People v. Ivanchuk

2025 IL App (4th) 241230

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: May 1, 2025
• Docket: 4-24-1230
• Status: Published

Opinion

2025 IL App (4th) 241230 FILED May 1, 2025 NO. 4-24-1230 Carla Bender 4th District Appellate IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Logan County LURII IVANCHUK, ) No. 22CF223 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Johnathan C. Wright, ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Zenoff and Grischow concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶1 In July 2024, the trial court convicted defendant, Lurii Ivanchuk, of unlawful

cannabis trafficking (720 ILCS 550/5.1(a) (West 2022)), in connection with the discovery of

cannabis found in a commercial moving truck defendant was driving. A state trooper initially

stopped defendant to conduct an inspection under the Illinois Motor Carrier Safety Law (Safety

Law) (625 ILCS 5/18b-100 et seq. (West 2022)) and the Illinois Department of Transportation’s

motor carrier safety regulations (Safety Regulations) (92 Ill. Adm. Code 390). Neither defendant

nor his passenger and codefendant, Karp Grigoryan, spoke English well and used their phones as

translation devices. After the trooper became suspicious of criminal activity based on

irregularities in the paperwork and circumstances pertaining to the truck, he asked for consent to

search the truck, which was given by defendant’s passenger. Upon seeing boxes with different

colored tape in the truck, which the trooper believed could indicate contraband marked for different destinations, the trooper asked defendant to relocate the truck a short distance to be

scanned by an X-ray. The X-ray showed boxes in the truck containing individual packages. A

subsequent search of those boxes revealed a large amount of cannabis.

¶2 Before trial, defendant moved to suppress the discovery of the cannabis,

contending the trooper’s stop, subsequent searches, X-ray of the truck, and search of the boxes

inside of the truck violated his fourth amendment right to be protected from unreasonable

searches and seizures. The trial court denied the motion and found defendant guilty after a bench

trial.

¶3 On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trooper lacked a reasonable suspicion to

stop him, (2) the trooper unduly prolonged the stop to conduct a safety inspection, (3) the trooper

unduly prolonged the stop beyond performance of the safety inspection or improperly sought

consent to search because he lacked reasonable suspicion a crime was committed, (4) defendant

did not give a knowing and voluntary consent to search, (5) the search exceeded the scope of any

consent and the trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to convert the stop into an investigatory

detention to scan the truck with an X-ray, (6) the trooper lacked probable cause to search boxes

in the truck, and (7) the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.

¶4 I. BACKGROUND

¶5 In December 2022, the State charged defendant with unlawful cannabis

trafficking, unlawful possession of cannabis with intent to deliver (720 ILCS 550/5(g) (West

2022)), and unlawful possession of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4(g) (West 2022)). Cannabis was

seized from the commercial truck defendant was driving after a state trooper stopped the truck

and later relocated it a short distance to be scanned by an X-ray device, where cannabis was

found inside of boxes in the truck.

-2- ¶6 A. Pretrial Motion to Suppress

¶7 Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress the warrantless search of the truck

defendant was driving. He alleged (1) the state trooper who stopped him lacked reasonable

suspicion for the stop in the absence of a traffic violation, (2) the trooper unreasonably prolonged

the stop, (3) the trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to convert the stop into an investigatory

detention, (4) defendant did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to the search, and (5) the

search exceeded the scope of any consent. Defendant attached a transcript of his preliminary

hearing to the motion.

¶8 Bryce Heaton, an Illinois State Police Trooper, testified he stopped a white box

truck with California plates on Interstate 55 on December 12, 2022, in order to conduct a federal

motor carrier safety inspection. In a written report, Heaton wrote he observed the truck switch

lanes from the center lane to the far right lane for no apparent reason and also observed a

passenger in the truck, which was not common in the trucking industry.

¶9 Heaton testified a motor carrier inspection is done to ensure federal motor carriers

are complying with federal law and safety standards. Heaton had a level-three certification for

inspections, which certified him to inspect the driver, driver’s license, medical card, logs, and

supporting documents, which included the bill of lading. It did not allow him to go inside of the

vehicle. Heaton also testified he had attended numerous classes pertaining to contraband,

including interdicting contraband from traveling on the interstate and training specific to

commercial vehicles and narcotics, trafficking, money laundering, and cargo theft. Heaton

testified it typically took 15 to 20 minutes to complete an inspection if everything was in order.

From about 10:09 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., Heaton conducted the inspection.

¶ 10 Defendant was driving the truck, and his codefendant, Grigoryan, was a

-3- passenger. Heaton asked defendant for documents related to the inspection and ordered him to sit

in Heaton’s squad car. Heaton said both men appeared nervous and were trembling and shaking.

Heaton initially said both defendant and Grigoryan had commercial driver’s licenses, which

require the holder to be proficient in English. He later corrected that statement and said they had

Class C licenses, which did not have that requirement. However, a national database listed

defendant as having a commercial license. Heaton testified defendant spoke virtually no English.

However, defendant and Grigoryan were able to answer his questions, tell him where they came

from, where they were going, and what they were hauling. He also said defendant would

sometimes speak in English and sometimes not. Heaton stated he had to ask defendant to come

to his vehicle more than two or three times but also stated that was pretty common because it was

loud on the road. Defendant came to Heaton’s vehicle and sat down. Heaton said defendant was

“fidgety” and breathing heavily.

