People v. Plante

• Decision Date: 26 January 2007
• Docket Number: No. 3-05-0075.,3-05-0075.
• Citation: 862 N.E.2d 1059,308 Ill.Dec. 856
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glen R. PLANTE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

862 N.E.2d 1059

308 Ill.Dec. 856

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glen R. PLANTE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 3-05-0075.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

January 26, 2007.

Robert Agostinelli, Deputy Defender (Court-appointed), Office of the State Appellate Defender, Ottawa, Kenneth Hogan (argued), Galesburg, for Glen R. Plante.

Lawrence M. Bauer, Deputy Director, Richard T. Leonard (argued), State's Attorney Appellate Prosecutor, Ottawa, Stewart Umholtz, State's Attorney, Pekin, for the People.

Justice McDADE delivered the opinion of the court:

A grand jury indicted defendant, Glen R. Plante, for unlawful manufacture of 900 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine, possession with the intent to deliver 900 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine, and possession of 900 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine. Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence seized from his home on May 6, 2002. The circuit court of Tazewell County denied defendant's motion. Following a jury trial, the court convicted defendant and sentenced him to concurrent 25-year terms of imprisonment for unlawful manufacture and possession with intent to deliver. Defendant appeals, arguing the court erred in denying his motion to quash and to suppress because a police officer entered his home, arrested him, and seized evidence without a warrant, without consent, and absent exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

Defendant's motion to quash his arrest and suppress evidence alleged that Deputy Sheriff Jeffrey Bass made a nonconsensual and warrantless entry into defendant's home whereupon Bass arrested defendant and seized a number of items. At a hearing on the motion, defendant testified that he was at his home on the day in question with Penny Wood, his girlfriend, and Robert Rusterholz, his friend, when defendant observed a police vehicle pull up to the home. Defendant approached the vehicle and asked Bass if there was a problem. Bass asked if defendant knew why he came to his home and defendant replied he thought Bass might be investigating a local ordinance violation related to the number of vehicles parked at defendant's home. Bass told defendant he would "check on it" and return.

Ten minutes later, Bass returned and defendant consented to Bass's entering his home. Defendant had a large number of electronic devices in his home in connection with an electronics repair business. Bass asked defendant if he possessed any stolen property and defendant replied he did not but that Bass was free to take any stolen property that might be present. Defendant allowed Bass to search for stolen property. Bass searched the home, including a room containing two toolboxes. During the search, defendant told Bass he thought Bass may be investigating a possible theft of telephone services. This was because the previous day, defendant repaired a temporary telephone line running between his home and an adjacent county building. Defendant showed Bass a work order concerning the telephone line.

Bass left and returned 10 minutes later accompanied by Detective Darrell Stoecker. The officers told defendant they were investigating a theft of toolboxes and wanted to check the serial numbers on the toolboxes in defendant's home. Defendant allowed the officers to enter and, after checking the serial numbers, the officers asked defendant what was upstairs. Defendant allowed the officers upstairs then returned to the first floor. The three men entered the kitchen, where Bass asked defendant the location of the basement. Defendant indicated the entrance to the basement and Bass entered. Bass returned three minutes later and both officers left.

Five to 10 minutes after Bass and Stoecker left, Wood and Rusterholz were leaving carrying laundry. Defendant stood in the doorway, holding the screen door open for Wood and Rusterholz, where they encountered Bass and Stoecker. Stoecker stopped Wood and Rusterholz and Bass grabbed the screen door. Bass stood in front of defendant with his arm extended. Bass told defendant he needed to speak to him inside the house. Defendant asked Bass if they could talk outside and Bass replied "No." Bass moved his hand as though to escort defendant inside the home. Defendant then entered the home and Bass followed. Bass told defendant they needed to speak in the basement and asked what was going on there and where the lab was. Bass then escorted defendant to the basement and placed him under arrest.

