People v. Duffie

• Decision Date: 24 September 2021
• Docket Number: 1-17-1620
• Citation: 2021 IL App (1st) 171620,192 N.E.3d 12,455 Ill.Dec. 595
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darius DUFFIE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2021 IL App (1st) 171620

192 N.E.3d 12

455 Ill.Dec. 595

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Darius DUFFIE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-17-1620

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, SIXTH DIVISION.

Filed September 24, 2021

James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Richard Connor Morley, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Michael Vojta, and Veronica Calderon Malavia, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE ODEN JOHNSONdelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a bench trial, defendantDarius Duffie was convicted of two counts of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to concurrent prison terms of four years.On appeal, he contends that the police conducted an unreasonable search when they searched his pants as they executed a search warrant that did not name him.For the following reasons, we affirm in part and vacate in part.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 A. Pretrial Proceedings

¶ 4 On August 15, 2014, defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of possession of less than 15 grams of cocaine and less than 15 grams of benzylpiperazine.He was also charged with armed habitual criminal and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon (UUWF).

¶ 5 The circumstances surrounding defendant's arrest and subsequent convictions stem from events that occurred as Chicago police executed a search warrant that authorized them to search Travis Roby and "The Entire Second Floor Apartment"at 6838 South Laflin Avenue in Chicago (the Laflin apartment) for "MDMA (Ecstasy)," residency documents, drug paraphernalia, money, and records of illegal drug transactions.The August 15, 2014, warrant complaint by Officer Timothy Moran alleged that sales of Ecstasy by Roby occurred at the Laflin apartment to an unnamed informant and made no allegations against defendant.

¶ 6 Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence on July 2, 2015, contending that he was arrested and searched on August 15, 2014, while visiting the Laflin apartment, without exigent circumstances or defendant's consent to search his person and belongings.He noted that he was not named or described in the warrant.Accordingly, he sought to suppress "any items recovered from the illegal arrest and search of [his] clothing, and statements elicited from him as a direct result of this search."

¶ 7 At the hearing on defendant's motion on October 6, 2015, Chicago police officer Stephen Insley, 1 of 10 officers who executed the warrant, testified that he was told that Roby was the subject of the warrant and was given Roby's description.Upon entering the apartment, other officers detained the five occupants, and the apartment was photographed and searched.Insley observed defendant in the rear bedroom, lying in bed and wearing only shorts.No weapons or contraband were visible.Defendant was not committing any apparent crime, made no threats, and did not attempt to flee.Insley searched defendant's jeans without his permission; the search yielded an identification card and a clear plastic bag containing 24 smaller bags of white rock-like substance suspected to be cocaine.Defendant was then arrested.Insley was not present when defendant was questioned, nor did he search the apartment based on information from defendant.He was aware that other officers found pills suspected to be Ecstasy in the kitchen refrigerator and learned that defendant directed Moran to the refrigerator.No weapon was found in the bedroom where defendant was found.

¶ 8 On cross examination, Insley testified that defendant was in bed with another person when he was found.When he saw defendant, Insley had Roby's description but not his photograph.He searched the pants near defendant before giving them to him, as defendant was wearing only shorts.Insley had not asked defendant for his name at that point.Both defendant and Roby were 25 years old.The identification in the pants was defendant's and bore the address of the Laflin apartment.The bedroom where defendant was found also contained mail addressed to him at that address.Insley learned from Moran that defendant made inculpatory statements after being Mirandized and that Ecstasy pills were found in the refrigerator.Insley also stated that he searched the pants because Ecstasy pills could fit in the pants pocket.A gun was also found in a sofa in the front room of the apartment.Other than defendant, two women, one man, and a child occupied the apartment when the warrant was executed.

¶ 9 On redirect examination, Insley testified that he did not ask defendant for his name or identification upon finding him in bed with a woman, and he did not search the pants in the room for purposes of identification.Defendant was going to be taken to another room in the apartment during the search.On the day of the search, defendant's hair was braided, but the description of Roby reflected that he had short hair.