¶ 11 Defendant asked for Grigoryan to translate, and Grigoryan then came to the

vehicle and started answering questions for defendant. Heaton agreed Grigoryan’s English “was

not particularly good.” However, Grigoryan answered questions. Heaton felt Grigoryan was

providing answers for defendant as if Grigoryan was in charge.

¶ 12 Videos of Heaton’s encounter with defendant and Grigoryan were introduced into

evidence. Portions of the videos showed defendant answering “yes” to basic questions such as

whether Grigoryan was a codriver. The videos also showed the men providing the documents

Heaton requested and repeating the name of the documents. Grigoryan could be heard saying

defendant’s English was not good and asking if he could help defendant.

¶ 13 The videos from Heaton’s squad car showed when Heaton asked defendant what

he was hauling, defendant said “maybe uh my friend uh translator.” Grigoryan then answered

-4- questions, telling Heaton they were hauling household goods, had come from Los Angeles, and

were driving to Chicago. Grigoryan appeared to understand the questions and responded

appropriately. Heaton asked if Grigoryan was the owner of the moving company. Grigoryan told

Heaton he was just a driver. He said he did not know how many trucks the company had and that

it was maybe two or three. He also told Heaton he did not load the truck. He said “other guys”

loaded the truck from storage. At times, Heaton had to ask questions more than once. Heaton

asked defendant when the men picked up the load, and defendant asked to translate using his

phone. He then told Heaton the load was picked up on December 10.

¶ 14 Heaton testified he had reasonable suspicion there was criminal activity taking

place after he viewed defendant’s paperwork. Heaton testified the bill of lading, which lists what

is being transported, was handwritten and dated for two months prior, which was out of the

industry norm. He said, “Generally, almost 100 percent of the time,” a bill of lading is recent,

within a few days. In addition, defendant and Grigoryan initially said they picked up the items in

the truck from a residence, which matched the address in the bill of lading, but then changed that

to a storage facility when questioned about the bill of lading being two months old. The

destination was also a storage facility. Heaton said it was uncommon to transport items across

the country from one storage facility to another storage facility. It was also uncommon for there

to be a passenger in the truck. At the preliminary hearing, Heaton also testified it was unusual for

a truck to be padlocked.

¶ 15 At about 10:30 a.m., the inspection ended, but Heaton considered the men to be

under a criminal investigation. Heaton asked defendant for consent to search the vehicle, which

Grigoryan also heard. During his testimony, Heaton said defendant appeared to be confused but

Grigoryan agreed to the search, and he asked both men to consent and they said “yes.” Heaton

-5- told Grigoryan to get the key to the back of the truck and unlock it, and Grigoryan complied.

Heaton did not tell the men they had the option of saying no to the request to search the vehicle.

He did not obtain written consent and stated doing so was not Illinois State Police policy.

¶ 16 The videos showed Heaton asked if there was anything illegal in the truck, and

one of the men said “no.” He also asked if there were drugs in the truck and if the men watched

the truck being loaded or knew what was in there. Grigoryan said something about “see” and

“the load,” and Heaton asked, “can I search the load?” Grigoryan then said, “You see?” while

nodding toward the truck. Heaton asked again, “can I search it?” Grigoryan responded “yeah”

while again nodding his head toward the truck. Heaton told Grigoryan to get the key, and

Grigoryan left to do so.

¶ 17 Heaton looked in the back of the truck and saw “a bunch of furniture and stuff,”

but no contraband. Heaton described the back of the truck as “messy,” which was also outside of

the industry norm. A video showed a box at the back of the truck with “bathroom” written on it.

However, looking between items in the back of the truck, Heaton saw boxes toward the front of

the truck labeled with colored tape, which Heaton found unusual because usually moving boxes

would be labeled with writing on the box regarding rooms the items belonged to. The boxes also

did not match the bill of lading. Heaton had seen previous cases where colored tape

corresponded to multiple stops or different cities that contraband might be delivered to. Heaton

testified it would be unsafe to unload the truck to further search it at its location on the side of the

interstate highway.

¶ 18 Another trooper joined Heaton while the back of the truck was open. A video

showed Heaton telling the trooper the men said the items in the truck had been in storage for two

months and said “good luck translating to these guys though.” The trooper noted the truck had

-6- been “around Las Vegas,” then to Albuquerque, “then back to New Gallup, like its [sic] all over

the place.” Using a translating device, Heaton instructed defendant and Grigoryan to follow the

trooper to a location less than a mile away to X-ray the vehicle. Heaton told the men they were

going to run the truck through the X-ray just to make sure there was nothing illegal in it.

Grigoryan indicated he understood, and the men complied.

¶ 19 At the preliminary hearing, Heaton testified that, when the truck was scanned with

the X-ray it showed boxes in the front of the truck had individual packages in them, which, based

on previous scans he had seen, he believed could contain contraband. A video showed Heaton

discussing results of the scan with other law enforcement officers, who noted discrepancies with

the bill of lading. Heaton mentioned something that looked like “fruit or something,” and another

officer mentioned “tight packages of cocaine or weed” and “individual packages,” but he also

stated “I don’t know.” Heaton then pointed to items on the screen that appeared to be

individually packaged. An officer also pointed at something in the cab of the truck.

¶ 20 Heaton searched the cab of the truck and did not find cannabis. However, Heaton

said he smelled the odor of cannabis in the cab of the truck. At the preliminary hearing, he

described the odor as “raw” cannabis. He did not smell cannabis during the initial stop, when he

opened the truck for the first time at the side of the highway, or on either defendant or Grigoryan.

