People v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 30 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1564,77-1564 |
| Citation | 388 N.E.2d 941,26 Ill.Dec. 940,70 Ill.App.3d 459 |
| Parties | , 26 Ill.Dec. 940 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pepe THOMAS, Elizabeth Williams, Marion Daniels, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Bernard Carey, State's Atty., of Cook County, Chicago (Lee T. Hettinger, Kenneth T. McCurry and Suzanne Philbrick, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Michael Jay Green, Chicago (Daniel F. Murray, Chicago, of counsel), for Pepe Thomas, appellee.
Following a search by police of an apartment at 5846 South King Drive in Chicago, defendants Pepe Thomas, Elizabeth Williams and Marion Daniels were arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance. The apartment was leased to Thomas who was charged also with possession of marijuana, unlawful possession of firearms and failure to produce a firearms registration. At a hearing held April 26, 1977, defendants moved to quash the search warrant which had authorized the search of Thomas' apartment. The court granted defendants' motion, finding that the warrant did not sufficiently describe the place to be searched because three bedrooms in the apartment were leased by Thomas to other persons. The State appeals.
The sole issue for review is whether the court erred in sustaining defendants' motion to quash the search warrant.
We reverse.
On January 31, 1977, Chicago police officer William Schwartz obtained a search warrant for a man named Pepe and a third floor apartment located at 5846 South King Drive in Chicago. The complaint for the warrant alleged the following: An unnamed reliable informant told officer Schwartz that at 1:00 a. m. on January 31 1977, the informant had purchased a $50 bag of cocaine from a man named Pepe in a third floor apartment at 5846 South King Drive. Officer Schwartz had known the informant for one year, and in the two months previous the informant had provided information to Schwartz which resulted in arrests and the recovery of narcotics on three separate occasions. The complaint also alleged that utility company records established that the utilities for the apartment were registered to Pepe Thomas.
After serving the warrant on February 1, 1977, Chicago police officers searched the third floor apartment and arrested defendants for possession of a controlled substance. Thomas was charged also with possession of marijuana, unlawful possession of a firearm and failure to produce firearms registration. 1
At a hearing held April 26, 1977, defendants moved to quash the warrant, alleging that the warrant was insufficient because it did not describe with sufficient particularity the premises to be searched. In support of the motion Daniel Myers testified that on February 1, 1977, he was renting a room in Thomas' third floor apartment, which apartment consisted of seven rooms including four bedrooms and two bathrooms. He paid Thomas $22 a week for a private bedroom and the common use of the kitchen and a bathroom.
Pepe Thomas testified that on February 1, 1977, he was living in a third floor apartment at 5846 South King Drive. He leased the entire four bedroom apartment but "rented out" three of the bedrooms to other occupants at $22 a week. Thomas stated that the landlord had knowledge that "I would have people living in with me." Thomas testified that he was present when police officers searched the apartment on February 1, 1977.
Officer Schwartz testified that after he had entered the third floor apartment he was advised by defendants that three bedrooms had been sublet to other persons by Thomas. Officer Schwartz searched the entire apartment, including all four bedrooms.
The court sustained defendants' motion to quash the search warrant, finding that it "should have been specified in the affidavit, probable cause for each apartment."
The State contends that the court erred in sustaining defendants' motion to quash the search warrant. The State argues that the warrant was sufficient to describe with particularity the premises to be searched. The warrant authorized the search of a male negro known as Pepe and the third floor apartment in the building at 5846 South King Drive. The warrant noted that according to utility company records Thomas was the registered lessee of the apartment.
A search warrant is sufficiently descriptive if it enables a police officer executing the warrant to identify with reasonable effort the place intended to be searched. It is not necessary that the description in the warrant be technically correct; rather the warrant must identify the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others. People v. Edwards (1st Dist. 1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 807, 808, 342 N.E.2d 800.
In People v. Szymanski (1st Dist. 1974), 22 Ill.App.3d 720, 318 N.E.2d 80 (abstract), police officers executed a search warrant for a one story house with a basement. After completing a search of the first floor, the officers searched the basement which was found to be rented and occupied by another family. The court found the warrant sufficiently described the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
84 Hawai'i 462, State v. Anderson
...State v. Weaver, 442 So.2d 380 (Fla.Ct.App.1983); State v. Capps, 256 Ga. 14, 342 S.E.2d 676 (1986); People v. Thomas, 70 Ill.App.3d 459, 26 Ill.Dec. 940, 388 N.E.2d 941 (1979); Watts v. State, 434 N.E.2d 891 (Ind.Ct.App.1982); Delly v. State, 30 Md.App. 391, 352 A.2d 331 (1976), cert. deni......
-
People v. Mabry
... ... We have noted that errors or omissions in addresses are not per se fatal to the validity of a search warrant. People v. Bauer, 102 Ill.App.3d 31, 34, 57 Ill.Dec. 670, 429 N.E.2d 568 (1981). A warrant must simply identify the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others. People v. Thomas, 70 Ill.App.3d 459, 461, 26 Ill.Dec. 940, 388 N.E.2d 941 (1979). At the very least, it must enable the police, with reasonable effort, to identify the place intended. People v. Powless, 199 Ill.App.3d 952, 955, 146 Ill.Dec. 4, 557 N.E.2d 946 (1990). With these rules as guidance, we turn to the ... ...
-
Bing v. State
... ... Weaver, 442 So.2d 380 (Fla.App.2d Dist.1983); State v. Coatney, 44 Or.App. 13, 604 P.2d 1269 (1980); People v. Thomas, 70 Ill.App.3d 459, 26 Ill.Dec. 940, 388 N.E.2d 941 (1979). "[W]here a significant portion of the premises is used in common and other ... ...
-
People v. Gordon, 83-3017
...the lower level of defendant's apartment, to abandon the search and obtain an additional warrant. (See People v. Thomas (1979), 70 Ill.App.3d 459, 462, 26 Ill.Dec. 940, 388 N.E.2d 941.) We conclude that the trial court did not err in failing to suppress the Defendant next contends that he w......