People v. Truelock
| Decision Date | 23 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 38577,38577 |
| Citation | 35 Ill.2d 189,220 N.E.2d 187 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Louis TRUELOCK, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Bernard B. Nathan, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
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 E. James Gildea, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for defendant in error.
Defendant, Louis Truelock, was found guilty of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug by a jury in the circuit court of Cook County and was sentenced to a term of eight to ten years in the penitentiary. On this writ of error he urges reversal of his conviction on the grounds (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain evidence obtained at the time of his arrest without a search or arrest warrant, and (2) that the trial court erred in giving a certain instruction to the jury.
On the evening of November 22, 1962, at about 10:30 P.M., Chicago police officer Arthur Tyrell met an informer named Jerry Burns, who informed the officer of the existence of narcotics in an apartment at 1039 North La Salle Street, in Chicago. The informer was then taken to a police station where he was questioned, searched and given some marked money. The informer and officer Tyrell then proceeded to the apartment building at 1039 North La Salle Street and entered the building. The informer knocked on a door of one of the apartments in the building and was admitted. A short time later he came out and told the officer, He then handed two tinfoil packages to officer Tyrell, stating that he had acquired them from 'Truelock' who was 'sitting at the kitchen table'.
The informer then knocked again at the apartment door, announced his name, and was again given permission to enter the apartment. The informer entered but was accompanied this time by police officers who, after stepping through the doorway, observed the defendant sitting at a kitchen table mixing a white powder. The defendant made several incriminating remarks admitting that he knew of the presence of heroin and marked money in the apartment. The defendant also told the police officer that he had narcotics in his watch pocket, and upon searching the defendant, the officers recovered a tinfoil package from defendant's watch pocket. The package contained heroin.
Defendant's initial contention is that his arrest without a warrant was unlawful and that the search incident thereto without a search warrant was therefore illegal and unconstitutional. It is well settled that a police officer may make an arrest without a warrant if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested is committing or has committed a criminal offense. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, chap. 38, par. 107--2; People v. Jones, 31 Ill.2d 42, 198 N.E.2d 821; People v. Hightower, 20 Ill.2d 361, 169 N.E.2d 787.) An informer's tip may provide such reasonable grounds for an arrest without a warrant if the officer has reasonable grounds for placing reliance on the tip. (People v. Durr, 28 Ill.2d 308, 192 N.E.2d 379; People v. Beattie, 31 Ill.2d 257, 201 N.E.2d 396; People v. Jones, 31 Ill.2d 240, 201 N.E.2d 402; People v. Fleming, 33 Ill.2d 431, 211 N.E.2d 677.) Evidence as to the previous reliability of the informer of course is significant in determining whether reliance on the tip was justified in a particular case. In the case before us, officer Tyrell testified that he had known the informer for about a year and a half and 'had used him before 4 or 5 times'. The officer further testified that he had found the informer's previous information to be reliable and 'excellent'. He also named a particular case in which a conviction had been obtained following an arrest based on the informer's tip. Officer Tyrell then set up a carefully controlled purchase at the address where the informer said narcotics were located, and prior to entering the defendant's apartment, officer Tyrell had every reason to believe that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Clark
...reward which he knew was not authorized by law." Therefore the error as to Curtis must be deemed harmless. See, People v. Truelock, 35 Ill.2d 189, 192, 220 N.E.2d 187 (1966); People v. Bussie, 41 Ill.2d 323, 328-29, 243 N.E.2d 196 Duty to Turn Over Fees to County Treasury We find no error h......
-
People v. Mazzone
...was no prior objection or assignment of error." (footnote omitted) 74 Ill.App.2d at 453, 454, 221 N.E.2d at 66. But cf. People v. Truelock, 35 Ill.2d 189, 220 N.E.2d 187; People v. Tannahill, 38 Ill.App.3d 767, 348 N.E.2d The State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty, and such bu......
-
People v. Dordies
... ... People v. Ward (1965), 32 Ill.2d 253, 256, 204 N.E.2d 741; accord, People v. Stewart (1970), 46 Ill.2d 125, 128, 262 N.E.2d 911; People v. Truelock (1966), 35 Ill.2d 189, 192, 220 N.E.2d 187 ... After the jury returned guilty verdicts on both the murder and the armed robbery charges, the jurors were polled individually. Although the entire jury affirmed their verdicts as to the armed robbery charge, one juror expressed doubt ... ...
-
State v. Barr
...State v. Harris, 159 Conn. 521, 271 A.2d 74 (possession); Medlin v. State, Fla.App., 265 So.2d 515 (unlawful delivery); People v. Truelock, 35 Ill.2d 189, 220 N.E.2d 187 (possession); State v. Reeves, Iowa, 209 N.W.2d 18 (possession); State v. Smith, Iowa, 219 N.W.2d 655 (possession); State......