People v. Bean

• Citation: 392 N.E.2d 650,29 Ill.Dec. 953,73 Ill.App.3d 918
• Decision Date: 29 June 1979
• Docket Number: 78-876,Nos. 78-875,s. 78-875
• Parties: , 29 Ill.Dec. 953 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jimmy BEAN, Jessie Byrd, Frank Byrd, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 650

392 N.E.2d 650

73 Ill.App.3d 918, 29 Ill.Dec. 953

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jimmy BEAN, Jessie Byrd, Frank Byrd, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 78-875, 78-876.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division.

June 29, 1979.

[29 Ill.Dec. 954] Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Chicago (Lee T. Hettinger, James S. Veldman, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant

Burton A. Brown, Chicago, for defendant-appellee Jimmy Bean.

James J. Doherty, Public Defender, Chicago (James L. Rhodes, Asst. Public Defender, Chicago, of counsel), for Jessie Byrd and Frank Byrd, defendants-appellees.

WILSON, Justice:

This is an appeal by the State, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(a) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 110A, par. 604(a), of the trial court's quashing of the arrest and suppressing of the statements of defendant, Jimmy Bean, and the quashing of the arrests and suppressing of the identifications of defendants, Frank and Jesse Byrd. The State contends that the trial court erred when it found that there was no probable cause to arrest Bean in his apartment and when it based its ruling with respect to the Byrds on this erroneous finding. We reverse and remand.

On April 29, 1977, the trial court conducted a hearing on a motion to quash the arrest of defendant, Jimmy Bean. Officer Thomas Lahm testified that he had been assigned to investigate an armed robbery of a cleaning store which had occurred on March 5, 1975. Two men had gone into the cleaners with a sawed-off shotgun and a pistol and had taken records and money. On March 6, Lahm telephoned Lucinda Birmingham, whose name, address, and telephone number had appeared on a police report of the March 5 incident, and spoke to her about what had happened. She told him that while she was standing across the street from the cleaners, she saw two men run from the cleaners, join two other men who were outside the cleaners, and then saw all of them run from the scene. After they had gone, she went into the cleaners and found out that an armed robbery had been committed. She told Lahm that one of the men who had been outside the cleaners was defendant with whom she had previously gone to school. She told him that defendant was 17 or 18 years old and that he lived in the vicinity of Keeler (4200 West) and Gladys.

Sometime between March 6 and March 13, Lahm checked the police "alpha file" and discovered that a person with defendant's name had been arrested for burglary by the Oak Park Police in June of 1974 and had given his address as 4211 West Gladys. Although Lahm could not recall precisely when he checked the alpha file, he stated that it normally takes anywhere from a couple of minutes to a couple of hours to make the check. Also, between March 6 and March 13, Lahm visited schools in the area of 4211 West Gladys and he learned that defendant had gone to a school at Van Buren and Keeler and had listed his address as 4211 West Gladys.

At approximately 8 a. m. on March 13, Lahm and three other officers arrived at 4211 West Gladys without a warrant. Lahm said that he went there to arrest defendant, but he also said that he was not sure if defendant would be there. He went to the front of the house with one of the officers and the other officers went to the rear. After he had knocked on the door and announced his office, defendant's mother came to the door. Lahm asked her if her son lived there and if he could talk to him. She permitted Lahm and the other officer to enter the apartment after she had dressed. When they entered the apartment, neither of them had his gun drawn. Lahm said that he never did draw his gun while he was in the apartment because he never knew that defendant would be armed. He first testified that defendant's mother told him that defendant was in the bedroom. Later, he testified that he was not sure if she told him that defendant was in the bedroom. In either event, he did say that defendant did come out of the bedroom. He told defendant that he was under arrest for the robbery of the cleaners. Lahm stated that he never entered the bedroom to make the arrest.

Lillie Bean, defendant's mother, testified that she only permitted the plainclothes police officers to enter the vestibule to her apartment and told them to wait there until she put on her robe. After she had put her robe on, she told them that she would go and get her son. At that point, one of the officers ran past her with his gun in hand. She asked him where he was going, and when he did not stop, she began crying. She asked the officers what they wanted with her son, but they offered no explanation. The officers then went into defendant's bedroom and told him to get out of bed. They then brought defendant into the living room and told Mrs. Bean that they were arresting him for armed robbery.

