People v. Hagestedt
| Docket Number | 2-21-0715 |
| Decision Date | 08 November 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 IL App (2d) 210715 U |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CASEY R. HAGESTEDT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of DuPage County. No.17-CF-2205 Honorable Ann Celine O'Hallaren Walsh Judge, Presiding.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence where police officers' entry into defendant's home was justified and police did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which evidence could be plainly viewed with the aid of a flashlight.
¶ 2 In September 2021, defendant, Casey R. Hagestedt, entered into a partially negotiated plea agreement resolving three unrelated felonies and a stipulated bench trial in the instant (unlawful possession of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 2016)) case, in order to preserve his right to appeal the trial court's order denying his motion to suppress evidence. On December 6, 2021, defendant was sentenced to a concurrent term of probation, 180 days in the county jail with credit for 126 days served and relevant fines, costs, and fees. Defendant now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and resulting conviction. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 4 On the morning of October 19, 2017, Roselle police officers Robert Liebich and Kyle Stanish responded to a call to assist the Roselle Fire Department personnel who were about to force entry into defendant's residence to address a natural gas leak. Upon arrival, the fireman had already gained entry to defendant's townhome. The source of the gas leak was the stove in defendant's kitchen. The odor of gas was still pretty strong and the fire department had begun ventilating the home with fans. Officer Stanish was told that a male later determined to be defendant, was laying in the bedroom and was refusing to come out so his health could be assessed.
¶ 5 Officer Stanish went into the bedroom in an effort to talk defendant into going outside to be assessed by paramedics. Officer Liebich went into the kitchen to check on the stove. As he was leaving the kitchen, Liebich noticed a kitchen cabinet, across from the stove and above the countertop, that was chained and padlocked. Using his flashlight and without touching the cabinet, Liebich was able to see inside the cabinet and saw individual packages of a green leafy substance that looked to be cannabis as well as some syringes. Liebich notified Officer Stanish that there was cannabis in one of the kitchen cabinets. Stanish went into the kitchen and pulled on the chain that was wrapped around the cabinet door handles and saw the cannabis and syringes. Stanish then went back to the bedroom to speak to defendant. Defendant denied knowledge of what was in the kitchen cabinet and agreed to go outside.
¶ 6 Officer Stanish contacted a supervisor who spoke to someone at the State's Attorneys Office, who advised the police to get a search warrant for defendant's residence. A search warrant for defendant's residence was obtained and executed. Forensic testing showed that the items seized from the cabinet contained cannabis and less than 15 grams of a mixture of heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine. Defendant was charged by complaint with one count of unlawful possession of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 2016)), one count of unlawful possession of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4(c) (West 2016)), and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia (720 ILCS 600/3.5) (West 2016)). Defendant was later indicted on the controlled substance charge.
¶ 8 Defendant's "Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence" acknowledged that one of the established "exceptions to the warrant requirement is the community caretaking or public safety exception, first recognized and discussed at length in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973) and discussed in the Second District Appellate Court of Illinois in People v. Lewis, 363 Ill.App.3d 516 (2006)." Defendant's motion alleged that the sole purpose of the officers' entry into the residence was "to attempt to convince the Defendant to come out." Defendant's motion argued that:
Defendant cited People v. Henderson, 2013 IL 111404, ¶ 33 (neither the search warrant nor the complaint for search warrant were attached as an exhibit to defendant's motion) to argue that, because "the search was obtained as a result of the items observed during this unlawful search," all items seized during the execution of the search must be suppressed.
¶ 10 Prior to commencing the hearing, the State submitted a list of potential witnesses and the case law that the parties would be relying on. The State listed People v Leudemann, 222 Ill.2d 530 (2006) and Brigham City v. Stewart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006). Defendant listed People v. Lewis, 363 Ill.App.3d 516 (2006); People v. McDonough, 239 Ill.2d 260 (2010); and People v. Humphrey, 361 Ill.App.3d 947 (2005). The trial court remarked that it had reviewed the pleadings and the case law. Both parties waived opening statement.
¶ 11 Defendant called Roselle police officer David Liebich. On October 19, 2017, Liebich was dispatched to 561 Forum Drive in Roselle in order to assist the fire department regarding a "gas leak." The dispatch said nothing about "any sort of criminal activity." Upon his arrival, the fire department was already on scene and the smell of gas was still pretty strong.[1] The residence was a townhome connected to other residences. The fire department had begun airing out the residence. Liebich was told that "they had already determined the source of the gas," but he "wasn't sure about them having it shut off yet, but, yes, they had started ventilating." When he entered the residence, he went to the right through the living area and into the kitchen. While in the kitchen, Liebich noticed "a cabinet that had a chain padlock on it." The cabinet was opposite from the stove in the kitchen. Liebich identified defendant's exhibits 1 (a photo of the kitchen) and 2 (a photo of the cabinet with the chain and lock). The padlock was locked. Liebich was equipped with a flashlight, which he used "to look inside the cabinet." Liebich "did not touch the cabinet," but he did use his flashlight to look inside of it. When he looked inside the cabinet, Liebich saw "a green leafy substance that was packaged individually and looked to be cannabis" and "some syringes." Liebich relayed what he had observed to Officer Stanish.
¶ 12 On cross-examination, Liebich identified State's exhibits 1 through 4. State's exhibit 1 is an aerial photo of defendant's townhome and other buildings State's exhibit 2 is the open front door to defendant's residence; State's exhibit 3 is a photograph of the interior of the defendant's residence as you enter; and State's exhibit 4 is a photograph of the living room when one looks right after entering through the front door. In order to get to the kitchen, one has to pass through the living room. Liebich testified that there were four firemen on scene when he arrived. He was not told about "the male individual inside the residence refusing to come out." Liebich had contact with the firemen who told him the gas leak was from the stove. One of the neighbors from an adjoining home had called and reported the gas leak. Liebich went into the residence "with the intention of checking on the stove." Liebich looked at the stove and asked the firemen if it was damaged. Liebich checked the stove, looking for "any damage or any intentional way of causing gas to leak."[2]...
To continue reading
Request your trial