People v. Carnivale
| Decision Date | 02 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 47025,47025 |
| Citation | 61 Ill.2d 57,329 N.E.2d 193 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Charles CARNIVALE et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Chicago , for the People.
Sherman C. Magidson, Chicago, for appellees.
The three defendants, Charles Carnivale, Nicholas Pappas and Charles Pappas, were arrested without warrants in the city of Rosemont, Illinois, in Cook County. Chicago police officers in the possession of warrants to search Charles Carnivale and Nicholas Pappas and their automobiles arrested the three defendants in the lobby of the Sheraton Motor Hotel in Rosemont. Charles Pappas, a brother of Nicholas Pappas, who was in the lobby of the hotel at that time was also arrested although the police did not have a warrant for his arrest or a warrant to search him. The three defendants were charged with various gambling offenses. The circuit court of Cook County, following a hearing to quash the arrests and suppress the evidence, found no probable cause to arrest the defendant Charles Pappas, and also held that the police officers of the City of Chicago were not authorized to execute the search warrants beyond the territorial limits of the city of Chicago. The court sustained the motions to quash the arrest and to suppress the evidence seized. The Appellate court affirmed (21 Ill.App.3d 780, 315 N.E.2d 609). We granted the State leave to appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(2), Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 110A, § 604(a)(2). 55 Ill.2d xiii.
Considering first the complaint against the defendant Charles Pappas, we find that the ruling of the trial court was correct. He was arrested without an arrest warrant. He was not searched pursuant to the command of a search warrant, and the evidence presented at the hearing did not show that the police had probable cause to arrest him without a warrant. His mere presence in the same hotel lobby with the other two defendants whom the police suspected of gambling activities did not justify his arrest.
The State advances two theories in support of its contention that the trial court and the appellate court should be reversed. First, it argues that the principle of 'hot pursuit' justified the arrest of the defendants and that the existence of the search warrant provided the ingredient of probable cause to justify their pursuit. Second, the State contends that by virtue of sections 7--4--7 and 7--4--8 of the Municipal Code () the city of Rosemont was part of a police district within which police officers of the city of Chicago had authority to execute search warrants. It is thus the State's contention that the provisions of these sections of the statute render inapplicable the common law rule limiting the authority of police officers to the territorial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Creach
...The common law rule limited the authority of police officers to the territorial boundaries of the municipality. (People v. Carnivale (1975), 61 Ill.2d 57, 329 N.E.2d 193.) This rule was later modified by sections 7-4-7 and 7-4-8 of the Illinois Municipal "The territory which is embraced wit......
-
People v. Sims
...that a suspect's presence near a crime scene, by itself, is insufficient to establish probable cause (see, e.g., People v. Carnivale, 61 Ill.2d 57, 58, 329 N.E.2d 193 (1975)), defendant contends that the fact that he was placed close to the Bollingers' trailer both before and after the murd......
-
People v. Gill
...arrest statute. Yet, it is well-settled that a search warrant may be executed by officers anywhere in the state. People v. Carnivale , 61 Ill. 2d 57, 59, 329 N.E.2d 193 (1975) ; People v. Kilfoy , 122 Ill. App. 3d 276, 283, 80 Ill.Dec. 798, 466 N.E.2d 250 (1984). ¶ 120 The primary rule of s......
-
People v. Lee
...of that individual." People v. Creach, 79 Ill.2d 96, 102-03, 37 Ill.Dec. 338, 402 N.E.2d 228 (1980); see, e.g., People v. Carnivale, 61 Ill.2d 57, 58, 329 N.E.2d 193 (1975) (concluding that arrestee's "mere presence in the same hotel lobby with the other two defendants whom the police suspe......