People v. Hall
| Decision Date | 01 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-2139,79-2139 |
| Citation | 414 N.E.2d 201,46 Ill.Dec. 479,90 Ill.App.3d 1073 |
| Parties | , 46 Ill.Dec. 479 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Freeman HALL and Louis Walker, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Ralph Ruebner, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Barbara Kamm, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Chicago, for defendants-appellants.
Bernard Carey, State's Atty. of Cook County, Marcia B. Orr and Kathleen Warnick, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.
After a jury trial, Freeman Hall and Louis Walker were found guilty of burglary and sentenced to six years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. Defendants appeal.
On appeal, Hall and Walker argue that (1) the trial court erred in denying defendants' motion to quash the arrests and suppress the evidence, and (2) the court erred in admitting hearsay evidence.
We affirm.
At the hearing on defendants' motion to quash the arrests and suppress the evidence, Officer Terence Hart testified that he and his partner went to 1421 West Farwell after receiving a radio dispatch regarding two suspicious persons at that address. The officers entered the front foyer of the building and through the locked door to the hallway, saw defendants enter the hall from a door at the opposite end. Hart motioned to defendants to come to the foyer and stopped them because they fit the descriptions of the persons in the police radio call.
Upon questioning by Officer Hart, defendants gave their names and addresses. One of the defendants stated that they were in the building seeking employment. After noticing that the name on one of the apartment bells was Hall, Hart asked Hall if he was related to the tenant. Hall responded that the tenant was his sister and that they were visiting her. Walker repeatedly nudged Hall as he spoke and finally said, "Shut up, dummy."
Investigator Sullivan, who had met Hart and his partner in front of the building, arrived at the foyer with Gordon Berg, the maintenance man. Berg identified defendants as the persons he had seen in the basement. After searching Hall, Sullivan recovered a set of keys which Berg identified. Defendants were subsequently arrested.
At trial, Gordon Berg testified that the basement and front and rear entrances were locked at all times. Tenants did not have keys to the basement. A locked room in the basement contained keys to all of the apartments. On each key was a white tag indicating the building address and apartment number.
While working in the building on the day in question, Berg saw defendants attempting to enter apartment 209. He knew they were not tenants and questioned their presence in the building. Defendants replied that they were looking for a friend and had the wrong apartment. Their friend lived in apartment 203. However, Berg knew the 80 year old woman who lived in 203. Over defendants' objection, Berg testified that after defendants knocked on apartment 203's door, the tenant stated,
Berg then called the police and reported suspicious persons in the building. He described them as two black men, approximately 6' 1 tall. One was wearing a blue trench coat, the other a green one.
Berg next saw defendants in the basement. The door to the basement which was normally locked, was unlocked. Defendants told Berg that someone in the building had work for them. Berg further testified that he hired all persons who worked in the building and that he had not indicated by advertisements or signs that he was hiring.
When Investigator Sullivan arrived, he and Berg went to the basement where they found the keyroom door open. The door had been locked prior to this time. The only other person besides Berg to have a key to the room was not working in the building that day. When Sullivan later searched Hall, he recovered keys labeled 1421 West Farwell, Apt. 201.
Paul Haisch testified that in the course of installing a phone in the building, he went into the basement and saw the keyroom unlocked. On prior occasions, the door was always locked. He saw defendants leave apartment 201 and then spoke to them. Defendants reentered apartment 201 using a key with a white tag, but left immediately after entering.
Laura Metcalf testified that she resided at 1421 West Farwell apartment 201, on the day in question. She did not know defendants, did not give them permission to enter the apartment, and did not offer them employment. Oscar Zeff, the manager and part owner of the building, testified that he did not give defendants permission to enter the building. He also confirmed Berg's testimony regarding the building's security. Officer Hart's testimony was essentially the same as that given at the pre-trial hearing.
First, defendants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion to quash their arrests and suppress the evidence. In support of this contention they offer three alternative arguments: (1) they were searched pursuant to an illegal stop; (2) the search preceded their arrest and was therefore not incident to the arrest; and (3) assuming that the search was incident to the arrest, the arrest was not based on probable cause.
We first note that in deciding this issue, we are not limited to reviewing only the evidence produced at the hearing on defendants' motion. We may consider the entire record on review. People v. Braden (1966), 34 Ill.2d 516, 216 N.E.2d 808; People v. Dennison (1978), 61 Ill.App.3d 473, 18 Ill.Dec. 756, 378 N.E.2d 220. An initial stop for investigation of possible criminal activity is warranted if an officer, in light of his experience, reasonably believes that the person stopped is committing, is about to commit, or has committed an offense. See People v. Byrd (1977), 47 Ill.App.3d 804, 8 Ill.Dec. 205, 365 N.E.2d 443. The belief must be based on specific, articulable facts which would warrant the intrusion. Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889; People v. Montgomery (1977), 53 Ill.App.3d 298, 11 Ill.Dec. 201, 368 N.E.2d 752.
Here, defendants were stopped by Officer Hart because they exactly fit the descriptions of the persons referred to in the suspicious persons call on the police radio. They were also found at the exact location specified in the call. We find that these are sufficient articulable facts upon which an investigatory stop may be based.
Furthermore, it was reasonable for the officers to act on information acquired by police radio. People v. McElroy (1976), 44 Ill.App.3d 1047, 3 Ill.Dec. 495, 358 N.E.2d 1180.
We further find that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Martin
...patterned turtle neck sweater, his race, and age served as basis for officers' stop of defendant.); People v. Hall (1980), 90 Ill.App.3d 1073, 46 Ill.Dec. 479, 414 N.E.2d 201, cert. denied (1981), 454 U.S. 893, 102 S.Ct. 388, 70 L.Ed.2d 207 (defendants' height, race, and apparel, as well as......
-
People v. White
...evidence had been excluded. (People v. Griggs (1982), 104 Ill.App.3d 527, 60 Ill.Dec. 277, 432 N.E.2d 1176; People v. Hall (1980), 90 Ill.App.3d 1073, 46 Ill.Dec. 479, 414 N.E.2d 201.) We find no reasonable probability in this case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant even absen......
-
People v. Forcum
...error. People v. Griggs, 104 Ill.App.3d 527, 531, 60 Ill.Dec. 277, 432 N.E.2d 1176, 1179 (1982); People v. Hall, 90 Ill.App.3d 1073, 1077, 46 Ill.Dec. 479, 414 N.E.2d 201, 204 (1980). Therefore, even if defendant had succeeded with his argument that the statements were hearsay, which we do ......
-
People v. Miles, 87-0123
...no reasonable possibility that the jury's verdict would have been different had the hearsay been excluded (People v. Hall (1980), 90 Ill.App.3d 1073, 46 Ill.Dec. 479, 414 N.E.2d 201, cert. denied (1981), 454 U.S. 893, 102 S.Ct. 388, 70 L.Ed.2d 207; People v. Griggs (1982), 104 Ill.App.3d 52......