People v. Burns
| Decision Date | 24 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 118973.,118973. |
| Citation | 401 Ill.Dec. 468,50 N.E.3d 610 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Taron R. BURNS, Appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Julia Rietz, State's Attorney, of Urbana (Carolyn E. Shapiro, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Glick and Eldad Z. Malamuth, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, and Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson and David Mannchen, of the Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, of Springfield, of counsel), for the People.
L. Keith Hays, Jr., of Monticello, for appellee.
¶ 1 The circuit court of Champaign County determined that the warrantless use of a drug-detection dog at 3:20 a.m. at defendant's apartment door, located within a locked apartment building, violated defendant's rights under the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution. U.S. Const., amend. IV. The appellate court affirmed. 2015 IL App (4th) 140006. We now affirm.
¶ 3 Defendant, Taron R. Burns, lives in unit No. 10 of a three-story apartment building located at 409 W. Elm, Urbana, Illinois. The apartment building contains twelve units and is secured by two locked entrances located on the east and west sides of the building. The apartment building common areas are not accessible to the public. Defendant lives on the third floor of the apartment building. Her floor consists of a small landing with two apartments, unit Nos. 9 and 10, and a storage closet. The apartment doors to unit Nos. 9 and 10 are located directly across from one another, and the storage room door faces the stairwell.
¶ 4 On November 29, 2012, the Urbana police department's Crimestoppers hotline received an anonymous tip that defendant was selling marijuana. The tipster indicated that defendant sold approximately two pounds of marijuana a week and received shipments of marijuana from her brother (name unknown) in California. According to the tipster, defendant received a shipment of two pounds of marijuana on November 21, 2012. The tipster also indicated that defendant sold ecstasy to the tipster's girlfriend.
¶ 5 Investigating the tip, Urbana police detective Matthew Mecum discovered that in October 2008, defendant was issued a notice to appear from the city of Urbana for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. Defendant was also arrested in 2003, for possession of marijuana in a neighboring town, Villa Grove, Illinois. Detective Mecum also observed “pictures containing images for the legalization of marijuana,” “a picture containing actual marijuana,” and “a picture containing large amounts of U.S. currency” on defendant's personal social media page.
¶ 6 Sometime after midnight on January 10, 2013, Detective Mecum went to defendant's apartment building to “confirm her address.” Detective Mecum wore jeans and a winter jacket, not displaying any law enforcement indicia. Detective Mecum's badge and firearm were not visible. Detective Mecum had visited the apartment building several times and always found the entrance doors locked. According to Detective Mecum, he knocked on the door and an unidentified tenant let him in the building. While walking through the apartment building, Detective Mecum observed a package addressed to defendant with a shipping label identifying the sender as “Ben Jones in Oakland, California.” Detective Mecum did not indicate where in the building he observed the package or the dimensions of the package.
¶ 7 At approximately 3:20 a.m., Officer Michael Cervantes entered defendant's apartment building, without a warrant, with his drug-detection dog. The dog is trained in the detection of cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and heroin. Officer Cervantes was admitted into the building by Sergeant Loschen. Officer Cervantes did not know how Sergeant Loschen obtained access to the apartment building. Officer Cervantes took his drug-detection dog to the third floor and the dog alerted to the presence of narcotics at defendant's apartment door. The affidavit for a search warrant in this case states that as Officer Cervantes and his dog were exiting the apartment building, Officer Cervantes used his drug-detection dog “to conduct an open air sweep of the doors to two apartments located on the west side of the first floor of the building.” Officer Cervantes testified during the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress that using his drug-detection dog, he “started on the third floor, swept Number 9, the storage unit in the middle between 9 and 10, swept 10, proceeded to the alert that my canine detected an odor of illegal drugs, and then on the way out I swept 2 more apartment doors on the first floor on the west side.” Officer Cervantes did not explain why he swept these other apartments' doors for drugs.
¶ 8 Later that same day, Detective Mecum applied for a search warrant for defendant's apartment. The complaint and affidavit for search warrant indicated that on November 29, 2012, the Urbana police department received a Crimestoppers tip that defendant was receiving shipments of marijuana from her brother (name unknown) in California; that defendant received a shipment on November 21, 2012; that defendant sold ecstasy to the tipster's girlfriend; that defendant sells approximately two pounds of marijuana a week; and that defendant has a personal social media page showing United States currency. The complaint and affidavit for search warrant does not indicate that the tipster provided defendant's address.
