People v. Roberta
| Decision Date | 07 April 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 21579.,21579. |
| Citation | 185 N.E. 253,352 Ill. 189 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. ROBERTA. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Third Branch Appellate Court, First District, on Writ of Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Harry M. Fisher, Judge.
Genero Roberta was found guilty of carrying a concealed weapon on or about his person, and to reverse a judgment of the Appellate Court, affirming the Criminal Court's judgment sentencing him to imprisonment, he brings error.
Affirmed.
DUNN and DE YOUNG, JJ., dissenting.
Michael Costabile, of Chicago Heights (Martin M. Ward, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., John A. Swanson, State's Atty., of Chicago, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and Grenville Beardsley, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Genero Roberta, was indicted in the criminal court of Cook county for carrying on or about his person a concealed weapon. A jury was waived, and Roberta and George Montascato, who was arrested at the same time and place and indicted for a like offense, were tried jointly. The court found both defendants guilty, ordered an investigation for probation made on behalf of Montascato, and judgment was entered against Roberta, sentencing him to imprisonment in the House of Correction for on year and to pay a fine of $300 and costs. This judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Court for the First District, and Roberta has prosecuted a writ of error to this court to reverse the judgment.
Before plaintiff in error's plea of not guilty was entered, he filed a motion to suppress the evidence and quash the indictment. That motion was supported by a written petition setting forth that the police officers had no warrant for the arrest of plaintiff in error; that he had committed no criminal offense in the presence of the officers; that the evidence obtained by such officers was secured in violation of his constitutional rights; that he was unlawfully searched; and that the revolver was unlawfully seized. The petition prayed that the court grant a hearing thereon before proceeding to trial. With the assent of counsel for plaintiff in error, the cause was tried before the court with the assurance from the court that, if any of the state's evidence was incompetent, it would be excluded. The only evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution was the testimony of two police officers and the introduction, after identification, of the two pistols taken from Roberta and Montascato. This proof was objected to by counsel for plaintiff in error, but the objections made were overruled by the court, and the motion to suppress the evidence was denied.
The state's evidence shows that four or more police officers of the city of Chicago who were assigned for duty to the state's attorney's office of Cook county entered the second floor of a two-story building in Chicago Heights about 10:30 o'clock on the night of September 30, 1930, and arrested two girls who the officers said admitted to them that they were living there and were practicing prostitution. The officers also arrested the man who was pointed out by the girls as the owner of and in charge of the hotel, and then inquired of the girls if any one else was connected with the place. The girls replied there were a couple of sluggers, who were their men, in the storeroom on the ground floor of the same building. The officers went downstairs to this room, which was fitted up as and supposed to be a gymnasium, but was apparently operated in connection with the house of ill fame. Upon entering the storeroom, the officers saw three men sitting at a table, and asked them to stand up. The men remained seated, and were told by the police, ‘We are police officers; stand up.’ The men did not stand up as requested, and officers Sherping and Levine seized them and then searched each of them. Pistols were found on plaintiff in error and Montascato, and they were taken into custody by the police. The officers then searched the entire building, examined the safe, and found men's wearing apparel in one of the upstairs bedrooms. The policemen had no warrant for the arrest of any person residing or being in the building, and had no search warrant authorizing the search of the building or any person in it. There is no evidence that there was any loud noise, disorder, breach of the peace, or unusual cause for the officers entering the building and making the arrests and search, though one of the officers testified that when they started out from Chicago he had information that the place was a house of prostitution and the other officer stated that they were out raiding the place. Officer Levine also stated that he was positive there was prostitution practiced there, and that the officers had reasonable ground to believe Roberta and Montascato, who the girls said were their men, had some connection with the conduct and operation of the place.
Plaintiff in error testified, in substance, that he lived alone and paid room rent for room No. 8 at the hotel, the same as he did on the night of September 30, 1930; that at that time he had suits, shirts, underwear, shoes, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lippert
...cause for arrest is a mixed question of law and fact. (People v. McGowan (1953), 415 Ill. 375, 380, 114 N.E.2d 407; People v. Roberta (1933), 352 Ill. 189, 193, 185 N.E. 253; 5 Am.Jur.2d Arrest § 49 (1962).) The facts and circumstances of the stop and detention of the defendant were fully d......
-
People v. One Pinball Mach.
...seizure is incidental thereto. People v. Davies, 354 Ill. 168, 188 N.E. 337;People v. Macklin, 353 Ill. 64, 186 N.E. 531;People v. Roberta, 352 Ill. 189, 185 N.E. 253. The machine being a gambling device under section 2, the right to arrest the possessor existed under section 1. We know of ......
-
People v. Kalpak
... ... Page 735 ... 754. Where the arrest is justified, the accompanying search without a search warrant is also justified, and evidence taken from the person as a result of that search is ordinarily admissible against him. People v. Clark, 9 Ill.2d 400, 137 N.E.2d 820; People v. Roberta, 352 Ill. 189, 185 N.E. 253. Conversely, if the arrest is unlawful, the property taken from the person as the result of a search incident thereto is not admissible in evidence, on motion to suppress it. People v. Galloway, 7 Ill.2d 527, 131 N.E.2d 474; People v. Ford, 356 Ill. 572, 191 N.E. 315 ... ...
-
People v. McGowan
...this provision of the code, we have held that the term 'criminal offense' includes misdemeanors as well as felonies. People v. Roberta, 352 Ill. 189, 185 N.E. 253; People v. Scalisi, 324 Ill. 131, 154 N.E. 715. We have likewise upheld the provision that where a criminal offense has been com......