People v. Brown
| Decision Date | 12 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-86-0368,3-86-0368 |
| Citation | 106 Ill.Dec. 99,153 Ill.App.3d 307,505 N.E.2d 405 |
| Parties | , 106 Ill.Dec. 99 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert BROWN & Alice Weber, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
John X. Breslin, Deputy Director, State's Attys. Appellate Prosecutor, Ottawa, John A. Barra, State's Atty. of Peoria Co., Peoria, for people.
Verlin R.F. Meinz, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Ottawa, for Robert T. Brown and Alice Weber.
Officer Peterson of the Peoria police department was assigned to investigate a burglary of the Uptown Eatery & Arcade in Peoria, Illinois, wherein certain stereo equipment was stolen. That equipment was specifically described by the owner of the business to Officer Peterson. During the course of the investigation, Officer Peterson learned from an anonymous informant that the perpetrator of the crime told the informant that part of the stereo equipment, a stereo mixer, was at the home of the defendants, Robert Brown and Alice Weber. Another part of that system, a stereo turntable, was at the apartment of John Randall. The informant also stated that he had personally seen the stereo mixer on the defendants' premises. The informant signed an affidavit stating what he had learned from the perpetrator of the crime. Based on this affidavit and a complaint from Officer Peterson, a search warrant issued authorizing the search of the defendants' home for the following:
"A Gemini MX7700 Audio Mixer, Black with missing mic mount (hole in top left); Audiotek Turntable BL-150, Silver with custom installed red power switch; Kenwood Tuner, KT1000, Silver front with scratches and discoloration below volume knob; Marantz 1100 Preamplifier, Silver/black; AudioTechnica Cartridge, AT-11, red/white; and any other equipment, appliances or other property which is found to have been stolen in the commission of, or which constitute evidence of, the offense of (1) Theft; (2) Burglary."
Armed with the search warrant, and with Officer Peterson in charge, a dozen law officers, including nine from the vice and drug unit, proceeded to the defendants' residence. Deeming twelve law officers to be adequate in his search for the missing stereo equipment, Officer Peterson courageously did not ask for backup support from local units of the marines, army reserve or coast guard.
As Officer Peterson read the warrant to the defendants, the other officers fanned out and began searching the house. After reading the warrant, Officer Peterson began looking at the stereo equipment on the premises, all of which was in the front room of the house. He quickly located the "Gemini MX7700 mixer" listed in the warrant and seized it. The other police, meanwhile, continued searching the entire house. They searched above drop-ceiling panels; they looked in light fixtures, knickknack boxes, the refrigerator, the freezer, and bottles containing perfume and nail polish; they went through personal papers and photo albums; they dismantled a water bed and they required defendant Weber to undergo a strip search before she could use the rest room. During the course of the search the police found and seized certain controlled substances and two firearms.
On the following day, the defendants were both indicted for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. Defendant Brown was additionally charged with theft and two counts of unlawful use of weapons by a felon. The defendants filed a motion to quash the search warrant and suppress evidence illegally seized.
After the hearing on the motion to quash and the motion to suppress, the trial court found that the affidavit upon which the search warrant issued only gave probable cause to search the defendants' residence for a stereo mixer and that it did not contain allegations of fact which would authorize a search for other stolen items of stereo equipment. The judge also determined that the warrant language allowing for the seizure of "any other equipment, appliances or other property which is found to have been stolen in the commission of, or which constitutes evidence of, the offense of (1) Theft; (2) Burglary" was overly broad. Thus, the court suppressed all evidence invalidly seized during the execution of the warrant. The court also suppressed the validly seized stereo mixer in light of what it found to be a gross abuse of police power. The State appeals the ruling. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The Fourth Amendment demands that a search warrant particularly describe the things to be seized. (U.S. Const., amend. IV; Ill.Const.1970, art. I, § 6.) The purpose of this requirement is to ensure against law enforcement officials exercising broad discretion in executing the warrant. (People v. Allison (1983), 115 Ill.App.3d 1038, 72 Ill.Dec. 216, 452 N.E.2d 148.) A warrant description which does no more than refer to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Schmitz
...(description "any property or devices used or obtained through fraud operations" insufficient); People v. Brown, 153 Ill.App.3d 307, 106 Ill.Dec. 99, 101, 505 N.E.2d 405, 407 (1987) (description referring to stolen property insufficient); Commonwealth v. Rutkowski, 406 Mass. 673, 550 N.E.2d......
-
People v. Economy, 4-93-0499
...are free to search anywhere the object of the search could reasonably be expected to be found. People v. Brown (1987), 153 Ill.App.3d 307, 310, 106 Ill.Dec. 99, 102, 505 N.E.2d 405, 408. The warrant described the area to be searched as "a two[-]story, single[-]family residence located at 54......