People v. Moore

• Decision Date: 07 May 1970
• Docket Number: 54135,Gen. Nos. 54134
• Citation: 260 N.E.2d 255,124 Ill.App.2d 204
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carrie MOORE (Impleaded) and Clara Thomas (Impleaded), Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 255

260 N.E.2d 255

124 Ill.App.2d 204

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carrie MOORE (Impleaded) and Clara Thomas (Impleaded),

Defendants-Appellees.

Gen. Nos. 54134, 54135.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

May 7, 1970.

Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Cook County, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant; Elmer C. Kissane, Mathew J. Moran, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel.

Allan A. Ackerman, Chicago, for defendants-appellees.

SCHWARTZ, Justice.

On October 3, 1968, the defendants Carrie Moore and Clara Thomas were jointly indicted for gambling in violation of the statute (Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 38, § 28--1(a)(8) (1967)). On their motions the trial court quashed a search warrant and suppressed the evidence thereby seized. This is an appeal by the State pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1), Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, c. 110A, § 604(a) (1) and the only question presented is whether or not the warrant described the place to be searched with sufficient particularity.

Chicago police officers assigned to the Gambling Unit obtained a search warrant on October 3, 1968 which described the premises to be searched as the '2nd floor apartment at 30 East 69th Street, Chicago, Illinois.' Defendant Clara Thomas, who was arrested by the police officers executing the search warrant, testified that the search was conducted in a first floor rather than a second floor apartment. She stated that at the entrance to the building there is a door which opens to approximately eight stairs. At the top of the stairs is a landing and two first floor apartments. She was arrested in the apartment situated to the west of the stairs.

Detective William Mitchell testified that he executed the search warrant in a second floor apartment bearing the address stated in the warrant, 30 East 69th Street. He stated that at ground level there is a step, a doorway and two bells. Behind the door there is a staircase of fifteen to eighteen stairs leading to two apartments, designated by him as second floor apartments. He further testified that the apartment located to the west of the stairway had the number 30 on its door, signifying its address, whereas the apartment to the east of the stairs was numbered 32. On October 2, 1968 he observed a police informer climb the stairs and disappear from sight as he turned to the west, that is to say, toward the apartment numbered 30. Mitchell testified that he could only have disappeared into the apartment located on that side of the building.

Both our Federal and State Constitutions require that a search warrant particularly describe the place to be searched. A description in a warrant is regarded as legally sufficient if the police officers executing the warrant can, with a reasonable effort, identify the place intended. Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 45 S.Ct. 414, 69 L.Ed. 757 (1925); People v. Watson, 26 Ill.2d 203, 186 N.E.2d 326; People v. Mayfield, 69 Ill.App.2d 388, 217 N.E.2d 100.

In the Watson case our own Supreme Court held that a description is adequate if the place to be searched is sufficiently recognizable from the description in the warrant to enable the officer to locate the premises with definiteness and certainty. The warrant in that case authorized the search of apartment number 604 of the building located at 2300 South State Street, Chicago. There was no such address and the police officers executed the warrant by searching apartment 604 in the building at 2310 South State Street. In upholding the warrant the court relied on what it termed 'other identifying factors which removed any doubt or ambiguity from...