People v. Sprovieri
| Citation | 43 Ill.2d 223,252 N.E.2d 531 |
| Decision Date | 28 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41476,41476 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Mario T. SPROVIERI, Appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
Bellows, Bellows & Magidson, Chicago, for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Attorney, Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and James B. Haddad, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.
This is an appeal from the Appellate Court, First District, which reversed the trial court order granting defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence. Defendant's principal contention was that the evidence he sought to suppress was the product of an unlawful search and seizure.
The only evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion was the testimony of Officer William Lenz, one of the policemen present at defendant's private garage where the articles were discovered and seized. It was established that at about 3:20 P.M., on May 29, 1965, a man's body was found in the trunk of a car parked in the rear of premises on Grand Avenue in Chicago. At about 4:45 P.M., Sprovieri was present and had occasion to view the body. He stated that he did not know the victim but that the body looked like a cab driver he knew. At about 4:35 A.M., on May 30, the police learned that the victim was Leslie Vana. Further investigation by the police developed that Miss Judith Blaha had been living with Vana for about a year and a half; that for several years prior thereto she had a meretricious relationship with Sprovieri; that for a time Judith, Vana and Sprovieri lived in the same house; that she had left her apartment about 6:30 P.M. on May 29 accompanied by a man fitting Sprovieri's description; that when she left she was seen carrying a distinctive red suitcase; that she intended to leave town with Sprovieri; that she had a 1959 or 1960 white Thunderbird convertible automobile; and that Sprovieri had threatened bodily harm to both Vana and the girl and particularly threatened to 'break Vana's head' if he did not stop seeing her.
The police went to defendant's home about 1:00 P.M. May 30 for the purpose of effecting his arrest. A tenant in the building informed them that he had not seen Sprovieri that day. They then went to defendant's rear apartment and upon receiving no response, peered through the window. They saw a couch on which was a red suitcase and some 'part' of woman's apparel. The officers slipped the front door lock, entered the apartment and left after finding no one there. They then proceeded to Sprovieri's private garage at the rear of the premises, and finding the side door locked, looked through a hole in the door caused apparently by the removal of a cylinder lock. They were able to see a 1959 or 1960 white Thunderbird convertible automobile, a tank, a bicycle and approximately 12 feet of bicycle chain. They then went to the alley behind the garage and turning the handle of the overhead door, raised it and walked in. No one was in the garage but they saw and seized the items considered by them to be evidence of the crime and which the defendant subsequently sought to have suppressed. Sprovieri was later arrested.
The trial court found that the police had reasonable cause to believe that an offense had been committed and that defendant had committed it. However, the court held that because the search was not reasonably contemporaneous with a valid arrest, the evidence should be suppressed. The appellate court reversed on the basis of this court's decision in People v. Barbee, 35 Ill.2d 407, 220 N.E.2d 401. We granted leave to appeal.
In Barbee, the police, having probable cause to believe that Barbee had committed an offense, went to his home for the purpose of arresting him. They entered his home pursuant to an invalid search warrant and, as part of their search for him, entered an adjoining garage. Upon lifting some tarpaulins, they found a stolen car. Unknown to them at the time, Barbee was apprehended by other police officers in another part of the city. He was tried and convicted for the theft of the automobile.
Sustaining the seizure of the car and Barbee's conviction, this court removed from consideraton the invalid search warrant as a justification for the conduct of the police in entering Barbee's home and held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Abney
......Morales (1971), 48 Ill.2d 396, 271 N.E.2d 33 (police sighted stolen goods in a garage and obtained consent from the owner of the building before entering); People v. Johnson (1970), 45 Ill.2d 283, 259 N.E.2d 57 (defendant was seen in his home by the police before their entry); People v. Sprovieri (1969), 43 Ill.2d 223, 252 N.E.2d 531 (police learned before their entry of the defendant's intention to flee the city); People v. Barbee (1966), 35 Ill.2d 407, 220 N.E.2d 401 (police were in close pursuit of an armed suspect when entering)). Although this court in Johnson, Sprovieri and Barbee ......
-
People v. Sweeney
...... Under the law of Illinois it was lawful for the police officers to seize any articles which were in plain view and which, due to the surrounding circumstances, they reasonably believed constituted evidence of criminal activity. (People v. Sprovieri (1969), 43 Ill.2d 223, 252 N.E.2d 531; People v. McCracken (1964), 30 Ill.2d 425, 197 N.E.2d 35; People v. Caruso (1st Dist., 1971), 2 Ill.App.3d 80, 276 N.E.2d 112). The standard by which reasonableness is determined is 'whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of seizure or ......
-
People v. Lindsay, s. 77-586
...... People v. Chavis (1967), 79 Ill.App.2d 10, 223 N.E.2d 196. . Regarding the handguns, Officer Ferrentino had reasonable grounds for the arrest of Michael Baptist, and reasonably believed that he might be hiding in the storage closet near the rear door. People v. Sprovieri (1969), 43 Ill.2d 223, 252 N.E.2d 531, presents facts very similar to the present case. There the police had reasonable grounds to arrest the defendant for murder and believed he was in a garage. Upon opening the garage door, they did not find defendant but did find evidence of the crime. ......
-
Green v. State
...... See State v. Coma, 133 Idaho 29, 981 P.2d 754, 756 (1999); People v. LeBlanc, 60 Cal.App.4th 157, 70 Cal. Rptr.2d 195, 199 (1997); Archer v. Com., 26 Va.App. 1, 492 S.E.2d 826, 831 (1997). . ... See Magluta, 44 F.3d at 1538. Nor are police required to rely on statements that a suspect is not at home. See People v. Sprovieri, 95 Ill.App.2d 10, 238 N.E.2d 115, 118 (1968), aff'd, 43 Ill.2d 223, 252 N.E.2d 531 (1969); State v. Pontier, 95 Idaho 707, 518 P.2d 969, 976 ......