers, and other financial cards, leading to Rowell's convictions.
Procedural history
The State charged Rowell with identity theft, possession of an incomplete card, and possession of an altered or counterfeited card. After a bench trial, the Livingston County Circuit Court found him guilty on all counts and imposed concurrent prison terms of 2.5 years, 2.5 years, and 2 years. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed.