People v. Parks
| Decision Date | 01 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 41319,41319 |
| Citation | 269 N.E.2d 484,48 Ill.2d 232 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. James Stephen PARKS, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
James M. Sammons, Chicago, for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and William V. Hopf, State's Atty., Wheaton (James B. Zagel, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the People.
In a bench trial in the circuit court of DuPage County, defendant James Stephen Parks was found guilty of the crime of obtaining dangerous drugs by fraud and sentenced to the State Farm at Vandalia for a term of one year. He raises several constitutional questions on this direct appeal from that judgment.
Bernard Lisitza is a pharmacist and owner of a prescription pharmacy in Itasca. About 8:30 P.M. on September 15, 1967, while he was waiting on a customer, Lisitza's wife accepted a telephone call. She told him it was a doctor who wanted to give him a prescription and he told her to have the caller wait. After a few minutes Lisitza went to the telephone, apologized for the delay, and contrary to his normal experience after keeping a doctor waiting, found the caller pleasant and patient. The caller identified himself as a doctor at a downtown Chicago address and told Lisitza to give Nancy Peterson, whose address is 310 North Willow, 'Desbutal, 15 milligrams, No. 30.' Lisitza's suspicion about the prescription was based on the caller's politeness after being detained and on the fact that 'a doctor all the way in Chicago was prescribing a diet pill to be taken tomorrow morning when he could easily have gotten her the prescription before.'
Lisitza said he had received this type of call for this medication before and that when he asked many questions, no one came to get the prescription. On this occasion he did not ask for any more information than the caller's address. After concluding the telephone conversation, he tried to call Nancy Peterson to verify the transaction, but found the Petersons had an unlisted telephone number. He then checked his customer list and did not find a Nancy Peterson.
He realized that his employee, John Benneboses, lived across the street from the address given for Nancy Peterson and asked him if he knew her. Benneboese said he baby-sits for Mrs. Peterson and there is no Nancy Peterson. At this point, Lisitza called the police and talked with the chief. He told him that he was suspicious of a prescription that had been given to him, related the various factors on which he based his suspicion and asked that the police be on alert in case someone came for the prescription.
In a few minutes defendant arrived and asked for the Nancy Peterson prescription, and Lisitza said, 'Well, Mr. Peterson it will be ready in just one minute.' He then went to Benneboese and asked if he recognized defendant. Benneboese said 'no' and Lisitza delayed defendant by writing a receipt while Benneboese called the police. He talked with the chief, told him who he was and said that a person had come for the prescription Lisitza had called about earlier. The chief said he was sending some officers.
Officers McCann and Grant arrived at the pharmacy jsut as defendant was about to leave. They approached Lisitza and said 'Whether is this fellow?' He pointed to defendant who was just walking out the door. The police officers stopped him outside the front door. Officer Militell arrived at this time in response to a call on his police-car radio. He asked defendant if he had made a purchase at the drugstore and for whom. Defendant said he had made a purchase for his aunt, Nancy Peterson, who lived at 310 North Willow. Militell then asked his mane and defendant said James Parks.
Officer Militell noticed defendant had an envelope in his hand. It was multicolored and had on it the mane of the pharmacy, the name of Nancy Peterson, the address 310 Willow and the amount of the purchase. The officer looked in the envelope, saw a vial of pills, and went into the pharmacy to confirm that defendant was the person who made the purchase. Defendant was then taken to the police station in a squad car. At the police station and after he was given the Miranda warnings, he made an incriminating statement which was introduced at his trial.
It is first argued that defendant was denied equal protection of the laws because he was tried and convicted under section 45.1 of the Uniform Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, ch. 111 1/2, par. 445.1) rather than section 45 of that Act. (Ch. 111 1/2, par. 445.) (This act was repealed effective January 1, 1968, Laws of 1967, pp. 959, 984.) Section 45 prohibited the forging or altering of a prescription for a dangerous drug and provided a penalty of a $100-to-s500 fine for the first offense. Section 451.1 prohibited the procurement of a dangerous drug by various fraudulent methods including 'the use of a false name or the giving of a false address' and provided a penalty for the first offense of a $100-to-$1,000 fine, imprisonment other than in the penitentiary for not more than 1 year, or both. Defendant asserts that section 45 covers the conduct with which he was charged and carries a maximum penalty of a $500 fine and that he was denied equal protection of the law by the application of section 45.1 which prohibited the same conduct but permitted the imposition of the 1-year sentence he received.
We note initially, without setting out the two sections in full, that they cover different types of conduct, although under some circumstances there might be some overlap. Assuming, Arguendo, that defendant's conduct may have been prohibited by section 45, his conduct was specifically prohibited under 45.1 and the proof required for each offense was different. The Supreme Court has stated: 'Where Congress by more than one statute proscribes a private course of conduct, the Government may choose to invoke either applicable law: 'At least where different proof is required for each offense, a single act or transaction may violate more than one criminal statute. " (Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U.S. 273, 294, 73 S.Ct. 1152, 1163, 97 L.Ed. 1607, 1619.) Our holding is to the same effect. (People v. Crane, 356 Ill. 276, 281, 190 N.E. 355.) Defendant's trial and conviction under section 45.1 did not deny him equal protection of the law.
Defendant next argues that the police obtained the pills as a result of an illegal search and seizure. This argument is based on his assertion that officer Militell did not have reasonable grounds upon which to make an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gonzalez
...Miranda warnings are not required prior to general on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding that scene. People v. Parks, 48 Ill.2d 232, 237, 269 N.E.2d 484 (1971); People v. Laspisa, 243 Ill.App.3d 777, 783, 184 Ill.Dec. 118, 612 N.E.2d 994 We believe that facts in this case would "......
-
People v. Creach
...unit involved, rather than solely upon the information possessed by the officers who actually make the arrest. (People v. Parks (1971), 48 Ill.2d 232, 269 N.E.2d 484, Cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1020, 92 S.Ct. 692, 30 L.Ed.2d 669; People v. Beard (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 725, 342 N.E.2d 343; United......
-
People v. Cart
...The court in Miranda did not intend to impose restrictions on general on-the-scene investigative questioning. (See People v. Parks (1971), 48 Ill.2d 232, 269 N.E.2d 484, cert. denied (1972), 404 U.S. 1020, 92 S.Ct. 692, 30 L.Ed.2d 669; People v. Clark (1977), 55 Ill.App.3d 496, 55 Ill.Dec. ......
-
People v. Bowen
...general questioning. People v. Hannah, 2013 IL App (1st) 111660, ¶ 42, 372 Ill.Dec. 105, 991 N.E.2d 412 (citing People v. Parks, 48 Ill.2d 232, 237, 269 N.E.2d 484 (1971), People v. Peterson, 372 Ill.App.3d 1010, 1018, 311 Ill.Dec. 329, 868 N.E.2d 329 (2007), People v. Kilfoy, 122 Ill.App.3......