People v. Humphreys

• Decision Date: 21 October 1933
• Docket Number: No. 21935.,21935.
• Citation: 353 Ill. 340,187 N.E. 446
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HUMPHREYS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

353 Ill. 340

187 N.E. 446

PEOPLE

v.HUMPHREYS.

No. 21935.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 21, 1933.

Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; Harold P. O'Connell, Judge.

Murray Humphreys was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon upon his person in violation of the Deadly Weapons Act, and he brings error.

Reversed.

William W. Smith and Everett Jennings, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson, Charles S. Dougherty, and Grenville Beardsley, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

PER CURIAM.

Murray Humphreys was arrested without a warrant by Chicago police officers on November 1, 1932. At the time of his arrest he was standing in a corridor outside the door to an office on the fourteenth floor of No. 1 North La Salle street, in Chicago, and was committing no offense. He was in the company of Charles Fischetti, for whom a vagrancy warrant had been issued by Judge Lyle in 1930. After Humphreys was arrested he was searched and a loaded automatice pistol was found beneath his vest. He was later charged, tried, and convicted by a jury in the municipal court of Chicago of the offense of carrying a concealed weapon upon his person, in violation of the Deadly Weapons Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1933, c. 38, §§ 155, 156), and given the maximum combined penalties of one year imprisonment and $300 fine. The present writ of error is sued out to review the record, and as constitutional questions are involved this court has jurisdiction. People v. McGurn, 341 Ill. 632, 173 N. E. 754.

Before his trial began, Humphreys filed a petition and made a motion to suppress all evidence of his arrest and search and of the finding of the pistol upon him, on the ground that the arrest and search and the seizure of the pistol violated the law and were in violation of the rights guaranteed to him by sections 2, 6, and 10 of article 2 of the Constitution of Illinois. After hearing evidence and the argument of counsel, the trial court overruled the motion and denied the petition to suppress. This action constitutes the first ground relied upon for reversal, and in the view we take of the case is the only error assigned which need be considered in this opinion.

Article 2 of our Constitution is termed the Bill of Rights. Its twenty sections are fundamental charter reservations of liberty and rights to the people as against possible encroachments from the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of government. Every court is bound to enforce these, as well as all other, constitutional provisions, with no discretion in any particular case, and without regard to whether in some instances the public good might temporarily be better served by disregarding them. People v. Hotz, 327 Ill. 433, 158 N. E. 743. In the present case, Humphreys, in his motion and petition to suppress all evidence of his arrest and search, has invoked in his behalf the provisions of section 2, providing that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; section 6, assuring all persons of their right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures; and section10, providing that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself, etc. It is a consideration of the evidence pertaining to Humphreys' arrest and search with relation to these fundamental constitutional provisions that will control our decision in this case.

On the afternoon of Humphreys' arrest, police officers Drury and Howe went to room 1415 in a building located at No. 1 North La Salle street, Chicago. There is no evidence that they went there in search of any particular person. They had no warrants in their possession for the arrest or search of any one or of the premises invaded, although Drury testified that vagrancy warrants for the arrest of Klondike O'Donnell and Charles Fischetti were lodged in a vault at the detective bureau, where he had last seen them soon after they were issued, in November, 1930. Officer Howe testified that he had seen the Fischetti capias on November 1, 1932, the day of the arrest. The name of T. J. Sullivan appeared on the door of the office at 1415. There was an outer room and two smaller rooms. The officers arrested and searched every one in the front office, viz., Jack O'Brien, Tom Martin, Sam Alex, and Tony Moreno. Officer Howe went into one of the private offices and arrested O'Donnell, Sullivan, and Steady Looney, all the persons in that room. Officer Howe immediately brought the lastmentioned three men to the outer office. Drury then went into the other private office and placed William White, who was there alone, under arrest. On returning to the outer office, it being at least ten minutes after they first arrived there, Howe saw the forms of two men through the stained glass door, standing in the hall. He opened the door, took hold of them, and pulled them into the office and said, ‘You are going in with the rest of them.’ These two men were the defendant, Humphreys, and Fischetti. Humphreys was searched and a pistol found on him, as above stated.

Both Drury and Howe testified that they arrested Fischetti and O'Donnell because of the existence of vagrancy warrants issued for them in 1930 by Judge Lyle. They stated they had read in the newspapers that Patrick Berrell had been shot and killed at Shawano, Wis., on July 21, 1932, and that they arrested Humphreys for that murder. They both testified that shortly after they read of the death of Berrell they were shown an anonymous letter by chief of detectives Shoemaker which he said had been received by him, that the letter was written and postmarked in Chicago, and that they were ordered to arrest Humphreys by Chief Shoemaker in July, 1932. No envelope to show the date or place of mailing or the postmarks was produced at the trial. Officer Drury testified that he looked over the letter and that it said Humphreys had something to do with the murder. He further testified: ‘I never saw him between July and November 1. I made the arrest for that murder. I don't believe we talked to Shoemaker again after the date he showed us the letter in reference to Humphreys being wanted for the Berrell murder. Shoemaker did not say anything about lodging a warrant or complaint at that time. I don't know if it is a fact there was never any warrant issued. I did not try to get a warrant and never made any complaint to any of the judges during the time from July until November. I was never in Shawano. I...