He also found $2,000 to $3,000 in United States currency held with a rubber band. Grigoryan

told him it was money for fuel, which Heaton found unusual since most trucking companies used

fuel cards or credit cards to purchase fuel. Papers were found in the truck that appeared to be

handwritten notes from a person who was working on learning English.

¶ 21 When Heaton opened the back of the truck again, he smelled cannabis. At about

11:01 a.m., Heaton began to unload items from the back of the truck. At about 11:40 a.m.,

-7- Heaton found cannabis in boxes labeled with colored tape. At the preliminary hearing, Heaton

testified 4,360 pounds of cannabis was found in the truck.

¶ 22 The trial court found the stop was lawful based on the Safety Regulations, which

allowed the state police to stop and inspect any commercial vehicle at any time to determine its

compliance with the Safety Law. The court next found Grigoryan voluntarily gave consent to

search the truck. The court noted Heaton was not required to tell the men they could refuse the

search and he did not coerce Grigoryan into consenting. The court found Grigoryan had

sufficient knowledge of English to consent and noted the video clip where Grigoryan consented,

finding it showed he had a working knowledge of English and further noted the men used their

phones to aid in translation. The court then found Grigoryan’s consent did not expire just

because the truck was moved, because a search on the side of the road was impractical, and the

move was a continuation of the first search. It also found Heaton did not exceed the scope of the

consent. The court found the search was not unlawfully prolonged where the time for the

inspection was reasonable and its extension was based on reasonable suspicion. The court also

found, when the boxes with colored tape were found, combined with the currency found in the

truck, Heaton then had probable cause to search the boxes. Accordingly, the court denied the

motion to suppress.

¶ 23 B. Trial

¶ 24 On June 13, 2024, a stipulated bench trial was held. Defendant stipulated Heaton

would testify consistently with his testimony at the preliminary hearing and the hearing on the

motion to suppress. Although inconsistent with earlier testimony, he further stipulated Heaton

would testify he smelled cannabis both while roadside and when he opened the truck after it was

relocated. The exhibits provided at the hearing on the motion to suppress, including Heaton’s

-8- written report, were introduced into evidence. That report was generally consistent with Heaton’s

testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress. In the report, Heaton noted the United States

currency found in the truck and opined it was payment for delivery of cannabis. He also noted

the boxes in the truck with colored tape and that vacuum packed bags of cannabis were found in

the truck. Another exhibit showed the truck contained more cannabis than was included in the

charges. The stipulation provided for 6,339 grams of cannabis.

¶ 25 Other exhibits showed the truck’s license plates were used by two different

moving companies. Consumer complaints against one of the companies stated it took months for

the company to deliver household goods and items would be missing or damaged. A report by an

investigator opined there was a good possibility the business was using contracts as cover to

transport contraband from location to location and then deliver the goods months later. The

investigator further opined there was a good possibility the contracts were duplicated to utilize

other trucks and some of the contracts were fake. License plate readers showed the truck had

been to many locations, including stops in New Mexico, Texas, New York, Indiana, Iowa, and

Nevada over the two months before the stop, including multiple stops in Illinois, without

dropping off the household goods. It had also driven more miles than was average in the

industry. The truck had not shown up on license plate readers in California during the relevant

time period. “Anna Wintour” was listed as the owner of the household goods in the truck, but

that person had a disconnected phone number. The bill of lading did not list a unit number for the

storage facility listed as the truck’s destination, and that storage facility could not find any

records for Anna Wintour. Phone numbers for the moving companies were also disconnected.

¶ 26 Defendant argued he was not aware of cannabis in the truck and suggested he had

been taken advantage of by the people who loaded the truck. The State argued there was strong

-9- circumstantial evidence defendant knew the truck contained cannabis.

¶ 27 The trial court found defendant guilty on all counts. Defendant moved for a new

trial, arguing the court erred in denying the motion to suppress and the evidence was insufficient

to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court denied defendant’s motion. The court

merged the convictions and sentenced defendant to 13 years imprisonment on the trafficking

charge.

¶ 28 This appeal followed.

¶ 29 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 30 On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to

suppress and (2) the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶ 31 A. Motion to Suppress

¶ 32 Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress

because (1) Heaton lacked a reasonable suspicion to stop him in the absence of a traffic

violation, (2) Heaton unreasonably prolonged the stop to conduct the safety inspection,

(3) Heaton unduly prolonged the stop beyond performance of the safety inspection or improperly

sought consent to search because he lacked reasonable suspicion a crime was committed,

(4) defendant did not give a knowing and voluntary consent to the search, (5) the search

exceeded the scope of any consent and Heaton lacked reasonable suspicion to convert the stop

into an investigatory detention to scan the truck with an X-ray, and (6) Heaton lacked probable

cause to search boxes in the truck.

¶ 33 “Both the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution and article I,

section 6, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 protect individuals from unreasonable searches and

seizures.” People v. Bujari, 2020 IL App (3d) 190028, ¶ 37 (citing U.S. Const., amend. IV, and

- 10 - citing Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 6). “The fundamental purpose of these provisions is to safeguard

the privacy and security of individuals from invasions by governmental officials.” Bujari, 2020

IL App (3d) 190028, ¶ 37. On a motion to suppress evidence, the defendant has the burden of

producing evidence and proving the search and seizure were unlawful, but once the defendant

makes a prima facie showing of an illegal search and seizure, the burden then shifts to the State

to produce evidence justifying the intrusion. People v. Woodrome, 2013 IL App (4th) 130142,

¶ 16.

