People v. Lance
| Docket Number | 1-18-1665 |
| Decision Date | 21 April 2021 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (1st) 181665,204 N.E.3d 793,461 Ill.Dec. 457 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronnie LANCE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James E. Chadd, Patricia Mysza, and Kelly Anne Burden, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Matthew Connors, and Iris G. Ferosie, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 Following a bench trial, the trial court found defendant Ronnie Lance guilty of four counts of possession of a controlled substance ( 720 ILCS 570/402(a)(1)(A), (c) (West 2016)) and five counts of unlawful use of weapon by a felon (UUWF) ( 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2016)) and sentenced him to concurrent 54-month and 3-year prison terms. Defendant appeals, contending the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence where the search warrant was invalid on its face and, because all of the evidence on which the State relied at trial was obtained pursuant to that search warrant, his conviction should be reversed. We affirm.
¶ 2 On June 8, 2016, Chicago police executed a search warrant at the first-floor apartment at 1415 North Laramie Avenue and recovered various items of contraband, as well as proof of residency indicating that defendant lived in the apartment. Thereafter, the State charged defendant by indictment with four counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, five counts of UUWF, and two counts of possession of a firearm without a valid firearm owner's identification (FOID) card ( 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1) (West 2016)).
¶ 3 Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to "quash arrest and suppress evidence," in which he sought to suppress "any and all physical evidence" recovered from his "person, vehicle, vicinity, or any other source," as well as the "statement[s], utterances, and/or responses" made by him that were the result of the arrest. Defendant stated that he was arrested and items were recovered pursuant to a search warrant that "lacked the sufficient particularity that the law requires." Specifically, defendant pointed out that the search warrant described the subject as " ‘Woo,’ an unknown male Black, 40-45 years of age, 5’05"-5’09", 175lbs-200lbs[ ], dark complexion, [m]edium build, black hair worn short, brown eyes," and argued that the description "could describe thousands of African-American males within the city of Chicago." Defendant asserted that the search warrant allowed the officers great discretion in determining whom to search and provided no safeguard against the officers searching the wrong person by mistake. Therefore, defendant maintained, the warrant violated the fourth amendment, which requires a warrant to describe the person to be searched with sufficient particularity so as to leave the executing officer no doubt or discretion about whom to search. Further, he argued he did not fit the description contained in the warrant, other than that he was a black male and that the officers merely "arrest[ed] the first black male they found in the residence, and charged him with [possession of] the contraband recovered."
¶ 4 At the hearing on defendant's motion, the trial court framed the motion as a motion to quash the warrant. Prior to hearing the parties’ arguments, the court reviewed the warrant, which authorized Chicago police to search " ‘Woo,’ " as described above, and the premises described as "[t]he entire first floor apartment of a two story red brick building located at 1415 N. Laramie Ave., Chicago, Illinois Cook County."1 The warrant also authorized officers to seize "[h]eroin and any evidence showing proof of residency, any paraphernalia used in the weighing, cutting or mixing of illegal drugs[,] [a]ny money, [and] any records detailing illegal drug transactions."
¶ 5 Defendant argued the warrant was invalid on its face because it failed to describe the "target" with sufficient particularity and operated as a general warrant, in contravention of the fourth amendment. The State argued the warrant was sufficiently specific with respect to the location to be searched and noted the evidence was recovered from the location, not defendant's person. The trial court denied the motion, finding the warrant was not invalid on its face.
¶ 6 Defendant filed a motion to reconsider, in which he reiterated the arguments made in his motion to suppress. The trial court denied the motion, stating as follows:
¶ 7 The matter proceeded to a bench trial. Officer Matthew Diblich testified that, on June 8, 2016, he and a team of officers executed the search warrant at the first-floor apartment of 1415 North Laramie in Chicago. When he entered the apartment, he saw defendant seated in the front room next to "a child or younger person" and two or three additional men in the kitchen area, all of whom appeared to be within the same age range as defendant. Next to defendant on the couch was a box, which contained clear plastic bags of suspected cannabis and defendant's Cook County jail identification (ID) card on which were his name and photograph. Officer Diblich recovered the box next to defendant, at which time defendant stated, without being asked any questions,
¶ 8 Defendant was placed in custody and moved toward the center of the apartment, away from the living room. Officer Diblich read defendant his Miranda rights (see Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) ), and after acknowledging he understood his rights, defendant gestured toward the middle bedroom and stated,
¶ 9 The officers searched the bedroom. Officer Diblich found a box in the bedroom from which he recovered six tinfoil packets, encased in tape and containing suspected heroin. He also recovered a 9-millimeter handgun that was loaded with eight live rounds from the pocket of a sweater that was hanging off the closet door. In addition, Officer Diblich recovered a plastic bag in the closet, which contained numerous letters, including gas and cable bills, addressed to "Ronnie Lance" at 1415 North Laramie, a loaded magazine for a handgun, and a box of .22-caliber bullets. Another officer, Officer Galligan, recovered a rifle, as well as bundles of suspected heroin packaged for "street level sale."
¶ 10 After the search was completed, Officer Diblich informed defendant he would be taken to the police station for processing. Defendant asked Officer Diblich to retrieve a pair of shoes from the room in which the heroin and guns were recovered.
¶ 11 Officer Michael Galligan testified that he was part of the team that executed the warrant. When the officers made entry, they knew the nickname of the "target" and his physical description, but they did not know the target's identity. Officer Galligan entered the apartment and saw defendant and several other adult men.
¶ 12 Defendant was detained and taken to a hallway near the front room. After defendant was advised of his Miranda rights, he stated, "all that s*** in there is mine," and he nodded toward the middle bedroom. He also told the officers the other men present had "nothing to do with it."
¶ 13 In the bedroom closet, Officer Galligan found a black plastic bag, inside of which were four clear, knotted plastic bags. Inside the clear plastic bags were 60 tinfoil packets containing suspected heroin. He also found a .22-caliber rifle and a box of .22-caliber rifle ammunition. No contraband was recovered from defendant's person.
¶ 14 Officer Paolino, who also participated in executing the warrant, testified that he recovered photographs of defendant from "the mantle area" of the living room.2 While inside the apartment, Officer Paolino did not hear defendant make any statements.
¶ 15 Officer John Thornton testified that he was the "entry officer" and, when he entered the apartment, he saw a digital scale in the front room in "the fireplace area." He alerted Officer Diblich to the presence of the scale, and Officer Diblich recovered it.
¶ 16 Jorge Gomez, an expert in forensic chemistry, testified that he examined and tested 49 of the tinfoil packets recovered by Officer Galligan, which contained a combined 15.5 grams of heroin and fentanyl. In addition, he examined and tested four of the tinfoil packets recovered by Officer Diblich, which contained a combined 1.2 grams of heroin and fentanyl. The State rested.
¶ 17 Defendant's father, Ronnie Lance Sr., who at the time of trial was in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections for possession of heroin, testified that he was present when the officers executed the warrant.3 According to Lance Sr., 10 or 15 officers were involved in executing the warrant. Lance Sr. did not hear defendant say anything to the officers before defendant was taken out of the apartment. Rather, one of the officers said, "[w]e found your drugs," to which defendant replied, "I don't have no drugs." The officers never asked Lance Sr. for his name.
¶ 18 Nashon Johnson testified that he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial