Right to present a complete defense; Evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop; Whether defendant was entitled to present witnesses; The trial court’s refusal to view video evidence; Relevance; Credibility assessments; Reasonable suspicion

The court held that the trial court did not violate defendant’s constitutional right to present a complete defense when it refused to (1) allow him to call witnesses at the evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress evidence or (2) watch requested videos. The trial court denied the motion and he entered a conditional guilty plea to CCW, FIP, and felony-firearm. After finding what appeared to be drugs during a traffic stop, police discovered “drug paraphernalia in the car as well as a firearm under the driver’s seat, which defendant confessed belonged to him.” The court noted that “the officers’ testimonies about the events of the traffic stop were, at times, inconsistent. Their recollections of the route they took when following defendant were different, and they both acknowledged that, after stopping [him], they told him he failed to stop at three stop signs—not two. Further, neither mentioned the expired registration to [him]. But” they both testified they saw him “speeding and failing to stop at two stop signs, and that the registration of the car [he] was driving was expired. The trial court heard this testimony, which included the officers’ inconsistencies. Thus, [it] was not required to hear from defendant or his witness about these inconsistencies, because they were readily apparent from the officers’ testimonies.” In addition, it “is the officer’s perception, not defendant’s version of the facts, that contributes to the determination of whether reasonable suspicion existed.” As a result, “neither defendant’s testimony, nor the testimony of any proposed witness, would be relevant to this determination.” Thus, in this circumstance “he did not have the right to present witnesses” and there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court “in precluding him from doing so.” As to the videos, it was undisputed that they did “not show the time at which the officers claimed to see defendant speeding. While there were some slight discrepancies in [their] recollections, and an acknowledged error in the police report, there is nothing in the record or the video that would have caused the trial court to find the officers’ testimonies unbelievable. Because this testimony sufficiently supported the officers’ reasonable suspicion,” there was no indication the trial court would have changed its ruling “had it watched the videos.” Affirmed.