¶ 34 When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we are presented with mixed

questions of fact and law. People v. Manzo, 2018 IL 122761, ¶ 25. We will give deference to a

trial court’s findings of fact and will reverse those findings only if they are against the manifest

weight of the evidence. Manzo, 2018 IL 122761, ¶ 25. Where the factual findings are accepted,

we will conduct a de novo review of whether suppression is warranted under those facts. Manzo,

2018 IL 122761, ¶ 25.

¶ 35 1. The Stop

¶ 36 Defendant first argues Heaton lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the truck.

However, defendant focuses solely on the lack of evidence of a traffic violation to provide

reasonable suspicion for the stop and ignores the trial court’s determination Heaton reasonably

stopped defendant to conduct an authorized inspection under the Safety Law and Safety

Regulations. Under the court’s reasoning, reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation was not

necessary, because the stop was reasonable for fourth amendment purposes when made under the

Safety Regulations.

¶ 37 “The temporary detention of an individual during a vehicle stop is a seizure

within the meaning of the fourth amendment.” People v. Johnson, 2024 IL App (4th) 231185,

- 11 - ¶ 53. Such seizures, commonly referred to as Terry stops, are analyzed under the principles set

forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Johnson, 2024 IL App (4th) 231185, ¶ 53. “ ‘Pursuant

to Terry, a police officer may conduct a brief, investigatory stop of a person when the officer

reasonably believes that the person has committed, or is about to commit, a crime.’ ” Johnson,

2024 IL App (4th) 231185, ¶ 53 (quoting People v. Timmsen, 2016 IL 118181, ¶ 9).

¶ 38 Regulations promulgated in accordance with the Safety Law (625 ILCS 5/18b-

100 et seq.) (West 2022)) authorize the Illinois state police to enter upon and perform

commercial vehicle inspections of motor carrier vehicles in operation. 92 Ill. Adm. Code

396.2010 (2013). A level 3 inspection is defined as follows:

“Level 3 - Driver/Credential Inspection: An examination that includes those items

specified under the North American Standard Level 3 Driver/Credential Inspection

Procedure. At a minimum, Level 3 inspections must include, when required and/or

applicable, examination of the driver’s license; medical examiner’s certificate and

Skill Performance Evaluation (SPE) Certificate; driver’s record of duty status;

hours of service; seat belt; vehicle inspection report; and [hazardous

material/dangerous goods] requirements. Those items not indicated in the North

American Standard Level 3 Driver/Credential Inspection Procedure shall not be

included on a Level 3 inspection.” 92 Ill. Adm. Code 390.1020 (2016).

¶ 39 The Safety Regulations serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic

code by ensuring commercial vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly. Bujari,

2020 IL App (3d) 190028, ¶ 43. In light of the diminished expectation of privacy in commercial

property used in closely regulated industries, the requirements fulfilling the traditional fourth

amendment standard of reasonableness for a government search have lessened application in that

- 12 - context. Bujari, 2020 IL App 3d 190028, ¶ 42.

¶ 40 Here, the trial court determined the stop was reasonable and valid because it was

done to conduct an administrative inspection. Thus, reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation

was not required. Defendant did not challenge that legal determination in the trial court, choosing

instead to focus solely on the lack of a traffic violation. Then, on appeal, defendant again does

not address the applicability of the Safety Law and Safety Regulations or the court’s finding that

Heaton validly stopped the truck to complete a level-three inspection.

¶ 41 We note the question of whether a search under such regulations is valid in the

absence of suspicion of a violation of the regulations or without certain limits is a complex legal

issue. Generally, the warrantless inspection of a pervasively regulated business will be deemed

reasonable under the fourth amendment when (1) there is a substantial governmental interest

underlying the regulatory scheme pursuant to which the inspection is made, (2) the warrantless

search is necessary to further that regulatory scheme, and (3) the inspection program provides an

adequate substitute for a warrant by advising the owner of the commercial property that the

property will be subject to periodic inspections undertaken for specific purposes and limiting the

discretion of the inspectors in time, place, and scope. 59th & State Street Corp. v. Emanuel, 2016

IL App (1st) 153098, ¶ 19 (citing New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 702-03 (1987)). We further

note it appears Illinois courts have not specifically addressed the issue, and courts in other

jurisdictions have differed in their determinations as to whether similar regulatory schemes

permitting inspections of commercial vehicles satisfies that test in similar cases. Compare State

v. McClure, 74 S.W.3d 362, 372-76 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (affirming the grant of the

defendant’s motion to suppress because regulations did not sufficiently limit the time, place, and

scope of inspections), with Commonwealth v. Leboeuf, 934 N.E.2d 1285, 1289-90 (Mass. App.

- 13 - Ct. 2010) (stating regulations authoring safety inspections were an adequate substitute for a

warrant and a random stop of a commercial vehicle for purposes of conducting an administrative

safety inspection was not unreasonable under the fourth amendment).

¶ 42 Because defendant has failed to develop any legal argument both in the trial court

and on appeal to support a conclusion the regulations did not provide a valid reason for the stop,

he has forfeited any argument to the contrary in multiple respects. First, defendant forfeited the

issue by failing to raise the issue in the trial court. See People v. Cruz, 2013 IL 113399, ¶ 20

(“Generally, an issue not raised in the trial court is forfeited on appeal.”). As such he failed to

meet his burden of showing the stop was unlawful. In addition, by failing to raise arguments in

the trial court, a defendant deprives the State of the opportunity to challenge the arguments or

present evidence, if necessary, in opposition to the argument. See People v. Pettis, 2016 IL App

(4th) 140469, ¶ 25 (citing People v. Hughes, 2015 IL 117242, ¶ 46). Failing to make arguments

in the trial court also deprives a trial court of the opportunity to decide the issue based on the

arguments and may further deprive the appellate court of an adequate record related to the

argument. Pettis, 2016 IL App (4th) 140469, ¶ 25.

