People v. Lewis

Decision Date28 February 2006
Docket NumberNo. 2-05-0111.,2-05-0111.
Citation363 Ill. App.3d 516,300 Ill.Dec. 618,845 N.E.2d 39
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas J. LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Christine T. Cody, Cody, Mitacek & Rohde, Addison, for Thomas J. Lewis.

Joseph E. Birkett, DuPage County State's Attorney, Wheaton, Martin P. Moltz, Deputy Director, Elgin, Stephen E. Norris, Deputy Director, Kendra S. Peterson, Rebecca E. McCormick, Mt. Vernon, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, for the People.

Justice O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Thomas J. Lewis, was charged with unlawful possession of gamma hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) with the intent to deliver (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(11) (West 2000)) and unlawful possession of heroin (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 2000)). He moved to suppress evidence that the police seized in a warrantless search of the room that he rented from his parents, John and Constance Lewis. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the search was lawful under the emergency exception to the fourth amendment's warrant requirement. See People v. Bondi, 130 Ill.App.3d 536, 539, 85 Ill.Dec. 773, 474 N.E.2d 733 (1984). After a stipulated bench trial, defendant was found guilty of both counts, sentenced to seven years' imprisonment on the GHB charge, and not sentenced on the heroin charge. Defendant appeals, arguing that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We affirm.

At the hearing on his motion, defendant first called Amanda Scheller, a fire fighter /paramedic for the City of Naperville. She testified as follows. At about 7:41 a.m. on September 6, 2001, she and other paramedics went to 1559 Apache Drive in response to a report of "unconscious DOA, possible DOA" and "possible DOA overdose." On arriving, they found that defendant was unconscious but that his skin color was normal, not cyanotic (bluish), and that he was breathing independently. Scheller did not recall whether there was a police officer on the scene when she and the others arrived. Scheller testified that, aside from what dispatch told her, the police gave her no information about what defendant might have taken. Scheller testified that, although she and the other paramedics did not yet know what defendant had taken, they gave him Narcan, which is routinely administered to people suspected of having overdosed on narcotics. Giving Narcan is a "stopgap" measure, and defendant received the medication "just in case" he had used narcotics. Defendant became "more conscious" and answered some questions. At 8:05 a.m., the paramedics took him to the hospital. On the way there, he told them that he had taken heroin, and they forwarded this information to the hospital.

Constance Lewis testified as follows. At about 7:10 a.m. on September 6, 2001, she entered defendant's room, in the basement of the house. She called out that it was time to wake up. Defendant did not respond. About 10 minutes later, Constance called again and received no answer. She then shook defendant by the shoulder. He said nothing and did not wake up, although his snoring pattern changed slightly. Defendant's color looked normal and his lips were not cyanotic.

After talking things over with John Lewis, Constance went to the study near the front door of the house and called 911 while John went to defendant's room to try to wake him. The court admitted a tape of Constance's 911 call. Constance told the operator that defendant was not moving, would not wake up, and was unresponsive. She added that, after speaking with a nurse, she believed that he might have taken drugs. His breathing was irregular and his pupils were constricted. The operator asked Constance if she knew what defendant had taken. Constance said no. The operator said that an ambulance had been called, and she asked whether defendant might have taken prescription medicine. Constance responded that it was more likely "something like Ecstasy" but could have been something "entirely different." She said that, two years earlier, defendant had been treated for an Ecstasy overdose. The operator said that there might be a police officer who could respond before paramedics arrived. Constance replied that an officer (whom she later learned was Vincent Clark of the Naperville police department) was there. The operator told Constance to talk to Clark and ended the call. Constance directed Clark down the stairs to defendant's room.

About two minutes after Clark showed up, four or five paramedics arrived. Constance followed them to defendant's bedroom. The room was about 10 feet by 10 feet. In the middle was a futon, behind which was a 10-foot-long closet that lined the wall. A computer desk, with a wastebasket next to it, was about five feet from the futon. Constance went back upstairs; defendant, John, Clark, and the paramedics stayed. About 15 minutes later, defendant and the paramedics walked upstairs and left for the hospital.

Constance returned downstairs to turn off the lights. Clark and another police officer, Meier, were in defendant's room. Constance asked them to leave because she and John were going to the hospital. The officers refused, explaining that their only purpose was to find out what defendant had taken and that doing so might save his life. Constance then made several phone calls and learned that defendant had ingested heroin. She immediately told the officers this information and again asked them to leave the house. Again, they refused. Constance called the hospital; the doctors already knew that defendant had taken heroin. Next, Constance called a friend whose husband was a law professor and asked her to find out how to make the officers leave.

