People v. Martin

Decision Date11 March 1943
Docket NumberNo. 26908.,26908.
Citation46 N.E.2d 997,382 Ill. 192
PartiesPEOPLE v. MARTIN et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Criminal Court. Cook County; John F. Haas, Judge.

Ada Martin and Josephine Kuder were convicted of conspiracy to commit abortion, and they bring error.

Reversed and remanded.Darrow Smith & Carlin and Everett Jennings, all of Chicago (W. W. Smith, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, and Melvin S. Rembe, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

GUNN, Justice.

Plaintiffs in error, Ada Martin and Josephine Kuder, on a trial before the criminal court of Cook county without a jury, were convicted of the crime of conspiracy to commit abortion, and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary. One of the principal contentions made for the reversal of the cause is the obtaining of evidence, claimed to have been instrumental in the conviction of plaintiffs in error, by an unlawful search of their office, and seizure of certain books, records and papers, from which information was received disclosing the names of witnesses, who were subsequently used upon the trial. The point involves a construction of the constitution of the State of Illinois as well as the constitution of the United States, and is ground for a direct appeal to this court. People v. Spain, 307 Ill. 283, 138 N.E. 614;People v. McGurn, 341 Ill. 632, 173 N.E. 754;People v. Humphreys, 353 Ill. 340, 187 N.E. 446.

Upon the trial of the cause Ada Martin filed a petition in support of motion to suppress evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure of her premises. The defendant Josephine Kuder made a motion to join in and have the benefit of the ruling of the court upon the petition to suppress, but this was denied by the court and exception taken. The court sustained the motion to suppress the papers, records and documents unlawfully seized, but refused to sustain objections to the testimony of witnesses who were discovered by use of the papers obtained in such unlawful search and used by the prosecution.

The facts disclose the police obtained information February 1, 1941, an abortion had been committed upon a certain woman, and upon talking with her learned this crime had been committed at No. 190 North State street in the city of Chicago, one of the offices of plaintiffs in error; that this information was related to Samuel Papanek, an assistant State's Attorney, and February 7, 1941, two police officers, together with some officers from the State's Attorney's office, went to No. 190 North State street and entered therein and arrested both of the defendants, and while in the office, without any search warrant or legal process, searched the premises and removed therefrom certain books, papers, records and personal property and delivered same to the office of the State's Attorney; that later, February 13, 1941, in like manner the police officers of the city of Chicago, without consent or permission, entered a certain office at No. 127 North Dearborn street, in the city of Chicago, in the possession of Ada Martin, and without a search warrant or other legal right, destroyed the combination and lock on a vault in said office and carried away records, books and other personal property belonging to Ada Martin and delivered them to the office of the State's Attorney. And later, April 29, 1941, when the daughter of Ada Martin was killed by a police officer in her home, the said Papanek and police officers appeared at the home of defendant Ada Martin and detained her and her husband and held them in custody, and without warrant or authority ransacked and searched the premises of defendants and removed certain papers and effects, and among others several envelopes containing names, addresses and data pertaining to certain persons whose names are endorsed upon the indictment.

As justification for such searches, information received by the police and State's Attorney with reference to the woman claimed to have been aborted February 1, 1941, is set forth, and that thereafter the police officers and officers from the State's Attorney's office went to the office of Ada Martin February 7, 1941, for the express purpose of placing her and Josephine Kuder and other persons under arrest, and that in making the arrest the records and envelopes identified in evidence were discovered and turned over to the office of the State's Attorney. No offer of justification was made with respect to the search of the premises at No. 127 North Dearborn street, or the residence of the plaintiff in error.

The documents seized in this manner, without warrants, contained the names of every witness used by the prosecution except two, who testified upon formal matters. The papers were in the form of a record and contained the name, address, marital status, telephone number, date of interview, date taken, by whom referred, age, state of employment, number of children, condition with respect to menstruation, fee paid, amount remaining due, and other items of expense concerning each witness. Every witness testifying for the prosecution was one whose name was found in such records, and upon the trial testified to substantially the same things discovered in said written records; and at the time they were interviewed by the State's Attorney, preliminary to the return of the indictment and the trial of the cause, most of the witnesses were interrogated concerning the truth of the matters appearing on the cards.

The plaintiffs in error contend it was improper for the court to permit such witnesses, discovered and brought to light by the illegal search of the divers premises of plaintiffs in error, to testify at all, but on the other hand the State's Attorney contends that even though the search and seizure be illegal, if information be received therefrom of the names of witnesses, and he examines these witnesses so discovered to learn what they know of the supposed crime, it would follow such testimony had been secured through means independent of the illegal search and seizure, and was therefore proper.

The trial court suppressed the written evidence obtained upon the search but held that the facts learned from the witnesses so discovered were proper to be received, upon the theory that talking with the witnesses made the discovery of what they would testify to independent of the illegal search and seizure.

The question involved is whether permitting the witnesses whose names and places of residence were discovered by the search of the premises of plaintiffs in error to testify violates section 6 of article II of the constitution of the State of Illinois, Smith-Hurd Stats., and the fourth amendment to the constitution of the United States. Section 6 of article II of the constitution of Illinois is as follows: ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue without probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’ The fourth amendment of the constitution of the United States is substantially in the same language, and the provisions of both State and federal constitutions have been construed to have the same effect.

