People v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 19 January 1967
• Docket Number: No. 39392,39392
• Citation: People v. Thompson, 224 N.E.2d 264, 36 Ill.2d 478 (Ill. 1967)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Wilbur THOMPSON, Appellant.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 264

224 N.E.2d 264

36 Ill.2d 478

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Wilbur THOMPSON, Appellant.

No. 39392.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 19, 1967.

Rehearing Denied March 27, 1967.

R. Eugene Pincham, Charles B. Evins, and Sam Adam, Chicago, for appellant.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane, and Matthew J. Moran, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for appellee.

SOLFISBURG, Chief Justice.

The defendant, Wilbur Thompson, was indicted in Cook County for the crime of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug. He was found guilty in a bench trial and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of five to ten years. He appeals directly to this court alleging that his arrest was illegal and that the disparity between his sentenced to the penitentiary for a term who sold him the drugs was such as to violate his constitutional rights to due process and to equal protection under the laws.

The facts appearing from the record establish that Samuel Brewster, a vice officer of the Chicago Police Department, was on duty as a plain clothesman and while standing in front of a tavern saw the defendant engaged in conversation with a woman, later identified as Marcell Harris. He overheard the woman tell the defendant that she had no 'jive' on her but that he should follow her. The defendant and the woman started walking down the street with Brewster following some distance behind. Brewster apparently crossed the street to hide his presence, and thereafter observed the woman go into a gangway while the defendant remained on the sidewalk. About ten minutes later the woman returned to the sidewalk and both she and defendant started to walk across the street towards officer Brewster. As they drew near the curb the woman handed the defendant a package, Brewster then stepped out from behind a parked car and announced his office. At this point, according to the testimony of the officer, the defendant either threw or dropped the package he had received to the ground. Brewster picked it up and arrested the defendant. The package was later found to contain heroin.

As his first point defendant insists that the court went outside the record in finding that Brewster understood the word 'jive' to mean heroin. He argues that no evidence was elicited during the trial to show that Brewster knew what the word meant at the time he overheard the conversation and therefore the officer had no probable cause for which to make the arrest.

It is true that the trial court judge did not conduct an inquiry as to the extensiveness of officer Brewster's vocabulary, but the record does show, however, that the defendant himself testified that the word 'jive' has been used to mean, among other things, heroin. To argue that a vice officer of three years' experience could not know the meaning of a slang term for narcotics appears to be wishful thinking on the part of the defendant. The court's conclusion that Brewster understood the use of the word to mean heroin is by no means unreasonable nor does it indicate that the court considered evidence outside the record. The overheard conversation coupled with the subsequent transfer of the package was sufficient for the police officer to determine that probable cause for arrest existed.

In view of our finding that the police officer had sufficient facts upon which probable cause for arrest could be determined, there is no need to consider whether the abandonment-no-search approach discussed by the parties applies. That approach, as enunciated in People v. Roebuck, 25 Ill.2d 108, 183 N.E.2d 166, and People v. Catavdella, 31...