People v. Marro

• Decision Date: 24 February 1972
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 55496
• Citation: 4 Ill.App.3d 197,280 N.E.2d 560
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Frank MARRO, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 560

280 N.E.2d 560

4 Ill.App.3d 197

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.James Frank MARRO, Defendant-Appellee.

Gen. No. 55496.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

Feb. 24, 1972.

Robert A. Novelle and James S. Veldman, Asst. State's Attys., Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant.

McGLOON, Presiding Justice.

This is an appeal by the State pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604, Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 110A, par. 604, from an order entered in the Circuit Court of Cook County quashing a search warrant and suppressing the evidence seized thereunder.

We reverse and remand.

The warrant in question in this case was issued upon the affidavit of an investigator assigned to the State's Attorney's office of Cook County.As a basis for issuing the warrant, the affiant, in the complaint for the warrant, stated that on December 11, 1969, he interviewed a confidential informant who told the affiant that he had been placing bets over a certain phone number.The informant further said that '* * * he picks up his winnings and pays off his losing wagers at Rick's Restaurant, at Ruby and Grand, in Franklin Park, Illinois.'The informant knew the man who conducted these money transactions and took the bets only as 'Jimmy.'The affiant stated that on December 12, 1969, he again met with the informant, dialed the phone number given by the informant and listened to the conversation of the informant who allegedly placed a bet on a horse race with the abovementioned 'Jimmy.'The affiant stated he had known the informant for six months during which time the informant provided other information on gambling, '* * * all of which has proved to be reliable, and resulted in two gambling raids.These raids resulted in arrests and convictions in one case, with one case still pending, and seizure of gambling paraphernalia in all raids.'

Through the telephone company, the affiant found out the address at which the telephone specified by the informer was located.The affiant stated that a check of other utility records, i.e., electric, gas, etc., revealed the user on each such record to be one Raymond M. Marro.

As a result of the affiant's complaint a search warrant was issued for the premises in question, located at 2934 Scott, in Franklin Park, Illinois.Pursuant to the warrant the named premises was searched and various pieces of evidence seized as a result of which the defendant was arrested and subsequently indicted for the offense of gambling.

At the hearing on the motion to quash, evidence was introduced by the defendant to establish that there was no Rick's Restaurant located at 'Ruby and Grand' in Franklin Park, Illinois, but there was such a restaurant located at Pearl and Grand, some five blocks east of the former location.The evidence consisted of a letter from the Superintendent of Streets in Franklin Park, Illinois, stating that Rick's Restaurant was located at Pearl and Grand.Also there was an affidavit, submitted by the defendant, stating that he had resided in Franklin Park for 20 years and the only Rick's Restaurant he knew of was located at Pearl and Grand in Franklin Park.The trial judge granted the motion to quash on the grounds that the statement in the affidavit, as to the location of Rick's Restaurant, was false on its face and this falsity could be inquired into and considered by the trial judge in a hearing on the motion to quash.The trial judge further thought there should have been independent corroboration by the State's Attorney's investigator of the alleged activity of collecting winnings and paying losses at Rick's Restaurant.

On appeal the State argues that the ruling of the trial judge was error because in establishing that Rick's Restaurant was not located at Ruby and Grand, as stated in the affidavit, the court went beyond the four corners of the affidavit and warrant, and this going behind the affidavit to establish the truth or falsity of the statements therein is not permitted under Illinois law.Further, the State argues that the affidavit for the search warrant sufficiently established probable cause for the issuance of such warrant.

The defendant has not filed in this court a brief in support of his position or any other records relating to the proceedings at the hearing in the trial court.

At the outset of our opinion we must make note of the defendant's failure to file a brief in this court and the effect thereof on this appeal.As a general rule such failure has left the decision of whether to reverse pro forma or to consider the appeal on its merits to the sound discretion of the reviewing court.People v. Sanders(1966), 75 Ill.App.2d 422, 220 N.E.2d 487;People v. Keeney(1968), 96 Ill.App.2d 323, 238 N.E.2d 614.At times this court has opted for the alternative of a pro forma reversal.People v. Nardone(1963), 43 Ill.App.2d 409, 193 N.E.2d 617;People v. Kuzas(1968), 100 Ill.App.2d 332, 241 N.E.2d 115.However, we think that under the circumstances of this case, this court should consider the merits of the appeal.

In reviewing the proceedings at the hearing in the trial court, we think the trial judge erred in granting the defendant's motion to quash.The main basis for that holding was that the affidavit for search warrant contained a statement that was 'false on its face' in that the location of Rick's Restaurant was stated as 'Ruby and Grand.'

That the statement is not 'false on its face' in the sense that the error was obvious simply by looking at the affidavit, without any other inquiry, is made evident by the record.It was only after the introduction of documentary evidence that the misstatement as to the restaurant's location was established.We think this type of inquiry was expressly prohibited by the holdings of the Illinois Supreme Court in the companion cases of People v. Bak(1970), 45 Ill.2d 140, 258 N.E.2d 341andPeople v. Mitchell(1970), 45 Ill.2d 148, 258 N.E.2d 345.In those casesthe Court held that a defendant has no...