¶ 9 The complaint and affidavit for search warrant also indicated that in October 2008, defendant was issued a notice to appear from the city of Urbana for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia; that defendant was arrested in 2003, for possession of marijuana in Villa Grove; and that defendant's personal social media page contained “images for the legalization of marijuana” as well as “a picture containing actual marijuana” and “a picture containing large amounts of U.S. currency.” The complaint and affidavit for search warrant stated that on “January 10, 2012 [sic ],” Officer Michael Cervantes used his drug-detection dog to conduct a sweep of defendant's apartment door, along with three additional apartment doors and a closet door, and that the dog alerted to drugs at defendant's apartment door. Detective Mecum stated in the complaint and affidavit for search warrant that on January 10, 2013, while walking through the apartment building, he observed a package addressed to defendant at “409 W. Elm # 10” with a return shipping label listing “a Ben Jones in Oakland California.” Detective Mecum also stated that the only apartment without a number on the door is on the third floor directly across from unit No. 9, and he subsequently confirmed that unit No. 10 is located on the third floor. The trial judge granted the search warrant application and the police searched defendant's apartment later that day, resulting in discovery of marijuana.
¶ 10 On January 11, 2013, the State charged defendant with unlawful possession with intent to deliver between 500 and 2,000 grams of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/5(e) (West 2012)), a Class 2 felony. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the dog sniff of the entrance to her apartment violated the fourth amendment under Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013). The trial court issued a written order granting defendant's motion to suppress. The trial court found that People v. Trull, 64 Ill.App.3d 385, 387, 20 Ill.Dec. 960, 380 N.E.2d 1169 (1978) () had not been overruled and was controlling authority.
¶ 11 The trial court also noted that both the authors of the majority and the dissenting opinions in Jardines recognized that the implied invitation or license for an individual to approach the door to a home would not extend to a stranger, with or without a dog, who approached the door without a specific invitation in the middle of the night. The trial court determined the dog sniff conducted by Officer Cervantes and his dog in the middle of the night “violated the no-night-visits rule referred to in the Jardines decision.”
¶ 12 The trial court's order further noted that the complaint and affidavit for search warrant erroneously stated that the canine sweep occurred a year earlier, on January 10, 2012, and was sworn to by Detective Mecum with the erroneous statement uncorrected. The court held that “[t]he sniff of Defendant's apartment door, located within a locked apartment building, at 3:20 a.m. on January 10, 2013, violated Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.” The court further determined that the remaining facts pleaded in the complaint and affidavit for search warrant were insufficient to establish probable cause for issuance of the search warrant requested, and that the good-faith exception to suppression was not applicable to the facts of this case.
¶ 13 The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the search warrant was issued on the basis of an unconstitutional warrantless dog sniff. The appellate court further concluded that the recovered marijuana was “fruit of the poisonous tree and the exclusionary rule applies.” 2015 IL App (4th) 140006, ¶ 65, 389 Ill.Dec. 218, 25 N.E.3d 1244. We allowed the State's petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S.Ct. R. 315 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015).
¶ 15 The State appeals from the judgment of the appellate court affirming the trial court's order granting defendant's motion to suppress. This court gives great deference to the trial court's findings of fact when ruling on a motion to suppress. People v. Cregan, 2014 IL 113600, ¶ 22, 381 Ill.Dec. 593, 10 N.E.3d 1196. We will reverse the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kono
...and that it requires either a reasonable, articulable suspicion or a warrant supported by probable cause. See People v. Burns , 401 Ill.Dec. 468, 50 N.E.3d 610, 613–14, 622 (2016) (under Jardines , canine sniff of apartment door in multiunit apartment building is search under fourth amendme......
-
United States v. Correa
...512–15 (2016) (determining that an apartment parking garage is not curtilage under the Dunn factors).4 Notably, in People v. Burns , 401 Ill.Dec. 468, 50 N.E.3d 610 (2016), the Illinois Supreme Court determined the third-floor landing of an apartment building was protected by the Fourth Ame......
-
State v. Edstrom
...Jardines , therefore, does not control the curtilage question presented in this case.Edstrom also cites to People v. Burns , 401 Ill.Dec. 468, 50 N.E.3d 610 (Ill. 2016). But that case involved a narcotics-dog sniff of a semiprivate landing shared with one other apartment inside a secured bu......
-
United States v. Holley
...The Illinois Supreme Court recently considered a search happening in the early morning hours. See generally People v. Burns , 401 Ill.Dec. 468, 50 N.E.3d 610, 630 (2016) (“We hold that the warrantless use of a drug-detection dog at 3:20 a.m. at defendant's apartment door, located within a l......