There is no manner of question but what the several searches and seizures of papers obtained upon the premises of plaintiff in error, Martin, were illegal and without any pretense of compliance with the law. There is likewise no question that upon motion made in apt time such evidence, so illegally obtained, will be suppressed. People v. Castree, 311 Ill. 392, 143 N.E. 112, 32 A.L.R. 357. The Castree case was followed in People v. Prall, 314 Ill. 518, N.E. 610, where this court held that a person charged with crime was entitled to have certain goods, claimed to have been stolen, returned to him because the search warrant did not properly described the property to be seized or the place to be searched. In People v. Scaramuzzo, 352 Ill. 248, 185 N.E. 578, 580, a search of the premises of plaintiff in error was made without a warrant, and certain illegal property found, after which a search warrant was obtained and served upon the defendant. A motion was made to quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence received and discovered by the illegal search. The court, in holding the evidence should be suppressed and the warrant quashed, said: ‘Obtaining the search warrant gave the previous search and seizure of defendant's property no legality. Nothing remained to be done after the officers returned to defendant's shop with the search warrant except to change the location of the property from defendant's safe into the hands of the police officers. An unlawful search cannot be justified by what is found, and a search which is unlawful in the beginning is not made lawful by the discovery and seizure of contraband articles. In our opinion the search and seizure were unlawful and the constitutional rights of defendant were violated.’

In the Castree case it is also held that while ordinarily the admissibility of evidence is not affected by the source through which it comes, or the illegality of the means by which it is procured, yet in the case of evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure the same may not be used in the trial of the cause, if a motion is made in apt time to suppress the evidence and return it to the defendant. In that case substantially all of the authorities are reviewed or commented upon, and while conceding there are some jurisdictions in which a different rule prevails, the one above is definitely adopted by the court, and adhered to in subsequent cases where the same or similar questions were involved. The similarity of the provisions of the constitution of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • People v. Mills
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 8 Febrero 1957
    ......Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S.Ct. 266, 84 L.Ed. 307. All these methods are outlawed, and convictions obtained by means of them are invalidated, because they encourage the kind of society that is obnoxious to free men.' This language was quoted in People v. Martin, 45 Cal.2d 755, 760, 290 P.2d 855. .         The Silverthorne doctrine was recognized and applied in Badillo v. Superior Court, supra, 46 Cal.2d 269, 273, 294 P.2d 23, and People v. Dixon, 46 Cal.2d 456, 458, 296 P.2d 557, 559. In the latter case it was held that defendant's own testimony ......
  • United States v. Schipani
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 26 Julio 1968
    ......denied, 389 U.S. 1044, 88 S. Ct. 788, 19 L.Ed.2d 836 (1968) (citing New York standard of beyond a reasonable doubt in confession cases); People v. Johnson, 68 Cal.Rptr. 599, 609, 441 P.2d 111, 121 (May 28, 1968) (state must show beyond reasonable doubt that erroneous admission of prior ...See, e. g., People v. Martin, 382 Ill. 192, 46 N.E.2d 997 (1942). .         The result should not be different if the government learns through illegal means that a ......
  • Everhart v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 14 Abril 1975
    ...... 'trash bags were all piled in a heap.' Noticing that one of the bags was 'a light color bluish green plastic bag commonly used by medical people' the lieutenant opened it, inspected it and removed from it three separate boxes addressed to different physicians; one contained Dexamyl, another ... See People v. Martin, 382 Ill. 192, 46 N.E.2d 997 (1942); People v. Scaramuzzo, 352 Ill. 248, 185 N.E. 578 (1933); Simmons v. State, 277 P.2d 196 (Okl.Cr.1954). See also ......
  • Cooney v. Park County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 18 Abril 1990
    ......         All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness; for the advancement of these ends ...Martin, 382 Ill. 192, 46 N.E.2d 997, 1002 (1942): . It is our duty and the duty of all the officers of the state to enforce these constitutional rights ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 9-01, September 1985
    • Invalid date
    ...search); (5) Whether the search was made with the intent to find witnesses.-See Karathanos, 531 F.2d at 35; see also People v. Martin, 382 Ill. 192, 202-03, 46 N.E.2d 997, 1002 (1942) (testimony of witnesses suppressed when witness' names obtained from papers found during illegal search of ......
  • Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1988 Update
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 11-03, March 1988
    • Invalid date
    ...the search was made with the intent to find witnesses. See Karathanos, 531 F.2d at 35; see also People v. Martin, 382 111. 192, 202-03, 46 N.E.2d 997, 1002 (1942) (testimony of witnesses suppressed when witness' names obtained from papers found during illegal search of defendant's premises)......
  • Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1998 Update
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 22-01, September 1998
    • Invalid date
    ...found in apartment during illegal search); and (5) whether the search was made with the intent to find witnesses, see People v. Martin, 46 N.E.2d 997, 1002 (Ill. 1942) (testimony of witnesses suppressed when witness' names obtained from papers found during illegal search of defendant's prem......
  • Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2013 Update
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 36-04, June 2013
    • Invalid date
    ...of the witnesses. if the intent of an illegal search was to find witnesses, the evidence should be excluded. See People v. Martin, 382 Ill. 192, 201, 46 N.E.2d 997 (1942) (testimony of wit-nesses suppressed when witness's names were obtained from papers found during illegal search). See gen......

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