6
defendant's motion to suppress, and the State appealed.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, the State argues that the circuit court erred
when it granted the defendant's motion to suppress.
Specifically, the State argues that the officer did not
unreasonably delay the traffic stop. Alternatively, the State
argues, without citation to any authority, that any delay was
justified by a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal
activity.
We employ a two-part standard of review when faced with a
challenge to a circuit court's ruling on a motion to suppress.
People v. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 857 N.E.2d 187 (2006).
First, we review the circuit court's findings of historical fact
for clear error, and we afford deference to any inferences the
circuit court drew from those facts. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530,
857 N.E.2d 187. We will not disturb the circuit court's factual
findings unless they are against the manifest weight of the
evidence. Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 857 N.E.2d 187. Second,
because a reviewing court is free to assess the facts relative to
the issue presented in the case, we review the circuit court's
ultimate legal ruling on the motion to suppress de novo.
Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 857 N.E.2d 187.
The fourth amendment of the United States Constitution and
article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution guarantee
