People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 26 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-67,81-67 |
| Citation | 431 N.E.2d 699,59 Ill.Dec. 198,103 Ill.App.3d 430 |
| Parties | , 59 Ill.Dec. 198 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard E. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Verlin R. F. Meinz, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Robert J. Agostinelli, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Ottawa, for defendant-appellant.
Bruce W. Black, State's Atty., Pekin, Gary F. Gnidovec, John X. Breslin, State's Attys. Appellate Service Commission, Ottawa, for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendant, Richard Smith, was charged by indictment with the unlawful possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) and with the unlawful possession of cannabis, violations of Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 561/2, pars. 1402(b) and 704(a), respectively. The defendant was convicted of these offenses upon a jury trial in the circuit court of Tazewell County. The trial court entered judgment only on the controlled substance charge.
The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence prior to trial. The motion challenged the search of defendant's car and the warrantless seizure and search of a wooden box in the car.
On June 4, 1980, a Tazewell County Deputy Sheriff stopped an El Camino truck being driven by defendant. He did so because he noticed the truck had an expired safety inspection sticker. After stopping the truck, the officer met the defendant between the two vehicles, took and examined defendant's license and then walked up to the front door of the truck. The officer noticed a beer bottle on the passenger side floor of the truck and a brown box underneath the steering wheel.
The deputy then went to the passenger side of the truck, opened the door and searched the truck's interior. He recovered the bottle, the box and a syringe which was lying near the box. The box appeared to be a "one hitter box" commonly used to carry cannabis. The deputy opened the box and discovered cannabis and a piece of plastic containing a white substance. The defendant was standing outside the truck on the passenger side when the deputy found and opened the box. The officer had no warrant to open the box and did not secure defendant's consent to open it. The defendant was then arrested for a variety of offenses including "no valid safety test", "unlawful opening of an alcoholic beverage" and possession of a controlled substance, cannabis, and a hypodermic syringe.
The court denied the defendant's motion to suppress finding that the deputy needed no warrant to search the wooden box after properly stopping the defendant's truck.
Upon trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance and of less than 2.5 grams of cannabis. On the State's motion, the court entered judgment only on the possession of a controlled substance charge. Defendant was sentenced to a term of three years in prison.
The issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during the warrantless search of a closed wooden box discovered in defendant's vehicle.
In Arkansas v. Sanders (1979), 442 U.S. 753, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235, the Supreme Court held that the warrantless search of an unlocked suitcase found in the trunk of a taxi was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court stated that the expectation of privacy associated with luggage, first set forth in United States v. Chadwick (1977), 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538, applies no less to luggage found in automobiles than to luggage found in other locations. The reasonableness of a search does not overcome the need for a judicial warrant. The Court concluded that a search of luggage without a warrant must be justified under some exception to the warrant requirement other than that applicable to automobiles.
In footnote 13 of Sanders, however, the Court indicated that not all containers found during the course of a search would deserve the full protection of the Fourth Amendment. 442 U.S. 753, 764, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 2593, 61 L.Ed.2d 235, 245.
In the most recently decided "closed container" case, Robbins v. California (1981), --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 2841, 69 L.Ed. 744, the Court held that a package...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jones
...at least 20 years, the Illinois law enforcement community has had experience with "one-hitter" boxes. In People v. Smith, 103 Ill.App.3d 430, 59 Ill.Dec. 198, 431 N.E.2d 699 (1982), rev'd, 95 Ill.2d 412, 69 Ill.Dec. 374, 447 N.E.2d 809 (1983), a police officer, during a routine traffic stop......
-
People v. Smith
...that the deputy sheriff's warrantless search of the closed box violated the fourth amendment's warrant requirement. (103 Ill.App.3d 430, 59 Ill.Dec. 198, 431 N.E.2d 699.) We granted the State's petition for leave to To dispose of this appeal we need only review the facts relating to the sto......
-
U.S. v. Gust, 04-30208.
...court found that the case "could equally be suspected of carrying a violin or something like that"); People v. Smith, 103 Ill.App.3d 430, 59 Ill.Dec. 198, 431 N.E.2d 699, 701 (1982), rev'd on other grounds, 95 Ill.2d 412, 69 Ill.Dec. 374, 447 N.E.2d 809 (1983) (declining to apply footnote 1......
-
State v. Miles
...to infer that the envelope contained a key). On these facts, the container announced its contents. But see People v. Smith, 103 Ill.App.3d 430, 59 Ill.Dec. 198, 431 N.E.2d 699 (1982) (in case factually similar to case at bar, court held officer could not search without a warrant because box......