¶ 43 Next, defendant forfeited the issue by failing to address it on appeal. See Ill. S. Ct.

R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) (“Points not argued are forfeited and shall not be raised in the

reply brief, in oral argument, or on petition for rehearing.”). The failure to assert a well-reasoned

argument supported by legal authority is a violation of Rule 341(h)(7) resulting in forfeiture. See

Sakellariadis v. Campbell, 391 Ill. App. 3d 795, 804 (2009).

¶ 44 Here, even if Heaton did not separately have reasonable suspicion to stop the

truck, reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or crime was not required under the trial court’s

analysis of the issue. Since defendant forfeited his argument that the court erred in determining

- 14 - the stop was reasonable under the fourth amendment based on application of the Safety Law and

Safety Regulations, we find no error in the court’s overall determination that the stop reasonable

and valid under the fourth amendment.

¶ 45 2. Length of the Stop

¶ 46 Defendant next contends, even if the initial stop was valid, Heaton unlawfully

prolonged the stop by asking questions about the contents of the truck and performing

subsequent searches of it.

¶ 47 A traffic stop that is lawful at its inception may become unlawful if it is unduly

prolonged. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350-51 (2015). An officer may stop and

briefly detain a motorist when legally permissible, but the officer may not prolong the stop

beyond the time reasonably required to satisfy its initial purpose. See People v. Drain, 2023 IL

App (4th) 210355, ¶ 43 (citing People v. Sadeq, 2018 IL App (4th) 160105, ¶ 52). The seizure’s

“mission” determines the permissible duration of a traffic stop—that is, to address the issue that

warranted the stop. See Drain, 2023 IL App (4th) 210355, ¶ 43. “While an officer may conduct

checks unrelated to the traffic stop’s mission, the officer may not do so in a way that prolongs

the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual.”

Drain, 2023 IL App (4th) 210355, ¶ 43. “In determining whether a stop has been unreasonably

prolonged, courts employ a contextual, totality of the circumstances approach that considers the

brevity of the stop and whether the police acted diligently during that stop.” Drain, 2023 IL App

(4th) 210355, ¶ 43. “Courts also consider ‘the nature of the offense and the ordinary inquiries

incident to the stop.’ ” People v. Musgrave, 2019 IL App (4th) 170106, ¶ 41 (quoting People v.

Wofford, 2012 IL App (5th) 100138, ¶ 27).

¶ 48 Here, the length of the stop for purposes of the inspection was just over 20

- 15 - minutes. The record shows Heaton used that time to inspect the paperwork and ask related

questions. Nothing shows Heaton delayed looking at the paperwork, and the time it took to

complete the inspection was near the 15 to 20 minute range of time Heaton testified was typical

for such an inspection.

¶ 49 Nevertheless, relying on People v. Hall, 351 Ill. App. 3d 501 (2004), and People

v. Moses, 2023 IL App (5th) 210115-U, defendant suggests Heaton unreasonably delayed the

inspection by asking repetitive and unnecessary questions unrelated to the stop. We find those

cases distinguishable.

¶ 50 In Hall, officers stopped the defendant for a nonfunctioning headlight but then

asked questions about contraband after the stop had ended and they had told the defendant he

was free to leave. At the time of the questioning, the officers lacked reasonable suspicion the

defendant had committed a crime and were merely conducting a “fishing expedition” that

changed the fundamental nature of the stop. Hall, 351 Ill. App. 3d at 504-05. In Moses, an officer

prolonged a traffic stop to give a warning ticket by asking questions and taking actions unrelated

to the stop apparently for the purpose of delaying the detention until a second officer arrived,

which would allow a dog sniff to be performed. However, the officer did not have reasonable

suspicion that the defendant committed a crime. Moses, 2023 IL App (5th) 210115-U, ¶¶ 36-42.

¶ 51 Here, unlike in Hall and Moses, the record and videos show Heaton asked basic

questions reasonably related the investigation, such as inquiring about the nature of the trucking

company and defendant’s role in the company, along with what was being hauled in the truck

and where the truck had been. We do not find any of the questions unduly repetitive. We also do

not find Heaton delayed in looking at the paperwork necessary to perform the inspection.

Further, as we discuss next, unlike in Hall and Moses, during the inspection, Heaton obtained

- 16 - reasonable suspicion a crime had occurred based on discrepancies in the inspection documents

and other factors related to the stop. Thus, he obtained reasonable suspicion before the stop

ended and before he inquired about contraband and asked for consent to search the truck. Thus,

Heaton did not unreasonably prolong the inspection without reasonable suspicion during the time

he conducted the inspection.

¶ 52 3. Reasonable Suspicion to Search or Seek Consent to Search

¶ 53 Defendant next argues Heaton unreasonably delayed the stop for purposes of

searching the truck or seeking consent to search without reasonable suspicion.

¶ 54 As previously noted, where a traffic stop is prolonged beyond its mission,

additional fourth amendment justification is necessary for the prolonged stop to be lawful.

Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 350-51. A prolonged stop to perform a brief investigation into detecting

evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing will be deemed lawful where it is supported by a

reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 355.