Constance returned downstairs and heard Clark tell Meier that they should get an "SW." Meier agreed. A few minutes later, Constance asked Meier what an "SW" was. Meier replied that he had no idea what she meant. About half an hour later, the officers told her that they would be obtaining a search warrant. By then, Clark had told Constance that he had found some folded-up foil packets in defendant's wastebasket and that the packets indicated drug use. At about 9 a.m., Constance and John went to the hospital. After they returned at 11:30 a.m., Officer Cali arrived and told Constance that the police had a search warrant. Constance asked to see it, but Cali pushed her into the bannister. Twenty minutes later, Detective Kammerer arrived and displayed the warrant.

John Lewis testified as follows. At about 7:20 a.m. on September 6, 2001, he joined Constance in defendant's room. Defendant was unconscious but snoring. John shook defendant and spoke to him, but he did not respond. Defendant was not pale or cyanotic. Constance left the room. John sat on the futon, next to defendant, with his back to the door. Soon, Clark entered the room. He said nothing but moved behind John. John could not see what Clark was doing, but Clark did not touch defendant. Shortly after Clark arrived, John heard that the paramedics were there, and he moved so that they could treat defendant. While John was in the room, he never saw Clark remove anything from the wastebasket. Clark never showed him any evidence and never told anyone that he found something in the wastebasket. John did not see Clark go into the closet. At some point, defendant regained consciousness, and he and the paramedics walked up the stairs and left the house.

John and Constance wanted to go to the hospital, so they told Clark and Meier to leave. The officers refused, explaining that they were trying to help defendant. At 11:35 a.m., after John and Constance had returned from the hospital, Officer Cali arrived. From downstairs, John heard a commotion as Cali shoved Constance. Several officers carrying bags entered and exited the house.

Defendant testified that he recollected very little of what happened on September 6, 2001. However, he stated that, before the police arrived, a lockbox was locked and sat on a refrigerator in his closet. Only defendant had keys to the lockbox; his parents probably did not know that it existed. Defendant also kept a metal box on his desk. This box had a clasp, not a lock, but it was closed when the police arrived. Defendant never gave anyone permission to open either box. On the morning of September 6, 2001, several pieces of crumpled tinfoil were in defendant's wastebasket. He had put them there the previous night after ingesting heroin and covered them with tissues and crumpled papers so that his family would not see the evidence of his drug use. Defendant did not use Ecstasy on September 5 or 6, 2001.

The State first called Officer Clark, who testified as follows. As of September 6, 2001, he had nine years' experience as a "first responder" and had investigated at least a dozen reports of drug overdoses. Clark was certified in administering basic first aid and had training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. He was also trained in checking "ABCs," meaning "airway, breathing, and circulation." Sometime after 7:30 a.m. on September 6, 2001, while on patrol a block west of Apache Drive, Clark heard a report of a "possible DOA" involving a 21-year-old male who may have overdosed on Ecstasy. At 7:42 a.m., Clark arrived at defendant's home, where Constance Lewis directed him to defendant's room. There, John Lewis was sitting next to defendant, who was lying facedown on the futon. Defendant was extremely pale and his lips were purplish. Clark checked defendant's pulse and his breathing. Defendant was snoring and breathing normally, meaning that his airway was clear. Clark then shook defendant, but he did not respond. Clark talked to John for less than five seconds and obtained his permission to search the room in order to determine what defendant had taken. The paramedics had not yet arrived.

Clark looked into the wastebasket right next to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • People v. Moorman, 2-04-1212.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 29 Noviembre 2006
    ...findings of the trial court so long as they are not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Lewis, 363 Ill. App.3d 516, 523, 300 Ill.Dec. 618, 845 N.E.2d 39 (2006). The ultimate issue of whether police conduct comported with the strictures of the fourth amendment (U.S. Co......
  • People v. Kulpin
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 8 Febrero 2021
    ...findings of fact so long as those findings are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Lewis , 363 Ill. App. 3d 516, 523, 300 Ill.Dec. 618, 845 N.E.2d 39 (2006). However, we review de novo the trial court's ultimate ruling on the legality of the search or seizure. Lewis ,......
  • People v. Hagestedt
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 8 Noviembre 2023
    ...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); People v. Humphrey, 361 Ill.App.3d 947 (2005). The trial court remarked that it ......
  • Ex parte Byrd
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 10 Noviembre 2022
    ...is a subcategory of the exigent circumstances exception."). In the present case, the Court of Criminal Appeals cited People v. Lewis, 363 Ill.App.3d 516, 526, 845 N.E.2d 39, 49, 300 Ill.Dec. 618, 628 (2006), for the proposition that a search conducted while providing emergency assistance is......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT