People v. Alvarado
Decision Date | 15 December 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 4-94-0250,4-94-0250 |
Citation | 206 Ill.Dec. 15,644 N.E.2d 783,268 Ill.App.3d 459 |
Parties | , 206 Ill.Dec. 15 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Orlando ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Charles G. Reynard, State's Atty., Bloomington, Norbert J. Goetten, Director, Robert J. Biderman, Deputy Director, Charles F. Mansfield (argued), State's Attys. Appellate Prosecutors, Springfield, for People.
W. Keith Davis (argued), Jennings, Novick, Taseff, Smalley & Davis, Bloomington, for Orlando Alvarado.
The circuit court of McLean County granted defendant Orlando Alvarado's motion to suppress evidence seized from his motel room, finding his consent to search was invalid. The State appeals, and we reverse.
Defendant was arrested and consented to a search of his motel room, where a large amount of cannabis was seized. He was indicted with unlawful possession of cannabis, unlawful possession of cannabis with intent to deliver, and cannabis trafficking, in violation of sections 4, 5, and 5.1 of the Cannabis Control Act (720 ILCS 550/4, 5, 5.1 (West 1992)). Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, alleging his consent for the search had not been "knowing and voluntary." At the suppression hearing, only the arresting officer and defendant testified. There was no significant conflict in their testimony, and the State presented no further evidence or testimony. The trial court issued a ruling from the bench, and later entered a written order. Because neither party disputes the factual findings of the trial court, the facts as found in the written order are presented in their entirety:
"FINDINGS OF FACT
On October 23, 1993, the defendant Orlando L. Alvarado registered as a guest at the Fairfield Inn located at 202 Landmark Drive in the Town of Normal, in the County of McLean, in the State of Illinois. He was assigned to Room 349. Late in the morning hours of October 24, 1994, a motel maid was performing routine housekeeping duties. She observed no 'Do Not Disturb' sign on the door knob of Room 349. She opened the door and observed that the defendant was not present in the room. She also observed a green leafy substance all over the bed. Apparently believing the substance to be marijuana, she became apprehensive and immediately closed the door. She contacted the motel manager, who promptly called the Normal Police Department.
Officer Martin L. Fogler responded to the Fairfield Inn and conferred briefly outside of Room 349 with the maid and the motel manager. The motel manager then opened the door. As soon as the door was opened a small crack, a strong odor emanated from the room. Officer Fogler identified the odor as that of marijuana. Without entering the room, Fogler peeked in and there, in plain view, was the whole bed covered with marijuana. The police officer and the motel employees then closed the door, and the officer summoned detectives from the Normal Police Department. After several officers from the Normal Police Department arrived, an attempt was made to call the state's attorney's office to obtain a search warrant. Officer Fogler went to the motel office where he was furnished with a copy of the defendant's driver's license which included the defendant's picture.
Officer Fogler then took up a watch outside of Room 349. Within one-half to three-quarters of an hour, a man with a room key in his hand came walking up the hallway toward Room 349. He appeared to be the same man pictured on the copy of the driver's license. Fogler asked the man who he was, and he identified himself as Orlando Alvarado. Motel employees opened the door to Room 350, immediately across the hall from Room 349, and placed the defendant and Officer Fogler in Room 350. Fogler placed handcuffs on the defendant and administered Miranda warnings. The defendant asked to speak with counsel. After some period of time passed, and officers had apparently been unable to secure a search warrant, Fogler asked Alvarado whether he would grant permission for a search. Alvarado said that he would grant permission to Fogler and Lt. Frank Zayas to search Room 349. He executed Defendant's Exhibit 2, a written permission to search form. No search warrant was issued.
Officers subsequently searched Room 349 and seized a large amount of material alleged to be cannabis. It is this material which the defense seeks to have suppressed."
Three facts need clarification. First, the motel manager opened the door to the room at his own initiative, not at the officer's request. Therefore, the initial viewing of the room is not at issue. Second, the attempt to obtain a search warrant was still in progress when the officers asked for defendant's consent to search. The officers informed defendant of this when they requested his consent. Third, defendant consented to the search 14 minutes after he was taken into custody.