¶ 55 The determination of whether an officer has reasonable suspicion requires

consideration of the totality of the circumstances. Timmsen, 2016 IL 118181, ¶ 9. Although a

reasonable, articulable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause, an officer’s

suspicion must amount to more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch

criminal activity has occurred. Timmsen, 2016 IL 118181, ¶ 9. In evaluating the officer’s

conduct, “we apply an objective standard and consider, ‘would the facts available to the officer

at the moment of the seizure or the search “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief”

that the action taken was appropriate?’ ” Timmsen, 2016 IL 118181, ¶ 9 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S.

at 21-22). “In reviewing the propriety of an officer’s conduct, courts cannot reasonably demand

scientific certainty from law enforcement officers where none exists.” People v. Moore, 341 Ill.

- 17 - App. 3d 804, 810 (2003). “Thus, the determination of reasonable suspicion must be based on

commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior.” Moore, 341 Ill. App. 3d at 810.

Nervous behavior is also a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion. Moore, 341 Ill.

App. 3d at 811. However, it cannot be the only factor. See People v. Thomas, 2018 IL App (4th)

170440, ¶ 78.

¶ 56 Here, the case quickly transitioned from a valid stop to complete a regulatory

inspection to a separate criminal investigation when Heaton observed multiple irregularities

among defendant’s documents and the circumstances surrounding the stop. For example, the bill

of lading was handwritten and dated for two months prior, which was out of the industry norm.

Then, defendant and Grigoryan initially said they picked up the items in the truck from a

residence, which matched the address in the bill of lading, but they changed that to a storage

facility when questioned about the bill of lading being two months old. The destination was also

a storage facility, which was unusual. It was also uncommon for there to be a passenger in the

truck and for the truck to be padlocked. Heaton further found it was unusual Grigoryan was

providing answers for defendant as if Grigoryan was in charge, and Heaton noted both men were

nervous. Those factors were discovered in the course of the stop and gave Heaton reasonable

suspicion the truck contained contraband because the unusual circumstances did not comport

with the mere moving of household goods. See generally United States v. Johnson, 285 F.3d 744,

748-49 (8th Cir. 2002) (stating facts outside of the industry norm for commercial trucking are

among relevant factors in determining officers had reasonable suspicion to continue to detain a

defendant after an initial stop and inspection). Accordingly, before Heaton had ended the

inspection, he had the requisite reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop to further that

investigation by asking questions about contraband and requesting consent to search.

- 18 - ¶ 57 4. Consent to Search

¶ 58 Defendant next argues the consent to search the truck was not knowing or

voluntary.

¶ 59 Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without a warrant, are

presumptively unreasonable. People v. Burton, 409 Ill. App. 3d 321, 328 (2011) (citing U.S.

Const., amend. IV, and citing Ill. Const.1970, art. I, § 6, and citing Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497

U.S. 177, 181 (1990)). However, “[a]n exception to the warrant requirement exists where law

enforcement officers obtain consent to the search from either the person whose property is being

searched or from a third party who possesses ‘common authority’ over the premises.” Burton,

409 Ill. App. 3d at 328 (quoting United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974)). Thus, it is

well-settled an individual may consent to a search conducted without a warrant and thus

eliminate the need for probable cause and a search warrant. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S.

218, 219 (1973); People v. Phillips, 264 Ill. App. 3d 213, 217 (1994). We note defendant does

not contest that Grigoryan had common authority over the truck and thus could consent to its

search.

¶ 60 A warning of the right to refuse to consent is not required prior to obtaining valid

consent. Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 246; Phillips, 264 Ill. App. 3d at 217. To support a search

undertaken with consent, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the consent

was voluntarily given. Phillips, 264 Ill. App. 3d at 217. “The determination of whether a consent

is voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances.”

Phillips, 264 Ill. App. 3d at 217. The voluntariness of a consent does not depend on any single

factor and instead “depends upon all the circumstances under which the consent was given.”

Phillips, 264 Ill. App. 3d at 217. “Accordingly, lack of knowledge of the right to refuse to

- 19 - consent does not vitiate the voluntariness of the consent but is merely a factor to consider.”

Phillips, 264 Ill. App. 3d at 217-18. A defendant may also consent to a search by nonverbal

conduct. People v. Banta, 2021 IL App (4th) 180761, ¶ 29. However, mere acquiescence to

authority is not necessarily consent. Banta, 2021 IL App (4th) 180761 ¶ 29. The question of the

subject matter of the consent is factual and will not be disturbed unless the conclusion of the trial

court is against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Shelton, 110 Ill. App. 3d 625, 628

(1982).

¶ 61 Here, defendant argues the consent to search was involuntary because neither he

nor Grigoryan understood English. However, the record shows Grigoryan understood Heaton’s

request to search the truck. Video of the request showed Heaton asked if there was anything

illegal in the truck and one of the men said, “no.” He also asked if there were drugs in the truck

and if the men watched the truck being loaded or knew what was in it. Grigoryan then said

something about “see” and “the load,” and Heaton asked, “can I search the load?” Grigoryan

responded, “You see?” while nodding toward the truck. Heaton asked again “can I search it?”

Grigoryan then responded “yeah,” while again nodding his head toward the truck. Heaton told

Grigoryan to get the key, and Grigoryan left to do so. The context of Grigoryan’s verbal

permission to search the truck coupled with his nods toward it and question “You see?”

reasonably established he understood the request and consented to the search. Thus, the trial

court’s determination that the consent was voluntary was not against the manifest weight of the

evidence.