Bass also testified at the hearing on defendant's motion. Bass testified consistently with defendant's testimony, with the following additions: Bass went to defendant's home to investigate a possible theft of telephone services. The sheriff's office had also recently received a tip that persons were engaged in drug trafficking from defendant's residence. After leaving the first time, Bass spoke to Stoecker and they devised a plan to investigate the possible theft of telephone services in which Bass would return to the residence and Stoecker would call the county number at a designated time to see if the line rang in defendant's home. Bass returned to defendant's home and defendant invited him to enter. When Bass left the second time, he again spoke to Stoecker and told him about the toolboxes. Stoecker had been investigating a theft of similar toolboxes.

When Bass asked defendant about the basement, defendant told him the basement was flooded. Bass insisted on seeing the basement and discovered the basement was in fact flooded. There, he smelled ammonia. Defendant remained on the bottom of the stairs but Bass crossed some running boards to a corner of the basement. He observed what he considered to be a methamphetamine laboratory. When Bass and Stoecker left the residence, Bass took Stoecker to the rear of the home and told him what he observed. The officers contacted the State's Attorney's office for advice on how to proceed. An assistant State's Attorney told Bass that he should have arrested defendant while Bass was still inside and that Bass would have to gain defendant's permission to reenter the home.

Bass and Stoecker went to the door, where they encountered Wood and Rusterholz. Bass testified defendant was at the front door when he spoke to him. Bass further testified as to his encounter with defendant as follows:

"A. And I said, I want to talk to you about something. He said, `Can we do it out here?' I said, no, I am going to talk to you inside and talk about it. And so we walked into the dining room.

Q. When you say, we walked into the dining room, how did that happen?

A. He turned around [and] walked in the house. I followed him and he turned like you and I are, and stood face to face, and I said, Mr. Plante, what is going on[?]

* * *

Q. As of the time you entered the residence behind [defendant], he hadn't verbally said, come on in or okay or anything of that sort?

A. No, he walked towards the dining room and I followed him. I said, I would like to talk to you in the house. We went into the dining room.

Q. And as of that time you didn't have a search warrant yet?

* * *

A. I asked him, what has been going on here. And he acted like I asked him, what was going on in the basement. He denied doing anything. And I said, let's go take a look.

* * *

I said let's go down and take a look. I made sure that he went down in front of me because for officer's safety, I knew I was going to arrest him, so he walked in front of me.

* * *

Q. How did you make sure he went down in front of you?

A. I waited for him to walk towards me and I waited for him to initiate walking to the basement and he went down first and I followed him down and actually we walked, this time we both walked across the [running boards] back into the corner where the lab was at that one time, and he turned and looked at me.

* * *

A. I arrested him and I went back and took inventory, and it's on the evidence sheet, my original inventory.

* * *

Q. Okay. Let me ask you this, when you had arrested him and then went back to the basement did you confine your discoveries to that 4 foot area [(where he initially observed the alleged lab)] or did you make other discoveries as well?

A. I had noticed some of the items had been moved from the area over to the drain. He had moved some stuff over to the drain. He had appeared to dump stuff and there was stuff scattered out from the 4 foot area.

Q. So you would have seized those items?

A. Yes.

Q. And then after the search warrant was obtained?

A. Right. I seized the items that I saw. Sure."

The trial court denied defendant's motion and the matter proceeded to trial. Following trial, the jury found defendant guilty of all three counts in the indictment. Defendant filed a post-trial motion arguing the court erred in denying his motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. The court denied defendant's motion. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

We will reverse the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence only if it is manifestly erroneous. People v. Anthony, 198 Ill.2d 194, 201, 260 Ill.Dec. 632, 761 N.E.2d 1188, 1192 (2001). Defendant contends Bass made his third entry into the home without consent and absent any exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless entry. Bass then proceeded to arrest defendant and conduct a warrantless search of the premises. Therefore, defendant argues, police conducted an illegal search of his basement and any items seized are the fruits of the illegal arrest and search and must be suppressed.

The State responds the evidence was "overwhelming that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his home." In support of its position, the State initially relies upon facts related to Bass's first two entries into defendant's home. For example, the State notes that "the defendant took...