People v. Squair

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: McNAMARA
• Citation: People v. Squair, 273 N.E.2d 522, 133 Ill.App.2d 507 (Ill. App. 1971)
• Decision Date: 01 July 1971
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 54526
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard SQUAIR, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 522

273 N.E.2d 522

133 Ill.App.2d 507

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard SQUAIR, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 54526.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

July 1, 1971.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, Chicago, for defendant-appellant; Joseph Wolf, Senior Law Student, Shelvin Singer, and James J. Doherty, Asst. Public Defenders, Chicago, of counsel.

Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee; Robert A. Novelle, Zenon Forowycz, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel.

McNAMARA, Presiding Justice.

Defendant, Howard Squair, along with two co-defendants was charged with the crime of burglary. All three men were tried by the court without a jury. At the close of all the evidence, the State moved to nolle prosequi the charges against the two co-defendants. The motion was granted, and the two were dismissed. Defendant was then found guilty and sentenced to a term of two years to two years and one day. On appeal defendant contends that there was no probable cause for his arrest, and also that he did not receive a fair and impartial trial.

Officer Iver N. Johnson of the Chicago Police Department and his partner received a call that an A.D.T. alarm was sounding, and proceeded to the alley at the rear of 4707 South State Street in Chicago. As Johnson drove the squad car through the alley, he observed on man run from the rear of 4707 State Street. When the squad car arrived at the address, the officer observed defendant come from the rear of the building and approach the alley. He was carrying a case of wine. When the officer told defendant to halt, defendant placed the wine on top of a garbage can.

Mrs. Juanita Lewis testified that she owned a tavern at 4707 State Street. She had stored 25 cases of wine in a shed behind the tavern. When she closed the tavern at 2:30 on the morning in question, she set the silent burglar alarm. At 3:30 a.m. she received a call from the private alarm company reporting that the alarm had been activated. When she arrived at the tavern she discovered that all the wine had been taken. She identified the wine later at the police station.

Mr. Willie Williams testified for the State that on the morning in question he was working as a gas station attendant a few doors from the tavern. He saw the three defendants pushing a cart down State Street away from the tavern; he also saw them bring something from the back of the tavern and place it in the cart. Williams called the police, and after they arrived, walked to the rear of the tavern. Defendant Squair told Williams that he would 'get him.' Williams also testified that later on the same day the two co-defendants stood across the street from the gas station looking at him.

Defendant first argues that the police officer did not have probable cause to arrest him. The statute, Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 38 § 107--2, provides in part:

A peace officer may arrest a person when:

(c) He has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is committing or has committed an offense.

The test of probable cause is whether a reasonable and prudent man in possession of the knowledge which has come to the arresting officer would reasonably believe that the person to be arrested is guilty of the crime. People v. Bambulas, 42 Ill.2d 419, 247 N.E.2d 873 (1969). The factual basis for the arresting officer's belief need not be as persuasive as that necessary for the conviction of defendant for a crime. People v. Peak, 29 Ill.2d 343, 194 N.E.2d 322 (1963). And in order to determine the factual basis, the courts must look to the totality of facts and circumstances. People v. Hanna, 42 Ill.2d 323, 247 N.E.2d 610 (1969).

In support of his argument that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest him, defendant contends that the officer testified merely that an A.D.T. alarm had been set off, and that he had no idea as to where the alarm was sounded. This contention is not supported by an examination of the record. The officer testified that, while in their squad car, his partner and he received a radio call concerning an A.D.T. alarm, and that they drove to the vicinity of 47th and State, and then directly to the rear of 4707 State. After observing one man run from the building and across the alley, the arresting officer saw defendant leaving the rear of the premises with a case of wine in his hands. Under these facts and circumstances, the information possessed by the arresting officers was sufficient to form the factual basis necessary to support a reasonable belief that a crime was being committed. We find that the arrest was proper.

Defendant's second argument that he did not receive a fair and impartial trial is based upon certain comments made by the trial judge. At the close of all the evidence, counsel who represented all three defendants commenced his closing argument. The prosecutor interrupted to say that the State wished to nolle prosse the charges pending against defendant Squair's two co-defendants. The trial judge allowed the motion. As the two men started to leave the courtroom, the judge called them...