¶ 62 5. Scope of the Consent to Search

¶ 63 Defendant next argues, even if the consent was voluntary, Heaton exceeded the

scope of the consent and again unduly prolonged the stop by relocating the truck. The State

- 20 - argues the search was a single continuous search to which defendant consented, making the

relocation reasonable.

¶ 64 “Although consenting to a search waives the warrant requirement, it does so only

within the scope of the consent.” People v. Harrell, 226 Ill. App. 3d 866, 873 (1992). “A

consensual search should be conducted within the time limits and physical boundaries set by the

consent.” People v. Mendoza, 234 Ill. App. 3d 826, 836 (1992). “A consent to search which is

unlimited as to time and number of searches must be judged under a rule of reason, that is,

whether the search is reasonable.” Mendoza, 234 Ill. App. 3d at 836. “What is reasonable is a

factual determination to be made after considering all the circumstances under which the consent

has been executed.” Mendoza, 234 Ill. App. 3d at 836. Generally, a consent to search is given

with the understanding the search will be conducted forthwith and only a single search will be

made. People v. Logsdon, 208 Ill. App. 3d 989, 992 (1991). However, a brief interruption or a

temporary suspension of a search does not transform one continuous search into two separate

searches. Logsdon, 208 Ill. App. 3d at 992; see People v. Manikowski, 186 Ill. App. 3d 1007,

1012 (1989).

¶ 65 For example, in Logsdon, the defendant, who was hospitalized, asked the police to

search her home because she was concerned her ex-husband, who had been harassing her, was

planning to break into the home. Logsdon, 208 Ill. App. 3d at 991. In response, a police officer

went to the defendant’s home and found pry marks on the unlocked kitchen door and chipped

wood next to the door. Logsdon, 208 Ill. App. 3d at 991. Upon entry, the officer searched each

room and came upon a cubbyhole containing a clear plastic bag of what appeared to be cannabis.

Logsdon, 208 Ill. App. 3d at 991. The officer left the bag where it was, completed his search for

intruders, and returned to his squad car to call for backup to secure the residence while he went

- 21 - to obtain a warrant. Logsdon, 208 Ill. App. 3d at 991. Backup arrived about 50 minutes later, and

the officer then contacted an assistant state’s attorney who advised him to reenter the premises

and seize the drugs without a warrant, which he did. Logsdon, 208 Ill. App. 3d at 991.

¶ 66 The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress, finding that although

the officer’s initial entry was with the homeowner’s consent, he exceeded the scope of that

consent when he reentered the home. Logsdon, 208 Ill. App. 3d at 992. However, the appellate

court reversed, rejecting the notion there were two separate searches of the defendant’s home.

Logsdon, 208 Ill. App. 3d at 992-93. Instead, the court found there was one continuous search,

and the brief interruption or temporary suspension of a search would not transform one

continuous search into two separate searches. Logsdon, 208 Ill. App. 3d at 992. The court also

specifically observed the officer never abandoned his investigation, relinquished control over the

defendant’s house, or indicated an intent not to seize the cannabis. Instead, he only briefly

interrupted his search to call for backup and to reach the assistant state’s attorney. Logsdon, 208

Ill. App. 3d at 992-93.

¶ 67 Similarly, in Manikowski, a search was started at the side of a highway, suspended

because of bad weather, and finished in a garage in a nearby town. Manikowski, 186 Ill. App. 3d

at 1009-10. The appellate court held there were not two separate searches. Instead, there was one

search, albeit interrupted. The object of the search never changed, only the location changed.

Manikowski, 186 Ill. App. 3d at 1012. Meanwhile, the defendant never withdrew or limited

consent. Manikowski, 186 Ill. App. 3d at 1012.

¶ 68 Here, the men broadly gave consent for officers to search “the load.” Then,

Heaton told them the truck would be moved and run through an X-ray, and they complied. The

act of voluntarily following officers to the second location implied consent for the continuation

- 22 - of the search. Heaton had not completed his investigation when he looked in the back of the

truck, and he never abandoned his investigation. See Mendoza, 234 Ill. App. 3d at 836-37

(stating the voluntary relocation of a vehicle contributed to implied consent and a temporary

interruption in order to drive the vehicle there did not require new consent).

¶ 69 Defendant contends People v. Pulido, 2017 IL App (3d) 150215, requires a

different conclusion. We disagree. There, officers asked the defendant if they could search his

vehicle to make sure there was nothing illegal following a stop in which a dog performing a

free-air sniff alerted to the driver’s side door of the vehicle. Pulido, 2017 IL App (3d) 150215,

¶¶ 17-19. After the officers failed to find any contraband, the defendant and his vehicle were

“transported” or “relocate[d]” to the police station and the vehicle was later searched again after

the dog alerted to the back seat. Pulido, 2017 IL App (3d) 150215, ¶¶ 22-24. The appellate court

held the defendant’s consent to search was limited to the initial search at the side of the highway.

In doing so, the court wrote,

“we do not believe an Illinois citizen who is pulled over on a highway and

subsequently consents to a search of his vehicle intends to voluntarily and

knowingly consent to have his vehicle removed from the highway and relocated

to the local police station for a further search once the initial search on the

highway is completed.” Pulido, 2017 IL App (3d) 150215, ¶ 57.

