People v. Smith

• Citation: 428 N.E.2d 641,101 Ill.App.3d 772
• Decision Date: 06 November 1981
• Docket Number: No. 16804,16804
• Parties: , 57 Ill.Dec. 91 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David L. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 641

428 N.E.2d 641

101 Ill.App.3d 772, 57 Ill.Dec. 91

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David L. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16804.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District

Nov. 6, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1981.

Daniel D. Yuhas, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Jeffrey D. Foust, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Springfield, for defendant-appellant.

Hugh Finson, State's Atty., Diane Roe, Asst. State's Atty., Monticello, for plaintiff-appellee.

MILLS, Justice:

Anonymous telephone "tip."

Police respond and arrest.

Motion to suppress both arrest and evidence.

Motion denied.

We affirm.

FACTS

On December 28, 1979, Bradley Chitwood (an employee of the city of Monticello) reported to the Monticello City Police that during the previous night someone had forced open an overhead door of a building at the Monticello City Landfill and had stolen an electric air compressor belonging to the city.

Four days later, at approximately 10:06 p.m. on January 1, 1980, the Piatt County Sheriff's Department received a telephone tip from an anonymous male caller that "the subjects who stole the air compressor from the city storage shed at the dump were at Security Storage at this time with the compressor."

Officers of the Piatt County Sheriff's Department and of the Monticello City Police proceeded to Security Storage, a private enterprise engaged in the business of leasing space to individuals for the storage of personal property and located east of the city of Monticello. Upon their arrival, the officers observed the defendant and two other persons standing near the defendant's car. The car was backed up to the open door of a storage bay leased to one of the persons with the defendant. The trunk of the car was open. One of the officers, Deputy Wisher, identified himself and stated that he was looking for the air compressor that had been stolen from the city landfill. The defendant and his companions then moved in front of the open garage doors, blocking Wisher's view of the interior, and stated that the officers could not enter without a search warrant. Deputy Wisher stepped around the three and shined his flashlight through the open door. In the garage he observed a green air compressor matching the general description of the one stolen.

The officers seized the compressor, placed it in the trunk of a squad car, and transported it to the Piatt County Jail. It was later identified as the one stolen.

The defendant and his companions were required to follow the officers to the Piatt County Jail. At the jail, Deputy Wisher informed the three that they were at least going to be charged with being in possession of stolen property. Their Miranda rights were then read with Officer Ewers as a witness. Upon questioning, Smith first denied having stolen the compressor, claiming he had found it in a ditch near the landfill. He later confessed that he alone had burglarized the storage shed and that he had stolen the air compressor. The defendant absolved his companions of any knowledge of, or complicity in, his crime. Smith was then incarcerated in the Piatt County Jail pending the setting of bail. His companions were released without being charged.

On January 2, 1980, a two-count information was filed in the Piatt County Circuit Court charging Smith with burglary and with theft (under $150). The same day, Smith was arraigned on these charges, a public defender was appointed, and Smith was released on a $2,000 recognizance bond.

Following a preliminary hearing, the defendant pleaded not guilty and was bound over for jury trial. He subsequently filed a motion to suppress on the ground that his arrest was illegal and the fruits of his illegal arrest were inadmissible into evidence. The motion was denied. A motion to reconsider the motion to suppress was allowed and, after briefing and argument, the trial judge again denied the motion to suppress, stating his reasons in an able eight-page memorandum order.

The defendant then waived his right to jury trial. At the bench trial--where all facts were stipulated--defendant renewed his motion to suppress. It was again denied. The defendant then was found guilty of burglary and theft (under $150). He was sentenced to one year probation with a condition of probation that he make restitution as determined by the court. The defendant now appeals his conviction.

OPINION

In denying the defendant's motion to suppress, the trial judge held that "the totality of the circumstances at the time of the arrest were of such a nature that it would lead a reasonable and prudent man to believe that at the time of the arrest the persons [at Security Storage] were committing, or had committed a crime thereby giving the police probable cause to arrest pursuant to section 107-2(c) of the Criminal Code." The trial court's holding was premised upon a finding that the two-pronged test for probable cause set out by the Supreme Court in Aguilar v. Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, and Spinelli v. United States (1969), 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637, had been satisfied.

