People v. Dent
| Decision Date | 05 April 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 24652.,24652. |
| Citation | 19 N.E.2d 1020,371 Ill. 33 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. DENT. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Municipal Court of Evanston; Harry H. Porter, Judge.
Lois Dent was convicted of knowingly possessing a policy book, numbers and slips, and she brings error.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
SHAW, C. J., and STONE and WILSON, JJ., dissentingHenry C. Ferguson, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
John E. Cassidy, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, and A. B. Dennis, of Danville (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, Blair L. Varnes, and Melvin S. Rembe, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
The conviction of Lois Dent in the municipal court of Evanston on a charge of knowingly possessing a policy-book, numbers and slips, has been attacked in this court on constitutional grounds.
Two police officers suspected defendant of running a policy game and visited her home in July, 1937. In response to their ringing of the doorbell some one in the house said, ‘Come in.’ They entered and found defendant and a woman companion seated at a table in the dining-room. On this table, in open view, were the book, numbers and slips; these the officers seized as evidence and arrested defendant. When the officers stood at the doorway ringing the bell, defendant could not see them and they could not see her or the table. They admitted the articles on the table could not be identified as paraphernalia of a policy game until they were examined. The identity of the visitors as police officers was not disclosed to defendant until they were in her presence. They had no search warrant. She denied giving the invitation to enter, but admitted her companion did so. One officer said defendant told them to ‘Come in.’
Proper steps were taken by defendant to suppress the evidence because it had been obtained by an unlawful search and seizure in contravention of her rights under the Federal and State constitutions, Smith-Hurd Stats.Const. art. 2, § 6. The trial court would not suppress the evidence on the ground no search had been made by the officers.
We cannot presume from the record the officers entered upon the invitation of defendant. Even though the invitation to enter was made by one in the presence of defendant, the evidence does not establish the invitation was extended with the permission of defendant. The gist of the act of invitation by another to enter the premises without a search warrant is that the invitation must be extended under specific authorization. People v. Lind, 370 Ill. 131, 18 N.E.2d 189, and cases cited. If anyone may indiscriminately waive the rights of another, the waiver is not a personal one; hence the constitutional privilege would be of no value. Hays v. State, 38 Okl.Cr. 331, 261 P. 232. In Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647, we find a case applicable upon the facts and law to the one before us. Defendant, with others, was there suspected of conspiracy to defraud the United States through contracts with it for clothing and equipment. One Cohen, a private in the army and attached to the Intelligence Department, was a business acquaintance of defendant. Under the direction of his superior officers, Cohen, while pretending to make a friendly call on defendant, secretly searched his files and abstracted therefrom a certain instrument the government later sought to use as evidence against him in a criminal trial. The court there held such search and seizure illegal where admission was obtained by stealth and fraud.
Here, the officers did not disclose their identity when seeking admission to the home of defendant. Under those circumstances, their actions were fraudulent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. On Lee
...later make the fruit of that entry and search the basis of what otherwise might be a legal search and seizure." See also People v. Dent, 371 Ill. 33, 19 N.E.2d 1020, where the court suppressed evidence obtained by policemen who knocked at defendant's door and were told to "Come In." After e......
-
State v. McGovern
...the rights of another, the waiver is not a personal one; hence the constitutional privilege would be of no value." People v. Dent, 371 Ill. 33, 19 N.E.2d 1020 (1939). ...
-
People v. Brown
...because, as it turned out, that person was not a co-occupant but instead lived in a tent in the yard). Consider also People v. Dent, 371 Ill. 33, 19 N.E.2d 1020 (1939) (police knocked on door of apartment, voice within said 'come in,' police entered and saw tenant and guest with gambling pa......
-
Mayberry v. State
...there, and that he communicated these facts to the officers prior to his invitation for them to enter. The case of Illinois v. Dent, 371 Ill. 33, 19 N.E.2d 1020 (1939) is close to the facts in the present case. There, police knocked on defendant's door and entered the house when defendant's......