¶ 70 We find Pulido distinguishable. In Pulido, the initial search had been completed,

finding nothing, before the vehicle was transported by the police to another location for a second

search later, after a second dog sniff was performed. In contrast, here, the men agreed to follow

the troopers a short distance to have the truck scanned by the X-ray to continue the initial

uncompleted search. They were not separately or involuntarily transported elsewhere for a

- 23 - second search or a search that occurred much later after additional inquiry. Thus, we find

Logsdon and Mankowski applicable here and conclude the brief delay to run the truck through

the X-ray was a continuation of the initial search, which was performed with consent. Further,

trial court’s finding the relocation and X-ray were not unduly delayed was not against the

manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 71 6. Search of the Boxes and Probable Cause

¶ 72 Defendant next argues officers again unduly prolonged the search or exceeded the

scope of consent when they searched the boxes inside of the truck and found the cannabis. He

further argues the search went beyond defendant’s authority as third party to consent to a search

of boxes he did not own. The State argues Heaton had probable cause for the search, making

consent irrelevant.

¶ 73 “When police officers have probable cause to believe that a motor vehicle

contains contraband, they may, without a warrant, search any area of the vehicle or any container

within the vehicle where they reasonably believe the contraband might be found.” People v.

Corral, 147 Ill. App. 3d 668, 672 (1986) (citing United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982)).

Probable cause to search a vehicle exists when the totality of the facts and circumstances known

to the officer at the time of the search would justify a reasonable person in believing that

contraband was present in the vehicle. Corral, 147 Ill. App. 3d at 673. In determining whether

the officer had probable cause, his or her factual knowledge, based on law-enforcement

experience, is relevant. People v. Smith, 95 Ill. 2d 412, 419-20 (1983). The emphasis falls on

“the totality of the circumstances,” or “the complete picture.” People v. Schmitt, 346 Ill. App. 3d

1148, 1153 (2004). Any one feature of the picture, by itself, might appear innocuous, but when

an officer regards the whole picture with a trained eye, he or she might recognize probable

- 24 - criminal activity. Schmitt, 346 Ill. App. 3d 1148, 1153. “Whether probable cause to search exists

is a factual inquiry and the trial court’s determination on this issue will not be overturned unless

it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Corral, 147 Ill. App. 3d at 672.

¶ 74 Here, the trial court’s determination Heaton had probable cause was not against

the manifest weight of the evidence. At the time of the X-ray, Heaton already suspected the truck

contained contraband based on the presence of boxes with different colored tape, which in his

experience indicated transportation of contraband. As previously discussed, the bill of lading and

other circumstances did not meet industry standards. Another trooper had also noted to Heaton

that the truck had been to multiple locations. When the X-ray showed items inconsistent with the

bill of lading and individual packages located in boxes situated in the front of the truck, Heaton

had probable cause to search those boxes. While not necessary to our determination, we also note

the men had already consented to search “the load” of the truck and, when Heaton opened the

truck to further do so after it had been relocated, he smelled cannabis. Likewise, he found an

unusual amount of cash in the cab of the truck and also smelled cannabis there. Both of those

factors further support the determination there was probable cause to search the boxes. Our

review of the video reveals no unreasonable delays in performing the search.

¶ 75 Because we have determined Heaton had probable cause to further search the

truck and the boxes, we need not address defendant’s arguments that the searches of the boxes

exceeded the scope of his consent or his authority as a third party to consent to a search of the

boxes.

¶ 76 B. Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶ 77 Finally, defendant contends the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt. He argues the evidence failed to sufficiently prove he knew he was hauling

- 25 - contraband.

¶ 78 A reviewing court will not set aside a criminal conviction unless the evidence is

so improbable or unsatisfactory that it creates a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. People

v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985). On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “ ‘the

relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime

beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at 261 (quoting

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). This standard applies regardless of whether the

evidence is direct or circumstantial, and circumstantial evidence meeting this standard is

sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction. People v. Jackson, 232 Ill. 2d 246, 281 (2009). The

determination of the credibility of each witness, the weight to be given to his or her testimony,

and the resolution of any conflicts in the evidence is within the province of the trier of fact, and a

reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact on those matters.

People v. Brooks, 187 Ill. 2d 91, 132 (1999). “Moreover, the testimony of a single witness, if

positive and credible, is sufficient to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

People v. Sturgeon, 2019 IL App (4th) 170035, ¶ 62. Further, minor inconsistencies in the

testimony do not, of themselves, create a reasonable doubt as to a defendant’s conviction. People

v. Bowen, 241 Ill. App. 3d 608, 620 (1993).

¶ 79 Here, there was circumstantial evidence defendant was more than a mere driver of

the truck. While the men initially told Heaton they picked up the items from a residence and

were taking them to Chicago, the bill of lading was dated two months earlier. Grigoryan then

admitted they picked up the items from a storage facility. Contrary to what they told Heaton, the

truck had been to multiple destinations over the past two months without dropping off the

- 26 - household goods. Complaints against the company indicated the business made false contracts

and used contracts as cover to transport contraband. The purported owner of the goods could not

be located or verified, and the trucking company’s businesses had disconnected phones.

Meanwhile, the men were nervous when stopped and had a large amount of cash, which the State

suggested was payment for the transportation of the contraband. Under those circumstances, it

was reasonable for the trial court to infer defendant knew he was trafficking contraband.

Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶ 80 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 81 For the reasons stated we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 82 Affirmed.

- 27 - People v. Ivanchuk, 2025 IL App (4th) 241230

Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Logan County, No. 22-CF- 223; the Hon. Johnathan C. Wright, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys Christopher Grohman, of Benesch Friedlander Coplan & for Aronoff LLP, of Chicago, for appellant. Appellant:

Attorneys Bradley M. Hauge, State’s Attorney, of Lincoln (Patrick for Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Allison Paige Brooks, of State’s Appellee: Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

- 28 -