People v. Tisler

• Decision Date: 27 April 1983
• Docket Number: No. 82-660,82-660
• Parties: , 70 Ill.Dec. 116 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory J. TISLER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 994

448 N.E.2d 994

114 Ill.App.3d 214, 70 Ill.Dec. 116

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory J. TISLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 82-660.

Appellate Court of Illinois Third District.

April 27, 1983.

Rehearing Denied May 25, 1983.

Sue Augustus, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Robert J. Agostinelli, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Ottawa, for defendant-appellant.

Vicki R. Wright, John X. Breslin, State's Attys. Appellate Service Com'n, Gary L. Peterlin, State's Atty., Ottawa, for plaintiff-appellee.

SCOTT, Justice:

The defendant, Gregory J. Tisler, appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance, less than 30 grams of LSD, following a trial without a jury in the Circuit Court of LaSalle County.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to quash his arrest and suppress the evidence obtained as a result of his apprehension.

The facts indicate that on January 9, 1982, Officer James Hollenbeck of the Marseilles Police Department received a telephone call from a known informant. The informant told Hollenbeck that at 3:40 p.m. (approximately one hour from the time of the call) a green 2-door Chevy Camaro with license plates bearing JAT would cross the River Bridge enroute from Streator to Marseilles. The informant stated that the automobile would be driven by the defendant with Jerry Cox accompanying him as a passenger in the vehicle. The informant stated the Camaro would proceed across the River Bridge to the Number Nine Game Room. The informant revealed that the defendant intended to deliver several "hits" of LSD, which had been purchased in Streator, to the Number Nine Game Room. The informant related that the LSD would be contained in small and easily disposable packages on the defendant's person. The informant said that the defendant should not be apprehended until after he had parked the car and left the vehicle.

Hollenbeck knew the Number Nine Game Room to be a local "hangout" frequented by teenagers to play pool, video games and pinball machines. Marseilles is a small community and Hollenbeck knew many of the residents and their vehicles by sight, including the defendant and Cox and the green Camaro.

After the informant's telephone call, Hollenbeck tried to procure a search warrant but was unsuccessful due to the fact that it was a weekend and apparently neither a judge nor the state's attorney could be located. Hollenbeck decided to proceed without a warrant due to the fact that the informant had given reliable information to him on previous occasions.

Officers Hollenbeck and Stevenson drove to a location near the River Bridge in Marseilles and at approximately 3:45 p.m. observed the defendant and Cox and an unidentified male in the back seat approaching Marseilles in the green Camaro. The defendant drove directly to the game room and parked the vehicle in the street.

When the officers approached the defendant after he got out of his car they observed the end of a plastic bag protruding from the defendant's left hand. When questioned about the bag and its contents, the defendant replied that he had "nothing" and put his hand behind his back. Hollenbeck grabbed the defendant's hand and opened it and found a small plastic bag containing several pills. The defendant was arrested and a subsequent test of the pills indicated the presence of LSD.

The defendant's father later spoke to Officer Hollenbeck at the police station and was told that his son had been arrested for possession of illegal drugs on a tip from "an anonymous caller."

On appeal, the defendant contends the circuit court erred in denying his motion to quash his arrest and suppress the evidence seized because the informant's tip did not reveal the informant's "basis of knowledge" as required by the first prong of the test announced in Aguilar v. Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723...