IL: Error in overruling def objection at suppression hearing doesn’t require new suppression hearing if outcome wouldn’t change

Erroneous overruling of defendant’s objections during a suppression hearing doesn’t necessarily require a new suppression hearing if the appellate court finds it harmless or wouldn’t change the outcome. People v. Maxey, 2016 IL App (1st) 130698, 2016 Ill. App. LEXIS 429 (June 30, 2016):

[*P110] On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying the motion without considering the merits. The reviewing court noted that the sole issue raised in the motion to suppress was whether the warrantless search and seizure was unreasonable. “Defendant’s testimony thereon at the hearing was limited to the events surrounding the search and seizure. The prosecution inquiry on cross-examination of whether defendant knew what the substances were — as to the question of to whom they belonged — was neither within the scope of direct examination nor even germane to the issues raised by the motion to suppress.” Id. at 958. The Smith court concluded that the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s objections, but the reviewing court ultimately held that the error was harmless. Id. at 959-60. “A defendant may not avail himself of any error on his motion to suppress if the evidence both at the hearing on the motion and at trial establishes the legality of the search and seizure thus rendering the product of such to have been properly admissible.” Id. at 959.

[*P111] Here, the police had a reasonable suspicion to stop defendant. Chief Lukaszek testified that he received a report of a residential burglary at 333 Jackson Boulevard, less than a mile from where he was driving. The report stated that a red Chevy van with two male black offenders fled the scene and were driving on Madison Street toward Wolf Road. Within 10 seconds of the report, Chief Lukaszek observed defendant’s red van driving southbound on Wolf Road. He then saw the vehicle make an illegal U-turn to drive northbound. He curbed the vehicle, but as he approached, the vehicle fled, driving approximately 85 mph and running three stop signs. The van turned into a mall parking lot, jumped a curb, and slid down an embankment. Once the vehicle stopped, the occupants fled on foot. Defendant was detained at the scene. Proceeds from the burglary were found in the van. Based on this evidence, even if the prosecutor’s question exceeded the scope and the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s objection, any error was harmless because the evidence supported a finding of probable cause.