¶ 10 During argument, the court noted that there was a height difference of five inches between Roby and defendant.Following arguments, the court denied the motion to suppress, finding that defendant was not the subject of the search warrant or any other warrant but was in bed in the rear bedroom of the subject apartment when the warrant was executed.In securing defendant, Insley "gave the defendant his pants and searched the pants before and recovered a quantity of narcotics."Other drugs and a gun were found elsewhere in the apartment.The court found that the issue was whether the search of defendant's pants was proper under the circumstances.It held that finding defendant in bed wearing only shorts with pants nearby established a sufficient connection to the premises to justify searching the pants before giving them to defendant for officer protection or to prevent disposal or concealment of anything being searched for pursuant to the warrant.In other words, defendant being in bed with his girlfriend was more than his mere presence in the apartment.Indeed, the evidence showed that he resided there.The holding was "limited to the search of his jeans."The other contraband was recovered pursuant to the warrant and "while not particular to this defendant" could be used in his trial "for what that's worth."

¶ 11Defendant subsequently filed a motion to suppress statements on February 8, 2016, contending that he was placed in custody at the Laflin apartment and interrogated by police without being Mirandized, he did not knowingly waive his privilege against self-incrimination, and the fact that he made a statement was insufficient evidence of waiver.

¶ 12 At the hearing on that motion on May 9, 2016, defendant testified in relevant part that he was asleep in bed with his girlfriend in the back bedroom of the Laflin apartment when the warrant was executed.He heard the police and the kicking of the bedroom door open before three to four officers entered.Defendant was told to show his hands and he told the officers that he was naked under the sheet.Police located his gym shorts and boxers and searched them before handing them to him.Defendant was handcuffed while his girlfriend was also given shorts and taken to the bathroom and searched.He stated that he was never Mirandized and was subsequently led to the dining room area before he was taken to the kitchen.Defendant then stated that the police searched the refrigerator and recovered a bag from the freezer.He stated that he never said anything to the officers that directed them to the freezer.After the apartment search, defendant was taken to the police station and placed in an interview room.Defendant stated that he was still sleepy and was drifting in and out of sleep while he was there.He did not recall being told that he had the right to remain silent and stated that he was not advised that he had the right to an attorney.Nor did he recall making statements to the police.Defendant testified that he subsequently learned that his alleged statements were going to be used against him in the case.

¶ 13 On cross-examination, defendant clarified that he did not recall because he was drifting in and out of sleep at the station due to being hung over, and although he was jolted awake at the house, he did not recall being Mirandized.He mostly recalled his daughter crying.Defendant remembered that at the station, Moran was present and that he was taken to an interview room.He recalled being asked if he knew someone named Travis Roby, which he did not.

¶ 14 On recross examination, defendant stated that he had finished drinking just before entering the apartment at approximately 6:30 a.m. and fell asleep at approximately 8:30 a.m.However, his intoxication did not prevent him from being able to comprehend the officers’ directives.

¶ 15 Moran testified that he was part of a team executing the search warrant for the Laflin apartment, where contraband was found, and he identified defendant in court as the person that was arrested that day.Defendant was placed in custody in the bedroom and Moran indicated that he Mirandized defendant from the preprinted form in the back of his "FOP handbook," which he read in open court.He stated that defendant acknowledged the Miranda warnings(seeMiranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694(1966) ), but he could not recall if defendant made a statement or a nonverbal head nod.When asked if there was anything in the apartment that the police should know about, defendant told them he had a little Ecstasy and directed them to the refrigerator where drugs were recovered from the freezer.Defendant was subsequently taken to the police station where Moran interviewed him in the presence of other officers.Moran testified that he again Mirandized defendant, who stated that he understood.Defendant did not appear to be falling asleep while Moran spoke to him.

¶ 16 On...