People v. Marinez
| Decision Date | 15 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-87-0005,3-87-0005 |
| Citation | 513 N.E.2d 607,160 Ill.App.3d 349,112 Ill.Dec. 193 |
| Parties | , 112 Ill.Dec. 193 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jimmy MARINEZ and Maria Marinez, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Gary F. Gnidovec, States' Attys. Appellate Prosecutor, Ottawa, Edward F. Masters, State's Atty., Joliet, for the people.
Joseph C. Polito, Kozlowski, Polito & Feeley, Joliet, for defendants-appellees.
Defendants, Jimmy and Maria Marinez, were charged with possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. Prior to trial, the defendants filed a motion to quash the search warrant and to suppress the evidence based upon the constitutionally impermissible procedure employed by the police in executing the warrant. The defendants claim that the officers failed to knock on the door and announce their authority and the reasons for their presence prior to the execution of the warrant. The trial court granted the motion and the State filed a timely notice of appeal.
Prior to the search of the Marinez residence, agents of the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (MANS) obtained a search warrant. The warrant did not list the Marinez family as the people who were the subject of the search. The name on the warrant as the occupant of the premises was Eddie Rodriguez. The agents believed Rodriguez was the occupant of 207 E. Clinton as a result of surveillance conducted during the investigation. A controlled buy of cocaine was conducted and the police tailed the purchaser to 207 E. Clinton. Numerous vehicles were present at the address. A check of the license plates revealed the owner of one of the vehicles to be Rodriguez, a good friend of the defendants. Rodriguez's license check showed a Sterling Avenue address, but the MANS agents knew Rodriguez no longer lived at this address. It was on this basis that police believed Rodriguez to be the occupant of 207 E. Clinton.
The MANS agents knew Rodriguez to possess firearms. In a search conducted in 1985 of Rodriguez's old address, numerous loaded handguns were seized, along with a quantity of cocaine and cannabis. Police also had information that an "Uzi"-type machine pistol and a nine millimeter handgun were located at the residence. On the basis of the controlled buy and this other information, MANS agents obtained the warrant.
On September 16, 1986, prior to the time MANS agents executed the warrant, the Marinez's were at home with Jimmy's parents and their two children. One other person had visited the home that night. When the visitor left, Jimmy's mother testified that she had closed the back door but not locked it. Her testimony was that she closed the door until it "clicked" shut.
When the police arrived to execute the warrant, they went around to the back door of the residence. The agents' testimony indicated that as they ascended the stairs to the back door they yelled "police officers, search warrant" numerous times. The first agent to reach the door stated that he had his flashlight in one hand and a service revolver in the other. The glass in the back door was either translucent or opaque in nature so that anyone on the outside could not see into the residence. As one of the agents knocked on the door with the flashlight, the door began to open; a little further with each knock. The blows were of sufficient force to leave three one-inch indentations in the door but no damage was done to the lock mechanism. When the agent discerned that no one was opening the door and that it was the knocks with the flashlight that caused the opening, the agents entered the house and conducted their search while the residents were instructed to lay on the floor. The search netted a nine millimeter handgun, found in a kitchen cabinet, and a certain quantity of a controlled substance.
The residents of the house said that they heard nothing prior to the back door slamming open and the agents entering. The agents were all wearing blue jackets with the words "MANS Police" in four-inch-high white letters. While Jimmy's mother clearly remembered closing the door until it "clicked" shut, she stated she did not hear the agents yelling "police officers, search warrant" nor did she recall seeing the white lettering on the blue jackets.
At this juncture, we note that the sufficiency of the probable cause to obtain and the issuance of the warrant itself were not contested. Rather, this case centers on the execution of that warrant. Specifically and initially, we address the "knock and announce" rule when placed in the equation of what constitutes a reasonable search. Second, and on the basis of the trial courts' holding that the agents did "knock and announce", we must determine whether, under the facts of this case, an announcement by the agents of their identity and purpose coupled with a simultaneous or contemporaneous entry circumvents the purpose of the "knock and announce" rule.
The purpose of the "knock and announce" rule is to notify the person inside of the presence of police and of the impending intrusion, give that person time to respond, avoid violence, and protect privacy as much as possible. (People v. Ouellette (1979), 78 Ill.2d 511, 518, 36 Ill.Dec. 666, 669, 401 N.E.2d 507, 510.) Illinois has no statutory requirement that an officer must announce his authority and purpose. The Illinois Supreme Court has stated that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tierney, Docket No. 252185.
...encouraged by the requirement that officers knock on the suspect's door and announce their presence. [People v. Marinez, 160 Ill.App.3d 349, 353, 112 Ill.Dec. 193, 513 N.E.2d 607 (1987).] Their entry of the porch to knock on the interior door was no more intrusive that that of a man deliver......
-
Price v. State, 14-01-01028-CR.
...unannounced entry. Reynolds v. State, 46 Ala.App. 77, 238 So.2d 557, 559-60 (Ala.Crim.App.1970); People v. Marinez, 160 Ill.App.3d 349, 112 Ill.Dec. 193, 513 N.E.2d 607, 609 (Ill.App. Ct.1987). We understand that it may at times be difficult for police to justify an entry based on this exce......
-
People v. Trask
...forcible entry is made. ( Boykin, 65 Ill.App.3d at 741, 22 Ill.Dec. 614, 382 N.E.2d 1369; see also People v. Marinez (1987), 160 Ill.App.3d 349, 353, 112 Ill.Dec. 193, 513 N.E.2d 607.) There is, however, no rigid rule establishing what is a reasonable time for officers to wait after announc......
-
State v. Curtis
...his privacy voluntarily." 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 4.8(c) at 278 (2nd ed. 1987). See People v. Marinez, 160 Ill.App.3d 349, 352, 112 Ill.Dec. 193, 196, 513 N.E.2d 607, 610 (1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 868, 109 S.Ct. 175, 102 L.Ed.2d 144 (1988); State v. Carufel, 112 R.I. 664, 314 A......