It is a truism that a trial court's determination of probable cause should not be disturbed on review unless it is manifestly erroneous. (People v. Conner (1979), 78 Ill.2d 525, 36 Ill.Dec. 682, 401 N.E.2d 513; People v. Clay (1973), 55 Ill.2d 501, 304 N.E.2d 280.) The trial judge's decision to deny the motion to suppress was not manifestly erroneous.

The major precedents in this area--Aguilar and Spinelli--involve the standard under which a magistrate may issue a warrant, not the standard under which a police officer's determination of probable cause is tested. However, the Supreme Court in Whiteley v. Warden (1971), 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306, held that the test established in Aguilar-Spinelli was applicable to both arrest and search warrants. Whiteley further held that the standard was no less for reviewing a police officer's assessment of probable cause as a prelude to warrantless arrest.

Under Aguilar-Spinelli, probable cause cannot be founded upon a hearsay tip unless there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the informant's source of knowledge is reliable and that the informant is himself telling the truth. The two parts of this test have been labeled the "basis of knowledge prong" and the "veracity prong." The basis of knowledge prong may be satisfied if a tip includes such minute detail as to indicate that the information was gained in a reliable way. Veracity may be established either by a showing of past performance or that the information in the tip is independently corroborated.

The trial judge believed that the tip in the instant case was sufficiently detailed to establish the reliability of the informant's basis of knowledge and that it was sufficiently corroborated to demonstrate his veracity. The tip here certainly is more detailed than the one found inadequate in Spinelli, where the only details supplied were two phone numbers. The informant here knew what had been stolen, where it had been stolen, where the stolen item was located, and where the thieves were. On the other hand, the tip here is not nearly so detailed as the one in Draper v. United States (1959), 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (describing what the defendant looked like, what he would be wearing, where he would be, when he would be there, and how he would act), cited by Spinelli as a case involving a tip which was a "suitable benchmark" for the kind of detail required before it may be inferred that the information in a tip was acquired in a reliable way. 393 U.S. 410, 416-417, 89 S.Ct. 584, 589, 21 L.Ed.2d 637, 644.

Nor can the tip here be said to contain any more detail than the one in People v. Gates (1981), 85 Ill.2d 376, 379, 53 Ill.Dec. 218, 221, 423 N.E.2d 887, 888, wherein a search warrant was issued, based on the following anonymous letter:

"This letter is to inform you that you have a couple in your town who strictly make their living on selling drugs. They are Sue and Lance Gates, they live on Greenway, off Bloomingdale Rd. in the condominiums. Most of their buys are done in Florida. Sue his wife drives their car to Florida where she leaves it to be loaded up with drugs, then Lance flys [sic] down and drives it back. Sue flys [sic] back after she drops the car off in Florida. May 3 she is driving down there again and Lance will be flying down in a few days to drive it back. At the time Lance drives the car back he has the trunk loaded with over $100,000.00 in drugs. Presently they have over $100,000.00 worth of drugs in their basement.

They brag about the fact they never have to work, and make their entire living on pushers.

I guarantee [sic] if you watch them carefully you will make a big catch. They are friends with some big drug dealers, who visit their house often.

Lance & Sue Gates

Greenway

in Condominiums."

The supreme court found this not to be of "sufficient detail to lead a magistrate to conclude that the tip was the product of firsthand knowledge or personal observation" (85 Ill.2d 376, 389, 53 Ill.Dec. 218, 231, 423 N.E.2d 887, 893), and affirmed the trial court's order quashing the search warrant and suppressing evidence obtained thereby.

While the trial judge's reasoning may have been erroneous in this case, it is the result below, not the reasoning, which will be considered by this court. (People v. York (1963), 29 Ill.2d 68, 193 N.E.2d 773 (reversing the trial court's quashing of a search warrant and suppression of evidence).) Because we find that the tip in this case, plus the corroboration of the information contained therein, is sufficient to satisfy both prongs of Aguilar-Spinelli, the result below was correct and we will not disturb it.

Specifically left open by Gates was "the question of whether partial corroboration, combined with an informant's tip may cure a deficiency in either prong of the...