GSR odor can factor into probable cause

Fitting the description and fleeing the scene (heading in a direction away from the scene) in a particularly described car and then the odor of gunshot residue about the defendant’s person 15 minutes after a shooting was probable cause. People v. Jones, 374 Ill. App. 3d 566, 313 Ill. Dec. 96, 871 N.E.2d 823 (1st Dist. 2007):

Here, the serious crimes of murder and attempted murder had been committed about 15 minutes before the police apprehended defendant. Defendant was within three blocks of the crime scene and fit the general description of the fleeing suspects. These circumstances alone support a finding of probable cause. More facts would have been needed to establish probable cause if the suspect had been physically or temporally more distant from the scene or if the officers did not know for certain that a serious crime had been committed. Not only did the time and place of defendant’s apprehension correspond to the time and place of the shooting, but defendant also fit the description given by the witnesses and had been running as reported by the witnesses.

The odor of gunshot residue was yet another fact in support of probable cause. “[D]istinctive odors can be persuasive evidence of probable cause. A police officer’s detection of controlled substances by their smell has been held to be a permissible method of establishing probable cause.” Stout, 106 Ill. 2d at 87.

Also, citizen informant at the scene did not have to be corroborated like a snitch. While the officers did not get their names, they were at the scene and the officer could assess their credibility when they made their report. Id.*:

Defendant argues against this conclusion, characterizing the descriptions the officers received from anonymous witnesses as vague and uncorroborated. In general, the reliability of an ordinary citizen, unlike an informant, need not be established. People v. Williams, 305 Ill. App. 3d 517, 524, 712 N.E.2d 883 (1999). Absent indications to the contrary, information provided by an ordinary citizen is presumed to be reliable. Williams, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 524. Here, although the witnesses did not provide their names, the officers were able to observe them and assess their credibility. The witnesses’ descriptions were sufficiently specific. Shackleton testified that the witnesses said the offenders had low haircuts, very little or no facial hair, black shorts, black shoes and were running southbound on foot. Defendant matched this general description.

When the defendant during a traffic stop made a furtive gesture that the officer took as her looking for a weapon, the officer was permitted to frisk the vehicle for a potential weapon. People v. McDaniel, 160 P.3d 247 (Colo. 2007)* (this case is a replica of Michigan v. Long, but it was decided only citing state cases).