Louis Hayward El was convicted, following a jury trial, of two counts of criminal reproduction of recorded material.1 He appeals his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in 1 denying him a speedy trial; 2 subjecting him to double jeopardy; 3 denying his motion to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence; 4 denying him an opportunity to conduct meaningful voir dire; and 5 admitting similar transaction evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, Davis v. State ,2 the record shows that on May 22, 2004, a patrolling police officer passed a vehicle driven by Hayward El and heard rather loud music coming from the vehicle’s stereo. Believing that Hayward El’s loud music was violating a city noise ordinance, the officer turned his own vehicle around and initiated a traffic stop. As the officer approached Hayward El’s vehicle, he noticed several cardboard boxes in plain view on the backseat containing numerous digital video recording discs DVDs of films. Based on the low quality of the DVDs’ packaging, the fact that some of the DVDs were of films still in theatrical release, and the fact that there were duplicate copies of the same films, the officer suspected that the materials had been illegally reproduced pirated, and consequently placed Hayward El under arrest. A search of his vehicle following his arrest yielded more DVDs, as well as music compact discs CDs, which also appeared to have been pirated.
Later that day, after taking Hayward El into custody, officers contacted his wife and received her consent to search their residence for more pirated materials. Although none were found within the couple’s residence, the officers noticed numerous DVDs and CDs in plain view inside Hayward El’s other vehicle, which was parked in the driveway. A search of the second vehicle uncovered even more pirated DVDs and CDs.