The trial court next set out its conclusions of law in the written order:
The trial court's rationale in its written order differed from its rationale during its bench ruling:
The State now appeals, arguing the trial court erred by (1) requiring the State to prove voluntariness of a consent to search by clear and positive testimony, (2) ruling defendant's consent was vitiated because his consent followed his request for counsel, (3) ruling defendant's consent was involuntary because of a coercive environment, and (4) failing to allow admission of the cannabis under the independent source or inevitable discovery doctrines.
The voluntariness of a consent to a police search depends on the totality of the circumstances, and a trial court's determination of voluntariness will not be disturbed unless it is clearly unreasonable. (People v. Casazza (1991), 144 Ill.2d 414, 417-18, 163 Ill.Dec. 497, 499, 581 N.E.2d 651, 653.) More generally, a trial court's decision whether to suppress evidence will not be disturbed unless manifestly erroneous. (People v Thompson (1991), 215 Ill.App.3d 514, 519, 159 Ill.Dec. 27, 30, 575 N.E.2d 256, 259.) However, "where neither the facts nor credibility of the witnesses is contested, the issue * * * is a legal question which a reviewing court may consider de novo." In re D.G. (1991), 144 Ill.2d 404, 408-09, 163 Ill.Dec. 494, 495, 581 N.E.2d 648, 649 ( ).
The State first argues the trial court required the State to meet too high a burden of proof in showing consent. The trial court relied on People v. Haskell (1968), 41 Ill.2d 25, 31, 241 N.E.2d 430, 433-34, which stated:
As the language in Haskell and its citation to Zerbst reveal, Haskell was decided at a time when a consent to search was viewed as a waiver of a right akin to a waiver of other fundamental rights accorded a criminal defendant. Therefore, courts believed a consent to search had to be given voluntarily and knowingly, and courts placed a high burden on the State to prove a waiver occurred. However, the United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Prinzing
... ... One established exception to the warrant requirement is a search that is conducted with voluntary consent. Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 219, 93 S.Ct. at 2043-44, 36 L.Ed.2d at 858. It is the State's burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the consent was voluntary. People v. Alvarado, 268 Ill. App.3d 459, 464, 206 Ill.Dec. 15, 644 N.E.2d 783 (1994). Whether consent was voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances. Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 227, 93 S.Ct. at 2048, 36 L.Ed.2d at 863. The two competing concerns that must be accommodated ... ...
-
People v. Harris
... ... People v. Gaede, 2014 IL App (4th) 130346, 26, 386 Ill.Dec. 488, 20 N.E.3d 1266. 49 Consent to a blood test need only be voluntary in order to provide a valid basis for an exception to the warrant requirement. See, e.g., People v. Alvarado, 268 Ill.App.3d 459, 464, 206 Ill.Dec. 15, 644 N.E.2d 783, 787 (1994) (An intentional abandonment or relinquishment of a known right to refuse testing did not apply to fourth amendment rights designed to protect the security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police. (Emphasis ... ...
-
People v. Redman
... ... Zynda, 53 Ill. App.3d 794, 801, 11 Ill.Dec. 471, 368 N.E.2d 1079, 1085 (1977) ... Generally, this court will not disturb a trial court's determination of voluntariness unless it is clearly unreasonable. People v. Alvarado, 268 Ill.App.3d 459, 463, 206 Ill.Dec. 15, 644 N.E.2d 783, 786 (1994). In this case, however, the trial court held that because the arrests were made without probable cause, the consents were the "fruit of the poisonous tree." Therefore, the court found it unnecessary to determine whether the ... ...
-
State v. Kiriluk
... ... ¶4 The victim's body was found on March 22, 1996. Because defendant was one of the last people seen with the victim, police visited his apartment on the night of March 25, 1996. Upon arrival, the police saw drug paraphernalia in plain view ... denied, 474 U.S. 833, 106 S.Ct. 104, 88 L.Ed.2d 84 (1985); People v. Beaver, 725 P.2d 96, 99 (Colo.Ct.App.1986) (same); People v. Alvarado, 268 Ill.App.3d 459, 206 Ill.Dec. 15, 644 N.E.2d 783, 786-89 (1994) (holding Miranda violation does not vitiate voluntary consent), appeal denied, ... ...