People v. Cattaneo
| Decision Date | 20 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 33368,33368 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Lester CATTANEO, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Josef T. Skinner and George S. Skinner, Princeton, for plaintiff in error.
Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., and Calhoun W. J. Phelps, State's Atty., Princeton (Fred G. Leach, Decatur, and George W. Schwaner, Jr., Springfield, of counsel), for the People.
By an information filed in the county court of Bureau County, Lester Cattaneo was charged with keeping a dice table, dice and chips for the purpose of playing at a game for money or other valuable things, in violation of section 3 of an act to prohibit the use of clock, tape, slot or other machines or devices for gambling purposes. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chapter 38, par. 343.) Defendant moved to suppress as evidence the articles in question which had been seized without a warrant. The motion was denied; and after a trial before the court without a jury defendant was found guilty and was sentenced to pay a fine of $500. On petition of the State's Attorney the court also entered an order for destruction of the articles. The judgment and order were affirmed by the Appellate Court, People v. Cattaneo, 2 Ill.App.2d 429, 120 N.E.2d 72, and defendant has sued a writ of error out of this court to review the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The evidence discloses that defendant operated a tavern located in Bureau County. On August 25, 1953, at 11:30 P.M. the sheriff of the county and two of his deputies looked through a window of the tavern and saw what is commonly called a crap table, together with a number of chips, dice and a croupier stick. The tavern was open for business at the time, but the only persons present were the defendant, his wife and a man named Klein, who was wearing a green apron and holding a stick. There was no evidence of any gambling taking place. The three officers thereupon entered the tavern and took possession of the table and the other articles mentioned. A metal box with a slot in the top was fastened underneath the table so that money could be placed from the table directly into it. The box contained $151. In addition to ordering a destruction of the property the court ordered this money confiscated and paid over to the State's Attorney.
Defendant contends that the seized articles do not constitute gambling devices per se, as defined in section 2 of the act, and that the county court therefore erred in refusing to suppress them as evidence, in ordering their destruction, and in finding that their possession constituted a violation of section 3. It is further urged that the order for destruction was improper because the articles were taken without a search warrant.
Section 3 of the act prescribes a penalty for every person 'in possession of any premises upon which any gambling device may be located and every person in the use, operation, lease or other possession of the same'. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chapter 38, par. 343.) Section 2 of the act, which contains the definition of 'gambling device,' provides, in so far as material, as follows: 'Every clock, tape machine, slot machine or other machine or device for the reception of money on chance or upon the action of which money is staked, hazarded, bet, won or lost is hereby declared a gambling device and shall be subject to seizure, confiscation and destruction by any municipal or other local authority within whose jurisdiction the same may be found.' (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chapter 38, par. 342.) It is clear that if the dice table and other paraphernalia taken constitute such a gambling device as is described in the statute, their seizure, forfeiture and destruction do not violate any constitutional provision. People v. One Device, 410 Ill. 318, 102 N.E.2d 122. The seizure occurred at a time when the tavern was open and accessible to the public, and the articles were in plain view of the officers. There was no search involved. A search implies a prying into hidden places for that which is concealed, and it is not a search to observe that which is open to view. People v. Marvin, 358 Ill. 426, 193 N.E. 302. The controlling issue in this case, therefore, is whether the seized articles constitute a gambling device within the meaning of section 2.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monroe v. Pape
...McDonald v. United States, 83 App.D.C. 96, 166 F.2d 957, 958 ("`search' connotes uncovering that which is hidden"); People v. Cattaneo, 6 Ill.2d 122, 125, 126 N.E.2d 692 ("a `search' implies a prying into hidden places"); People v. Exum, 382 Ill. 204, 210, 47 N.E.2d 56, 59 (same); People v.......
-
Dykema v. Bloss
...material named in the complaint and certainly could not justify the seizure of other material not named. The case of People v. Cattaneo (1955), 6 Ill.2d 122, 126 N.E.2d 692 is dealt with by both counsel concerning the admission of exhibit 19. That case involved a seizure of gambling equipme......
-
People v. One Mechanical Device
... ... People, 173 Ill. 19, 50 N.E. 322; People v. One Device, 410 Ill. 318, 102 N.E.2d 122, and crap tables. Frost v. People, 193 Ill. 635, 61 N.E. 1054; People v. Cattaneo, 6 Ill.2d 122, 126 N.E.2d 692. A pinball game, such as the defendant game in this case, would unquestionably fall within the prohibition of the statute if it returned money to the player. However, whereas a slot machine or a crap table entails no skill whatever, affords no amusement beyond that ... ...
-
People ex rel. O'Malley v. 6323 North LaCrosse Ave.
...of Chicago v. Thomson (1946), 393 Ill. 568, 66 N.E.2d 436; Weis v. Allman (1945), 325 Ill.App. 554, 60 N.E.2d 436; People v. Cattaneo (1955), 6 Ill.2d 122, 126 N.E.2d 692. The State also points to other jurisdictions wherein courts have found that claimants need not be afforded a jury trial......