After hearing the testimony, the trial court found no probable cause and sustained the motion to quash the arrest.

On May 6, 1977, the trial court held a hearing on a motion to suppress certain statements given by defendant after his arrest. Officer Lahm testified that five minutes after the arrest, defendant gave him an oral statement. After he had taken him to the police station, defendant gave a written statement containing substantially the same information as was contained in the earlier oral statement.

At the close of the May 6 hearing, the trial court entered an order sustaining the motion to suppress the statements as fruits of the illegal arrest. The court contained, however, a question concerning the voluntariness of the statements.

On October 27, the trial court commenced a hearing on a motion to quash the arrest and suppress the identification of defendants, Frank and Jesse Byrd. At the hearing, it was stipulated that when the police arrested defendant, Jimmy Bean, their investigation had not yet focused on Frank and Jesse Byrd. After Bean's arrest, he gave a statement that the Byrds participated in the armed robbery with him. The Byrds were arrested at 4132 West Van Buren ten minutes after this statement had been given. Later in the day, the Byrds took part in a lineup and were identified as being participants in the armed robbery.

After this stipulation was read, the trial court sustained the motion to quash the arrests and suppress the identifications on grounds that the illegal arrest of Bean led to the arrest and identification of the Byrds.

OPINION

The State contends that the trial court erred when it quashed Bean's arrest and suppressed his statements because there was probable cause to arrest him in his apartment. It also contends that since there was probable cause to arrest Bean, the trial court's ruling sustaining the Byrds' motion to quash and suppress should be reversed since it was based on the erroneous ruling that Bean's arrest was illegal. We agree with both of the State's contentions.

I

The State's first contention actually raises two separate questions: (1) whether the police had probable cause to arrest Bean on March 13; and (2) whether probable cause is sufficient to make an arrest in one's private dwelling place. A police officer has probable cause for an arrest when he "has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is committing or has committed an offense." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, par. 107-2(c).) In determining whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed an offense, a court must consider all of the circumstances known to the police officer at the time of the arrest. (People v. Clay (1973), 55 Ill.2d 501, 304 N.E.2d 280.) In considering these circumstances, a court must not be unduly technical because the question of probable cause involves probabilities and not certainties. Clay.

At the time of Bean's arrest, Officer Lahm knew from his conversation with Birmingham that A Jimmy Bean had fled the scene of the armed robbery with three other men. He also knew from this conversation that This Jimmy Bean was 17 or 18 years old, lived in the vicinity of Keeler (4200 West) and Gladys, and had gone to school with Birmingham at one time. He had discovered from the police alpha file that A Jimmy Bean had previously been arrested for burglary in 1974 and had given 4211 West Gladys as his address. He had also discovered from a survey of schools in the area that A Jimmy Bean had gone to a school at Van Buren and Keeler and had listed 4211 West Gladys as his address. We believe that on the basis of all of this information, Lahm had probable cause to arrest The Jimmy Bean living at 4211 West Gladys.

Defendants claim that the information provided by Birmingham was not a sufficient basis for a finding of probable cause in this instance. They argue that the information provided by Birmingham was not reasonably trustworthy because it was obtained by telephone and there was no proof that Lahm was actually speaking to Birmingham and because there was no proof that Birmingham was not a professional informant or proof of her reliability. We reject this claim. Although Officer Lahm did not check a telephone directory to make certain that the number which he called was actually listed to Birmingham, we do not believe that his failure to do so detracts from the sufficiency of the information obtained for probable cause purposes. As we have already noted, the question of probable cause involves probabilities. Information received over the telephone has in the past been found sufficiently reliable to form some of the basis for a finding of probable cause. (People v. Lucus (1968), 41 Ill.2d 370, 243 N.E.2d 228.) In the instant case, the information received over the telephone came from a person who had witnessed the flight from the scene of the armed robbery. This person clearly identified herself to the police, giving her name, address, and telephone number. She told Lahm that she had gone to school with one of the men fleeing the scene and she knew that he lived in the...